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
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
Fundamentall Points but that Particular Churches ād Persons may But in your doctrine there cā be no such distinction The vniversall Church with you is infallible because if she erre Fundamentally she ceases to be a Church as also Particular Churches if they erre Fundamentally cease to be Churches and the same I say of particular Persons and so particular Churches and Persons shall be no less infallible than the vniversall Church which is contrary to the doctrine of other Protestants and to your owne words also Pag 106. N. 140. We yield vnto you that there shall be a Church which never erreth in some Points because as we conceaue God hath promised so much Now you will not say that God hath promised so much to particular Churches and Persons and therfor you must put a difference between the vniversall and particular Churches which difference cannot stand with this your speculation that the Church is only in fallible in some points because if she erre in them she ceases to be a Church which exoticall kind of infallibility agrees to all particular Churches and persons 87. Hence it is that Protestants ground the Perpetuily of the vniverfall Church not vpon a probable belief or hope that it shall be so or vpon Her actuall not erring Fundamentally as you do but vpon some antecedent Principle namely the Promises of our Saviour Christ and Assistance of the Holy Ghost Dr. Potter in particular whom you vndertooke to defend speakes very clearly to this purpose Pag 105. in these words The whole Militant Church that is all the members of it cannot possibly erre either in the whole Faith or any necessary Article of it For such an errour must needs disvnite all the Members from Christ the Head and so dissolue the Body and leaue Him no Church which is impossible Mark that he sayth not as you doe The Church cannot erre in any necessary Article because therby she should cease to be a Church but contrarily seing it is impossible that she can cease to be a Church and leaue Christ no Church she cannot possibly erre in the whole Faith or any necessary Article of it With what modesty or conscience do you alledg here Dr. Potter as if he did not disagree from you The contrary wherof will appeare more by his words Pag 153.154.155 The Church saith he Vniversall is ever in such manner assisted by the good spirit that it never totally failes or falls of from Christ For it is so firmely founded on the Rocke Matth 16.18 that is on Christ the only Fundation Cor 3.11 that the gates of Hell whether by temptation or persecution shall not prevaile against it And that you may see how far he was from dreaming of your Chimericall infallibility he cites Bellarmine de Eccles Lib 3. Cap 13. saying That the Church cannot erre is proved out of Scripture Matth 16. vpon this rocke I will build my Church and then goes on in these words The whole Church cannot so erre as to be destroyed For then our Lords promise here Matth 16.18 of Her stable edification should be of no value Obserue this And what he hath afterward in these words The Church vniversall hath not the like assurance from Christ that she shall not erre in vnnecessary additions as she hath for her not erring in taking away from the Faith what is Fundamentall and necessary It is comfort enough for the Church that the Lord in mercy will secure her from all capitall dangers and conserue her on earth against all enemyes But she may not hope to triumph over all sinne and error That the Church be never robbed of any truth necessary to the being of the Church the promises of Christ assure vs. Behold First The Church may erre in not Fundamentall but cannot erre in Fundamentall Ponts wheras you say she may erre in both 2. That the reason why she canot erre in Fundamentall Points is because she is firmely founded on the rocke and if she did faile our Lords promise of her stableedification should be of no value And therfore the Lord will even secure her from all capitall dangers and of this the promises of Christ assure vs. And this as I sayd is the common doctrine of Protestants Wherby it appeares that the Church is not sayd to be infallible in Fundamentall Points because she should perish by every such Error but contrarily because she is assisted by the Holy Ghost never to erre in such Points she shall never be destroyed in direct opposition to you who say that she may erre and by erring be destroyed What a kind of Syllogisme must be framed out of this your Doctrine in this manner The Church is infallible or cannot erre in Fundamentall Points because if she did so erre she should cease to be a Church But she may cease to be a Church Therfore she is infallible and cannot erre in Fundamentalls You should in ferr the direct contrary Therfore she may erre and is not infallible I beseech you of what value should our Saviours promises be according to your doctrine That the Church should not erre at least in Fundamentall Poynts of Faith No. You say she can erre in such Points In what then Only in this admirable worke that if she did erre she should be sure to pay for it by perishing For say you To say the Church while it is the Church may erre in Fundamentalls implyes contradiction and is all one as to say the Church while it is the Church may not be the Church This then is the effect of Gods Promises that that shall be which implyes contradiction to be otherwise that is Gods Power and Promise shall only effect that two contradictions be not true as that if some Living sensible creature be a beast he shall not be a man Is not this to be sacrilegiously impious against God and his holy Promises and Providence Is the Church so built vpon a Rocke assisted by the Holy Ghost that the gates of Hell shall not prevaile against Her only to this effect that if she erre she shall perish that is the Gates of Hell shall in the most prevalent way that can be imagined prevaile against her What foolish impietyes are these Let vs therfore inferr out of these Premises That there must be alwayes a true visible Church knowen and discernable from all false ones and therfore of one denomination That even according to Protestants this true Church must be infallible in all Fundamentall Points That if she be infallible in Fundamentall Points we must belieue Her to be infallible in all even according to your owne grant as I haue shewed out of your owne words And so finally we must conclude that there must be alwayes a visible Church of one denomination and infallible in all Points of Faith as well Fundamentall as not Fundamentall 88. And by what hath bene sayd I confute and retort your saying Pag 150. N. 39. A man that were destitute of all meanes of communicating his thoughts to
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.
7. that the Points which we belieue should not be so evidently certaine as to necessitate our vnderstanding to an Assent that so there might be some Obedience in Faith which can hardly haue place where there is no possibility of disobedience as there is not when the vnderstanding does all and the will nothing Now the Religion of protestants though it be much more credible than yours yet is not pretended to haue the absolute evidence of sense or demonstration Behold a confessed difference between one who knowes a way by evidence of sense and an other who believes a way or Rule only by Faith The former needs no command of the will nor any guide but the latter needs a guide and you confess he needs the command of the will which were not needfull if the way which is Holy Scripture were so plaine as you pretend and if the vnderstanding must depend on the will for believing Points which seeme evident in Scripture that there might be some place for obedience how shall the weakness and mutability of the will it self be established except by some other infallible Living Authority And therfore your Argument proves nothing because it proves too much that as one who knowes and sees his way neeeds no helpe of his will or of Guide or any other particular assistance so for attaining the true meaning of Scripture we need no interpreter no diligence even such as Protestants prescribe as skill in languages conferring of places c though 2 Pet 1.21 it be saied Not by mans will was prophecie brought at any time But the holy men of God spake inspired with the Holy Ghost Which sequeles being very false you must acknowledg a great disparity between the evident knowing of a way and vnderstanding Scripture To which purpose I may well alledg your owne words Pag 137. N. 19. If we consider the strang power that education and prejudices instilled by it haue over even excellent vnderstandings we may well imagine that many Truths which in themselves are revealed plainly enough are yet to such or such a man prepossest with contrary opinions not revealed plainly I pray you tell vs what education or prejudices could hinder a man from finding that way which he is supposed perfectly to know and which it is not in his power to misse by ignorance though as I fayd he may voluntary goe out of it You must therfore acknowledg that your similitude or parity is nothing but a disparate and disparity 94. Fiftly Let a man be never so perfect in the knowledg of his way he shall never come to his journeyes end if he want strength to walke that way Now Faith being the gift of God and requiring the assistance of Grace exceeds the strength of humane wit or will and this Grace being not given but by the Ministery of the Church as I haue declared and as we haue heard Calvin saying God inspires Faith but by the instrument of the Gospell as Paul teacheth that Faith comes by hearing It followes that none can in the ordinary course receiue strength to vnderstand and know the way which you say is Scripture without the Ministery of the Church or a Living Guide and so it appeares many wayes that your Argument or similitude proves nothing against vs but very much against yourself 95. Tenthly and lastly I proue the vniversall infallibility of the Church by answering an Argument or removing an impediment which Potter objects as if some Catholique Doctours held not the Church to be vniversally infallible This the Doctour Pag 149. pretends to proue out of Dr. Stapleton in particular as if he did deny the Church to be infallible in Poynts not Fundamentall to which purpose he cites him Princip Doctrinal Lib 8. Contr 4. Cap 15. But this is clearly confuted by Charity Maintayned Part 2. Chap 5. Pag 127.128.129.130 shewing that Dr. Stapleton doth not oppose Poynts Fundamentall to other revealed Truths or Points of Faith not Fundamentall as if the infallibility of the Church did extend itself only to Fundamentall Articles but he distinguishes between Points revealed and belonging to Faith and Points not revealed nor belonging to Faith but to Philosophy or curious disputes either not called in Question amongst Catholikes as if they were matters belonging to Religion or if they chance to be such yet are not defined by the Church For if once they be controverted and the Church giue her sentence he expressly teaches in the same place that the infallibility of the Church hath place in those Points which are called in Question or are publikely practised by the Church As also Rel Cont 1. Q. 3. Art 6. He expressly saith that certaine Doctrines are either primary Principles of Faith or els though not primary yet defined by the Church and so as if they were primary Others are Conclusions deduced from those Principles but yet not desined Of the first kind are the Articles of Faith and whatsoever is defined in Councels against Heretiques c Of the second are questions which either belong to the hidden workes of God or to certaine most obscure places of Scripture which are beside the Faith and of which we may be ignorant without losse of Faith yet they may be modestly and fruitfully disputed of And afterward he teaches that whatsoever the Church doth vniversally hold either in doctrnie or manners belongs to the foundation of Faith And proves it out of S. Austine Serm 14. de verb Domini Ep 28.89.96 who calls the custome of the Church Ecclesiae morem fundatissimum Fidem fundatissimam consuetudinem Ecclesiae fundatissimam Authoritatem stabilissimam fundatissimae Ecclesiae The most grounded practise of the Church and most grounded Faith the most grounded custome of the Church the most firme Authority of the most grounded Church Could any thing be more cleere to shew that according to Dr. Stapleton the infallibility of the Church reacheth further then to those Points which you call Fundamentall and that it belongs to the very foundation of Faith that we belieue whatsoever the Church holds And that it is not lawfull for any to dispute against such determinations of the Church Which doth overthrow your distinction of Poynts Fundmentall and not Fundamentall though you alledg the Authority of S. Thomas 2.2 Q. 2. Art 5. and Stapleton in favour therof For S. Thomas in the very place you cited after he had sayd that there are some objects of Faith which we are bound explicitely to belieue addeth that we are bound to belieue all other Poynts when they are sufficiently propounded to vs as belonging to Faith Thus far Charity Maintaynâ—d Wherby it is manifest that according to Stapleton the Church cannot erre in defining any point to be revealed which is not so or that it is not revealed if indeed it be so and consequently that she is vniversally infallible in all points belonging to Faith whether they be of them selves Fundamentall or not Fundamentall I say of themselves for in sensu
composito as I may say That is vpon supposition that once they be desined he expressly declares as we haue seene that that belongs to the Fundation of Faith whatsoever the Church vniversally holds either in Doctrine or worship When therfore he sayth Princip Doctrin Controv 4. Lib 8. Chap 15. for God as also nature as he is not wanting in things necessary so is he not lavish in superflnityes He speakes not of points of Faith not Fundamentall which being once defined he professes to belong to the Fundation of Faith but in the next precedent words he expressly declares that when he saith the Church is not infallible he vnderstands only that infallibility was not granted to her Propter aut invtiles curiositates explendas aut subtilitates non necessarias investigandas Either for satisfying idle curiosityes or finding out vnnecessary subtiltyes and proves it because God and nature as they are not wanting in things necessary so are they not lavish in superfluityes And therfore Potter did wrong the learned Stapleton alledging those his words as if he had ever dreamed that the Church is not vniversally infallible in all Points of Faith whether the matters of themselves be great or small 96. And you also wrong Charity Maintayned in saying Pag 144. N. 32. That he wrongs Dr. Potter when Part 1. Pag 91. he writes thus Dr. Potter Sect 5. Pag 150. speakes very dangerously toward this purpose of limiting the infallibility of the Apostles and Scripture to necessary Points only as he restraines the Promises made by Christ to his Church where he endeavoureth to proue that the infallibility of the Church is limited to Points Fundamentall because as nature so God is neither defectiue in necessaryes nor lavish in superfluityes Which Reason doth likewise proue that the infallibility of Scripture and of the Apostles must be restrained to points necessary to salvation that so God be not accused as defective in necessaryes or lavish in superfluityes In which words you say Charity Maintayned wrongs Dr. Potter Because it is not he but Dr. Stapleton in him that speakes the words Charity Maintayned cavills at Answer If Charity Maintayned had absolutely assirmed those to be the very words of Dr. Potter the Doctour might blame himself only who having first cited the immediatly precedent words of Dr. Stapleton in a different or cursiue letter declaring that they were Dr. Stapletons and not his owne the words immediatly following for as nature so God is neither defectiue c. he sets downe in the ordinary letter of his Booke both in his first and second Edition 2. Seing Potter accepts and approves those words he must be answerable for all consequences that are truly deduced from them as if they were his owne 3. The truth is Dr. Stapleton brings those words for a purpose not only different but contrary to that for which Dr. Potter alledges them and therfore not Stapleton but Potter must be lyable to all bad consequences which follow out of them For Potter would proue out of them that infallibility was given to the Church not for all but only for Fundamentall points of Faith which we haue seene to be directly contrary to the Doctrine of Stapleton who out of the sayd words proves only that infallibility was not granted for deciding idle curiosityes or vnprofitable subtiltyes And therfor 4. seing the life and essence of words is their signification this being wholy different in those words as they are spoken by Stapleton and vnderstood misapplyed and misalledged by Potter Charity Maintayned did not wrong him but he did wrong Dr. Stapleton in applying the sound and as I may say carcasse of his words against the true meaning and life of them intended and fully declared by Stapleton as you also do wrong Stapleton in approving Potters allegation of those words and Charity Maintayned as if he had wronged Potter Who can deny this to be a good consequence God is neither defectiue in necessaryes nor lavish in superfluityes Therfor he hath not induced the Church with infallibility for deciding of vnprofitable questions which is Stapletons Argument As contrarily this other is of no force God is not lavish in superfluityes Therfore he hath not conferred infallibility vpon his Church for any other Points of Faith and revealed Truths except such as are of themselves necessary to salvation as if all points which are not Fundamentall were curious or vnprofitable matters Which Potter doth inferr directly against the consequence which Stapleton drawes from those very same words affirming that every thing defined by the Church belongs to the Foundation of Faith Besides since Potter alledgeth those words to proue that the promises of our Saviour made to his Church must be restrained to Points Fundamentall least he might seeme lavish in superfluityes Charity Maintayned had reason to inferr that for the same Reason of not being lavish in superfluityes the Doctour might limite the infallibility of the Apostles to necessary and Fundamentall Points Neither is it sufficient for you to say Pag 143. N. 30. that we read in Scripture All Scripture is divinely inspired and therfore All Scripture whether it deliver Fundamentall or not Fundamentall Points is true For Charity Maintayned in this very place and about this very Text of Scripture which you cite out of him and endeavour to answer by way of prevention had confuted this your instance in these words If it be vrged That All Scripture is divinely inspired that it is the word of God c Dr. Potter hath affoarded you a ready answer to say That Scripture is inspired c Only in those parts or parcells wherin it delivereth Fundamentall points Thus Charity Maintayned But you thought safest to dissemble these words And I pray if those vnlimited words concerning the Church that the gates of hell shall not privaile against her Matth 16.18 and that the holy Ghost shall lead her into all truth c which texts are alledged by Potter must be limited to Fundamentall points why may not those other words all scripture is divinely inspired signify only that all scripture is inspired for what belongs to points fundamentall or necessary to salvation as Cha Ma doth vrge in the same place 97. Now then vpon the whole matter it is manifest that the learned Dr. Stapleton teaches neither more nor lesse concerning the Infallibility of the Church than all other Catholikes doe For besides that which we haue sayd already Relect Controv 4. Quest 2. He expressly declares That she is infallible in the Conclusion or Doctrine and definition though it be not necessary that she be Infallible in the Arguments or proofes or manner of teaching Est saith he in ipsa Doctrina infalliblis etsi in forma ratione docendi non ita and therfore he puts no difference between the certainty of her Definitions though the Reasons or proofes which she vse chance to haue of themselves more or less certainty whether they be taken from Scripture or Tradition or otherwise
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
do not exclude salvation 37. Thirdly Protestants teach that the Church may erre in Points not Fundamentall and yet remaine a Church but cannot erre in Fundamentalls without destruction of herselfe Now if sinfull errours in Points not Fundamentall be damnable Fundamentall and destructiue of salvation they also destroy the essence of the Church and therfore Protestants must either say that the Church cannot erre in any Point though not Fundamentall as she cannot erre in Fundamentalls or else must affirme that sinfull errours not Fundamentall are not damnable or Fundamentall or destructiue of salvation according to their grounds 38. Fourthly Protestants are wont to say and by this seeke to excuse their Schisme that they left not the Church of Rome but her corruptions and that they departed no farther from her than she departed from herselfe But if every errour against a Divine Truth sufficiently proposed be destructiue of the substance of Faith and hope of salvation the Roman Church which you suppose to be guilty of such errours hath ceased to be a Church and is no corrupted Church but no Church at all nor doth exist with corruptions but by such corruptions hath ceased to exist and so you departed not only from her corruptions but from herselfe or rather she ceasing to haue any being your not communicating with her was totall and not only in part or in her corruptions and if you departed from her as farr as she departed from herselfe seing she departed totally from herselfe you also must be sayd to haue departed totally from her which yet you deny and therfore must affirme that sinfull errours not Fundamentall destroy not the Church nor exclude hope of salvation If therfore Protestants will not destroy their owne assertions v.g. That they left not the Church but her corruptions that they departed no farther from her than she departed from herselfe that they left not the Church but her externall Communion that Protestants agree in substance of Faith because they agree in Fundamentall Points that their Church is the same with the Roman that the Church may erre in Points not Fundamentall but not in Fundamentalls if I say Protestants will overthrow these and other like assertions they must grant that sinfull errours in Points not Fundamentall destroy not the substance of Faith nor exclude salvation and consequently that they left the Church for Points not necessary ād so are guilty of Schisme which you grant to happen of when the cause of separation is not necessary as we haue seene out your owne words Pag 272. N. 53. 39. But yet let vs see whether Protestants do not confesse that sinfull errours not fundamentall are compatible with salvation as we haue proved it to follow out of their deeds and principles You say Pag 307. N. 106. That it is lawfull to separate from any Churches communion for errours not appertaining to the substance of Faith is not vniversally true but with this exception vnless that Church require the beliefe and profession of them And Pag 281. N. 67. We say not that the communion of any Church is to be forsaken for errours vnfundamentall vnless it exact withall either a dissimulatiom of them being noxious or a profession of them against the dictate of conscience if they be meere errours And N. 68. Neither for sin nor errours ought a Church to be forsaken if she does not impose and enjoyne them Therfore say I we must immedintly inferr that errours not Fundamentall do not destroy Faith Church salvation For if they did ipso facto the Church which holds them should cease to be a Churche and so she must necessarily leaue all Churches ād all Churches must leaue her shee loosing her owne being as a dead man leaves all and is left by all And here let me put you in mynd that while Pag 307. N. 106. aboue cited you seeme to disclose some great secret or subtilty in saying that it is not lawfull to separate from any Churches communion for errours not appertaining to the substance of Faith is not vniversally true but with this exception vnless that Church requires the beliefe and profession of them you do but contradict yourselfe For if the Church erre in the substance of Faith or but does not impose the belief of them why are you in your grounds more obliged to forsake her than a Church that erres in not Fundamentalls and does not impose the belief of them Especially if we call to mynd your doctrine that one may erre sinfully against some Article of Faith and yet retaine true belief in order to other Points in which why may you not communicate with such a Church Also Pag 209. N. 38. you say You must giue me leaue to esteeme it a high degree of presumption to enioyne men to beleeue that there are or can be any other Fundamentall Articles of the Gospell of Christ than what himselfe commanded his Apostles to teach all men or any damnable Heresyes but such as are plainly repugnant to these prime Verityes Therfore we must inferr that seing errours in Points not Fundamentall are not repugnant to those prime verityes they cannot in your way be esteemed damnable Heresyes and if not damnable Heresyes they cannot be damnable at all since we suppose their malice to consist only in opposition to Divine Revelation which is a damnable sin of Heresy Potter Pag. 39. saith Among wise men each discord in Religion dissolves not the vnity of Faith And P. 40. Vnity in these matters Secondary Points of Religion is very contingent and variable in the Church now greater now lesser never absolute in all particles of truth From whence we must inferr that errours not Fundamentall exclude not salvation nor can yield sufficient cause to forsake a Church or els that men must still be forsaking all Churches because there is never absolute vnity in all particles of truth Whitaker also Controver 2. Quest 5. Cap. 18. saith If an Heretike must be excluded from salvation that is because he overthroweth some foundation For vnlesse he shake or overthrow some foundation he may be saved According to which Doctrine the greatest part of Scripture may be denyed But for my purpose it is sufficient to observe that so learned a Protestant teaches that errours in Points not Fundamentall exclude not from salvation Morton in his imposture Cap 15. saith Neither do Protestants yeild more safty to any of the Members of the Church of Rome in such a case then they doe to whatsoever Heretiks whose beliefe doth not vndermine the fundamentall Doctrine of Faith Therfore he grants some safety even to Heretiks if they oppose not Fundamentall Articles and yet they must be supposed to be in sinfull errour against some revealed truth otherwise they could not be Heretiks Dr. Lawd Pag 355. teaches That to erre in things not absolutly necessary to salvation is no breach vpon the one saving Faith which is necessary And Pag 360. in things not necessary though they be Divine Truths also men
may differ and yet preserue the one necessary Faith And Pag 299. he saith I do indeed for my part acknowledge a possibility of salvation in the Roman Church but so as that which I grāt to Romanists is not as they are Romanists but as they are Christians that is as they belieue the Creed and hold the foundation Christ himselfe not as they associate themselves wittingly and knowingly to the grosse superstitions of the Roman Church Behold a cleare confession that the pretended errours of the Roman Church do not exclude salvation and yet they are supposed to be against some revealed Truths Therfore errours in Points not Fundamentall are not repugnant to salvation 40. But what conclusion can we deduce from these Premises that errours in Points not necessary or Fundamentall are not damnable but that one may be saved in them Dr. Lawd hath done it for vs Pag 133. in these words The whole Church cannot vniversally erre in absoute Fundamentall Doctrines and therfore there can be no just cause to make a Schisme from the whole Church And Pag 196. he teaches that by the manifest places in Scripture there may be setled Vnity and Certainty of Beliefe in Necessaryes to Salvation and in Non necessarijs in and about things not necessary there ought not to be a Contention to a Separation And Pag 129. That the whole Church cannot vniversally erre in the Doctrine of Faith is most true so you will but vnderstand it s not erring in Absolute Fundamentall Doctrines And therfore t is true also that there can be no just Cause to make a Schisme from the whole Church Certainly Luther did not follow this advise who began and maintayned a Contention to Separation from the whole World from which Dr. Lawd expressly saith there can be no just Cause to make a Schisme But this is not all For Pag 226. he sayth Suppose a Generall Councell actually Erring in some Point of Divine truth I hope it will not follow that this Errour must be so gross as that forthwith it must needs be knowne to private men And doubtless till they know it Obedience must be yielded Nay when they know it if the Errour be not manifestly against Fundamentall Verity in which case a Generall Councell cannot easily erre I would haue all wise men consider whether externall Obedience be not even then to be yeelded For if Controversyes arise in the Church some end they must haue or theyil teare all in sunder And I am sure no wisdom can think that fit Why then say a Generall Councell Erre and a Erring Decree be ipso jure by the very Law itself invalid I would haue it wisely considered againe whether it be not fit to allow a Generall Councell that Honour and Priviledge which all other Great Courts haue Namely that there be a Declaration of the invalidity of its Decrees as well as of the Lawes of other Courts before priuate men take Liberty to refuse Obedience For till such a Declaration if the Councell stand not in force A. C. Sets vp private Spirits to controll Generall Councells which is the thing he so much cryes out against in the Protestants Therfore it may seeme very fit and necessary for the Peace of Christendome that a Generall Councell thus erring should stand in force till Evidence of Scripture or a Demonstration make the Errour to appeare as that another Councell of equall Authority reverse it For as for Morall Certainty that 's not strong enough in Points of Faith How many Points do these words containe in favour of Catholikes against Protestants 41. 1. That knowne Errours in Points not Fundamentall are not only to be tolerated but that Obedience is to be yeelded to the Church or Councell even concerning such Points and Errours How then can Luther be excused from Schisme who was so farr from yielding Obedience to the Church that he opposed himselfe to and made a publike Separation from all Churches And how can Protestants be now excused from Schisme who follow his example defend his doctrine and persist in the Separation and breach which he made 42. Secondly That to profess externally errours in Points not Fundamentall excludes not salvation For to do any thing repugnant to salvation I am sure no wisdom can thinke fit to vse his owne Words And then it cannot be necessary to forsake the Church for avoyding the profession of Errours not Fundamentall and yet this is the reason for which Protestants pretend to be excused from Schisme 43. Thirdly He doth not only affirme but endeavours to proue that externall Obedience must be yielded to the Decrees of Councells because if Controversyes arise in the Church some end they must haue or theyil teare all in sunder Which he sayth no wisdom can thinke fit Which proues very well that some Living Judge of Controversyes is necessary and is directly opposite to Chillingworth who affirmes that there is no necessity of such a Judg because it is not necessary that all Controversyes be ended But then 44. Fourthly It followeth evidently in true Divinity that if such a Judge be necessary He must be infallible in all things belonging to Faith and Religion For seing to dissemble in matters of Faith or profess one thing and belieue the contrary is a grievous sin and a most pernicious ly no man can yield externall Obedience against the judgment and dictamen of his Conscience and yet it being also true that we are obliged to obey the Decrees of Generall Councells we must of necessity affirme that they are infallible and cannot Decree any Errour in Faith Otherwise I must either disobey or speake against my Conscience in matters of Faith which is intrinsecè malum and can never be excused from a damnable sin To these straights Protestants are brought by denying the infallibility of Gods Church May Councells be disobeyed Then there will be no meanes to end Controversyes and theyil teare all in sunder Must they be obeyed Then in case they decree an Errour against Faith as they may doe if they be fallible men must proceed against their Conscience What then remaynes but to belieue that they are infallible and so we securely may and necessarily must obey their Decrees because I am sure that they haue both infallibility not to erre and Authority to command Thus our beliefe and proceeding is cleare smooth and most consequent wheras our Adversaryes denying the said infallibility are forced to great impietyes against God and manifest contradictions with themselves Besides seing he confesses that Morall Certainty is not strong enough in Points of Faith the Judge of Controversyes in such Points must be absolutely infallible otherwise we cannot receiue from him Certaintyes strong enough for Points of Faith And if Controversyes must be ended by Generall Councells as he affirmes their Decrees must be of more than Morall Certainty 45. Fiftly Wheras he sayes that Obedience is not to be yielded if the Errour be manifestly against Fundamentall Verity he ought to consider
whole company hath for essentiall Notes the true preaching of Gods Word and due administration of Sacraments This instance convinces ad hominem and vpon supposition that you will make good your owne inference which indeed is in it selfe of no force in regard that to sin or erre is not assentiall to every part of the Church as preaching of the word is essentiall to every particular and consequently to the whole Church and therfore God may giue his assistance to keepe men from sin and errour as he shall be pleased and having promised that the gates of Hell shall not prevaile against the whole Church and not having made any such generall promise to private persons which neither are nor do represent the whole Church you cannot inferr that the whole Church or a Generall Councell may fall into Errour because every particular private person taken apart may be deceived Your parity also between sin and errour is vnworthy of a Divine Faith externally professed or the exteriour profession of Faith is necessary to constitute one a member of the Church but justifying grace or sanctity or Charity is not Yourselfe grant that Errour in Fundamentall Points destroyes a Church and that every particular person ceases to be a member of the Church by every such errour I hope you will not say the same of every or any grievous sin You grant Pag 274. N. 57. that corruptions in manners yield no just cause to forsake a Church and yet you excuse your leaving the Communion of our Church vpon pretence of corruptions in Her doctrine even in Points not Fundamentall of themselves It appeares then that errours in Faith though not Fundamentall preponderate any or all most grievous corruptions in manners in order to the maintayning or breaking the Communion of the Church Do you not expressly say Pag 255. N. 6. Many members of the Visible Church haue no Charity Which could not happen if Charity were as necessary as Faith to constitute one a member of the Church This is also the Doctrine of other Protestants Field Of the Church Lib 2. Cap 2. saith Entire profession of those supernaturall verityes which God hath revealed in Christ is essentiall to the Church Fulke Joan 14. Not 5. The true Church of Christ can never fall into Heresy It is an impudent slander to say we say so Whitaker Contron 2. Quest 5. Cap 17. The Church cannot hold any hereticall doctrine and yet be a Church mark heere also that the and a are applied to the same Church Dr. Lawd Sect 10. Pag 36. Whatsoever is Fundamentall to Faith is Fundamentall to the Church which is one by vnity of Faith It is then apparent that there is great difference between Faith and charity for as much as concernes the constituting one a member of the Church and the contrary is of dangerous consequence as if by deadly sin every Bishop Prelate Pastour Priest Prince c. must necessarily cease to be members of Christs Church 86. But here I must obserue two things First If entire profession of those supernaturall verityes which God hath revealed in Christ be essentiall to the Church If the true Church cannot fall into Heresy and that it is an impudent slander to affirme that Protestants say so if the Church cannot hold any Hereticall Doctrine and yet be a Church as we haue heard out of Dr. Lawd Whitaker Fulke and Field respectivè it followes that the Church cannot fall into errour against any Truth sufficiently propounded as revealed by God whether it be of itselfe Fundamētall or not because every such errour is Heresy as contrarily we exercise a true Act of Faith by believing a Truth because it is testifyed by God though the thing of itselfe might seeme never so small And Pag 101. N. 127. you speake to this very purpose saying Heresy is nothing but a manifest deviation from and an oppōsition to the Faith And Potter Pag 97. saith The Catholique Church is carefull to ground all her declarations in matters of Faith vpon the Divine Authority of Gods written Word And therfore whosoever willfully opposeth a judgment so well grounded is justly esteemed an Heretik◠not properly because he disobeyes the Church but because he yields not to Scripture sufficiently propounded or cleared vnto him And 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 Heretike And Pag 247. If a man by reading the Scriptures or hearing them read be convinced of the truth of any such Conclusion This is a sufficient proposition to proue him that gain-saieth any such truth to be an Heretike and obstinate opposer of the Faith Field Lib 2. of the Church Cap 3. sayth freedome from Fundament all errour may be found among Heretiks From whence it followes that errour against any Point of Faith though not Fundamentall is Heresy and yourselfe Pag 23. N. 27. say There is as matters now stand as great necessity of believing those Truths of Scripture which are not Fundamentall as those that are If then every errour against any Truth sufficiently propounded as revealed by God be Heresy and that according to Fulke the true Church of Christ can never fall into Heresy and that as Whitaker saith the Church cannot hold any Hereticall doctrine and yet be a Church it followes that either the Church cannot fall into any errour even not Fundamentall and so Protestants are Schismatiks for leaving Her vpon pretence of errours or that it is no impudent slander to say that Protestants say the Church may fall into Heresy as Fulke affirmes it to be seing she may fall into errours against Faith and all such errours are Heresyes Besides seing we haue heard Potter confesse Pag 97. that the Catholique Church is carefull to ground all Her declarations in matters of Faith vpon the Divine Authority of Gods written word how can they avoide the Note of Heresy by opposing Her Declarations or of Schisme by leaving Her Communion By all which it is manifest that Heretiks haue no constancy in their doctrine but are forced to affirme and deny and by perpetuall contradictions overthrow their owne grounds and Assertions Howsoever for our present purpose we haue proved even out of Protestants themselves that your parity between errours against Faith and sins against Charity is repugnant to all Divinity seing externall profession of Faith is necessary to constitute one a member of the Church but Charity is not and chiefly I inferr that the Catholique Church is not subject to any errour though not Fundamentall since it is confessed that shee cannot fall into Heresy and every errour against any revealed Truth is Heresy 87. The second thing I was to obserue breifly is this Charity Maintayned speaking expressly of errours in Faith which are incompatible with the being of a true Church you to disguise the matter aske why errour may not consist with the holyness of this Church as well as many
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
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
Living Guide to them who haue and belieue the Scripture Wherby you must signify that to those who either haue not Scripture or haue not sufficient reason to belieue it it is all one as if Scripture had never beene written and consequently that de facto there is an absolute necessity of an infallible Guide Nay men could not haue had sufficient reason to belieue infallibly the Scripture except for the Authority of the Church of God which therfore must be believed to be absolutely infallible before any Scripture be believed which is directly contradictory to your saying that the necessity of an infallible Guide is grounded vpon a false supposition in case we had no Scripture For contrarily if we haue and belieue Scripture we must first belieue an infallible Church independently of that supposition and vpon which that supposition of our believing Scripture must depend 57. But it seemes this Authority of S. Irenaeus doth yet vex you And therfore N. 146. 147. 148. you say That in S. Irenaeus his tyme all the Churches were at an agreement about the Fundamentalls of Faith which vnity was a good assurance that what they so agreed in came from some one common fountaine and they had no other then of Apostolique Preaching 58. This I haue answered hertofore and told you that when the Fathers alledge the Authority of the Church or Tradition they suppose the Church to be absolutly infallible and not only that accidentally she teaches at that tyme the truth which had beene no proofe but a meere petitio principij For if the Church might erre as you say she hath done the Heretikes against whom the Fathers wrote would easily haue answered that all Churches might erre and had erred in such or such particular Points and how could you or any Protestant impugne such an Answer supposing once the Church could erre When Luther appeared he forsooke the Faith and Communion of all Churches vpon pretence that they all agreed in errours against Scripture and how do you now tell vs that the agreement of Churches was a good assurance that what they so agreed in came from some one common fountaine and they had no other but Apostolicall Preaching In this manner hertofore I retorted against you the saying which you alledge out of Tertullian Variasse debuerat c If the Churches had erred they could not but haue varied but that which is one amongst so many cannot be errour but Tradition That seing all Churches agreed in a beliefe contrary to the Faith of Protestants we must affirme that the thing which is one among so many can not by errour but Tradition And your words here add a particular strength to my retortions while you say that the agreement and vnity of Churches about the Fundamentalls of Faith is a good assurance that what they so agree in comes from the common fountaine of Apostolique Preaching For those Heretikes might haue answered that the errours of the Church which they impugned were not Fundamentall as we haue proved that you say the errours of the Roman Church and such as agreed with Her when Luther appeared were not Fundamentall and so the assurance taken from vnity in Fundamentalls could be no Argument against them Besides I pray you reflect on your saying that Protestants departed not from the whole Church because they were a part therof and they departed not from themselves and then you cannot but see that those Heretikes in S. Irenaeus his tyme might haue sayd all Churches are not at an agreement about matters of Faith seing we who are a part of the Church do not agree with the rest and therfore the agreement which you speake of is of no force against vs but you must proue by some other kind of Argument that our doctrines are false just as Protestants answer vs when we object against them the agreement of all Churches against the doctrine of Luther when he first appeared Wherfore I must still inferr that it is not the actuall or accidentall agreement but the constant ground therof that is the infallibility of the Church that must assure vs what is Orthodoxe and what is Hereticall doctrine Moreover whereas you say In S. Irenaeus his tyme all the Churches were at an agreement about the Fundamentalls of Faith I beseech you informe vs how it could be otherwise then how can it be otherwise now how shall it be otherwise for the tyme to come or for any imaginable tyme than that all Churches are at an agreement in Fundamentalls of Faith Seing you professe through your whole Booke that if they faile in Fundamentalls they cease to be Churches and so it is as necessary for all Churches to agree in Fundamentalls as for all men to agree in the essence of man And you might as well haue sayd that at S. Irenaeus his tyme the Definition did agree or was all one with the Definitum as that all Churches agreed in Fundamentalls If therfore it was easy to receiue the truth from Gods Church in S. Irenaeus his tyme as he affirmes and you grant it will be no lesse easy to doe it in these our tymes seing the Church can never faile in Fundamentall Points of Faith and so it was easy for Luther and his companions to haue received the truth or rather to haue retained the truths they found in the Church seing she was a true Church and consequently did not erre in Fundamentall Points From whence it followes that when S. Irenaeus saith the Apostles haue most fully deposited in the Church as in a rich store-house all things belonging to truth it must be vnderstood that she cannot but keepe that depositum sincere for Fundamentall Points even according to Protestants and you say here N. 164. The visible Church shall always 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 in which sense that depositum is not committed to private persons though otherwise never so qualifyed and therfore all that you haue N. 148. is of no force even in the Principles of Protestants And then further seing indeed any errour against divine Revelation is damnable and without Repentance destroyes salvation as you grant it is impossible that the Church which must needs enjoy all things necessary to salvation as we haue heard you even now saying the visible Church shall always without faile propose so much of Gods Revelation as is sufficient to bring men to Heaven It is I say impossiblle that the Church can fall into any damnable Errour but must be vniversally infallible Which is vnanswerably confirmed by your doctrine that it is impossible to know what Points in particular be Fundamentall and so we cannot know that she failes not to propose so much of Gods Revelation as is sufficient to bring men to Heaven vnless we belieue Her to be infallible in all Points of Faith as well not Fundamentall as Fundamentall And here againe how could you
say that in S. Irenaeus his tyme all the Churches were at an agreement about the Fundamentalls of Faith which vnity was a good assurance that what they so agreed in came from some one common fountaine and they had no other than Apostolique Preaching How I say could you speake thus your doctrine considered that we cannot know what Points are Fundamentall and so we cannot know whether Churches be at an agreement in them and consequently cannot from such an agreement in Fundamentalls haue a good assurance that what they so agreed in came from the fountaine of Apostolique Preaching Every where you are found clearly to contradict yourselfe 59. In answer to your N. 149.150.151.152.153 I will first set downe the words of Charity Maintayned and then answer what you object Thus saith Charity Maintayned Part 1. Pag 71. N. 25. The doctrine of Protestants is destructiue of itselfe For either they haue certaine and infallible meanes not to erre in interpreting Scripture or they haue not If not then the Scripture to them cannot be a sufficiēt ground for infallible Faith nor a meete Judge of Controversyes If they haue certaine infallible meanes and so cannot erre in their interterpretations of Scripture then they are able with infallibility to heare examine and determine all Controversyes of Faith and so they may be and are Judges of Controversyes although they vse the Scripture as a Rule And thus against their owne doctrine they constitute another Judge of Controversyes beside Scripture alone 60. Against this discourse you object with great pompe of words If we Catholiks haue certaine and infallible meanes for the choyse of the Church then we are able with infallibility to determine all Controversyes of Faith although we pretend to make the Church our Guide And then say you N. 149. We constitute another Iudge of Controversyes besides the Church alone nay every one of vs makes himselfe a chooser of his owne Religion and of his owne sense of the Churches decrees which very thing we so highly condemne in Protestants 61. Answer we haue certaine meanes to belieue with an infallible Faith that the Catholique Church is an infallible Judge of controversyes as we haue proved hertofore at large in diverse Occasions But then to say that by this meanes i.e. by believing the Church to be the Judge of controversyes we are able of our selves with infallibility to determine all controversyes and do constitute another Iudge of controversyes besides the Church alone I am so farr from vnderstanding it that to me it seemes no better than non-sense as a man who in some cause makes choyse of a Iudge whom he believes to be just wise and in every respect fit for such an office cannot be sayd to constitute another judge beside him of whom he makes choise nor to make himselfe Iudge Do you not teach that the Church proposes to vs Canonicall Scripture and that Scripture is the sole Rule of Faith wherby all controversyes are determined and yet you will not inferr from thence that the Church is a Rule of Faith wherby all controversyes are determined and not Scripture alone It is you who here N. 153 say for the latter part of this inference that every one makes himselfe judg of controversyes we acknowledge and embrace it We do make ourselves Iudges of controuersyes And this you must grant not only for the choyse of your Religion but for the sense of Scripture and consequently for determining all controversyes of Faith and so you are Iudges of controversyes as Ch Ma inferred wheras Catholikes in all controversyes hold themselves obliged to follow the determination of the Church and not of their owne vnderstanding as you doe How farr we may and do make vse of Reason in matters of Religion we haue declared aboue And even yourselfe Pag 376. N. 56. speaking of Scripture say Propose me any thing out of this Booke and require whether I belieue it or not and seeme it never so incomprehensible to humane reason I will subscribe with hand and hart as knowing no demonstration can be stronger than this God hath sayd so therfore it is true Which words though they cannot be spoken sincerely and with consequence by you who resolue Faith into humane probable Arguments of reason yet they shew that even in reason Reason ought to submitt to Authority We haue also shewed the difference between the Scripture which is always the same and the Decrees of the Church which in all occasions can clearly declare Her meaning if any difficulty occurre about her former Decrees or Definitions 62. But I pray where did Charity Maintayned frame this Argument which you N. 150. terme a transparent fallacy Protestants haue no meanes to interpret without errour obscure and ambiguons places of Scripture therfore plaine places of Scripture cannot be to them a sufficient ground of Faith You know there neither is nor can be any Question at all whether plaine places be not plaine to those to whom they are plaine nor whether such plaine places may not be a sufficient ground of Faith in respect of persons to whom and Matters wherin they are plaine The Point is and you know it to be so whether scripture be plaine in all Points necessary to be believed which we deny and you often affirme but can never be able to proue and I haue demonstrated that even those Texts which you pretend to be most plaine and expresly alledge for instances of such plainesse are not such but containe difficulty if we respect the sense and not the bare words which may be plaine to Pagans Jewes Turkes and to all who vnderstand the language in which Scripture was written And therfore you do not satisfy your owne Demand wherin you speake thus to Charity maintayned If you aske me how I can be sure that I know the true meaning of these plaine places I aske you againe can you be sure that you vnderstand what I or any man else sayes They that heard our Saviour and the Apostles preach could they haue sufficient assurance that they vnderstood at any tyme what they would haue them doe If not to what end did they heare them If they could why may not we be as well assured that we vnderstand sufficiently what we conceiue plaine in their writings 63. Answer If he who speakes be not sufficiently vnderstood he may be asked and he who askes may be satisfyed by a further declaration of the speaker which holds not in Scripture as I am forced often to repeate Besides when things are spoken the present Tyme Place Argument and other circumstances may giue much more light than when they are barely written devested of such helpes In which case if a word can be found but once in the whole Bible to signify such or such a thing perhaps it may breede a doubt whether in other places it be not so taken of which no doubt would haue beene made in case that in all places it had the same signification Yea we see
be infallible only in Fundamentall Points if she erre not in such Points she performes as much as our Saviour exacts at her hands seing he exacts no more than that which may bring her to salvation and it is not necessary that God assist her for more than salvation Or if he absolutely exact more than is necessary men are bound to doe more than is necessary and so more shall be necessary than is necessary because it is necessary to doe what we are bound to doe 30. You say to Ch. Ma The ground of your errour here is your not distinguishing betweene Actuall certainty and Absolute infallibility But in this you speake either against your owne conscience or against manifest truth For if you say the meaning of Cha. ma. to be that whosoever is actually certaine of one thing must haue an absolute infallibility in all other matters your Conscience cannot but tell you that He could haue no such meaning as if because I am actually certaine what I am doing at this instant I must therfore be infallible and know certainly what every one is doing in the Indyes But if you meane that it is an errour in Ch Ma to say that if one haue actuall certainty of a thing he must be infallible both in that ād all other for which he hath the same or like grounds to make him certaine then you erre against manifest truth it being evident that if I clearly see my selfe to haue an vndoubted Ground to belieue a thing it is impossible that I should erre in any other for which I also evidētly see that I haue the same certaine ground This is our case If I be actually certaine by evidence of Scripture of the truth of one thing I am certaine that I cannot erre in any other Point for which I haue the like evidence of Scripture as he who actually assents to a demonstration knowne to be such can neither erre in it nor in any other knowne to haue the like certainty This being supposed your examples proue against yourselfe as I shewed in an other like occasion 31. I haue already particularly and at large answered your N. 27.28.29 In your N. 30 33.34 you impugne Ch Ma. whose words I wish you had set downe as you found them in Him and not as you collect and offer them to the Reader whom therfore I must intreate to peruse the Author himselfe Ch. Ma. N. 13. saith That to limite the generall promises of our Saviour for his Church to Points Fundamentall as namely that the gates of Hell shall not prevaile against Her and that the Holy Ghost shall lead them into all truth c. is to destroy all Faith For by this manner of interpreting and limiting words whatsoever is delivered in Scripture concerning the infallibility of the Apostles or of Scripture it selfe may be restrained to infallibility in Fundamentall Points And in this Ch. Ma. hath reason For seing you haue no certaine Rule of Faith but Scripture whatsoever you cannot proue by evident Scripture cannot be to you certaine or a Point of Faith Let vs then take these words Matth. 16.18 The gates of Hell shall not prevaile c. Which our B. Saviour pronounced of the Church and those other Jo 16. V. 13.14.16 The spirit shall lead you into all truth and shall abide with you for ever which promise Potter saith Pag 153. was made directly and primarily to the Apostles who had the spirits guidance in a more high and absolute manner than any since them yet it was made to them for the behoofe of the Church and is verifyed in the Church vniversall The first words The gates of Hell shall not prevaile against Her Potter Pag. 153. limites they shall not prevaile so far as to sever it from the foundation that is that She shall not erre in Fundamentall Points Now I beseech you produce some evident Text of Scripture declaring that those words are not to be vnderstood as they sound that the Church shall be secure from all errours against Faith even in Points not Fundamentall which errours are gates that leade to hell seing they are as you often confesse damnable in themselves and so lead to hell and damnation but with this limitation that she shall be secured for Points Fundamentall Produce I say some such evident Text of Scripture and not topicall discourses of your owne In the meane tyme while you are busy about that impossible taske of producing some such Text 32. I will ponder the second place The spirit shall lead you into all truth and shall abide with you for ever which Potter saith is vnderstood of the Apostles and of the vniversall Church but so as being referred to the Apostles it signifyes all truths Fundamentall and not Fundamentall Points which is a harder explanation than that of the former words out of S. Matthew The gates of hell c. because you are engaged to alledge some evident Text of Scripture to proue that the very selfsame as I may saie indivisible Text which is acknowledged to speake both of the Apostles and of the Church must be forced and as it were racked to speake one thing of the Apostles and another of the Church All truth for the Apostles not all but only Fundamentall truth for the Church Bring I say some such evident Text of Scripture But it seemes you did easily perceiue that no such place could be pretended and therfore in stead of Scripture or the Word of God you offer only your owne conceits discourses and seeming congruences which are far beneath that certainty which is required for an act of divine Faith There is not say you N. 30. the same reason for the Churches absolute Infallibility as for the Apostles and Scriptures For if the Church fall into errour it may be reformed by comparing it with the Rule of the Apostles doctrine and Scripture But if the Apostles erred in delivering the Doctrine of Christianity to whom shall we haue recourse for the discovering and correcting their errour 33. Answer I haue often sayd that in matters knowne by revelation only and depending on the free will or decree of Almighty God we are not to proue by humane reason what he hath decreed Protestants grant that both the Apostles and the Church are infallible for Fundamentall Points If then one should make vse of your reason and say There is not the same reason for the Churches infallibility in Fundamentall Points as for the Apostles For if the Church fall into such errours it may be reformed by comparing it with the Rule of the Apostles doctrine and Scripture But if the Apostles haue erred in delivering the doctrine of Christianity to whom shall we haue recourse for the discovering and correcting their errour What would you answer Would you grant that the Church is not infallible in Fundamentall Articles because there is not the same reason for Her infallibility in Fundamentall Points as there is for the Apostles That were to deny the
Controversyes Sir I beseech you when you write againe doe vs the favour to write nothing but Syllogismes for I find it still an extreme trouble to find out the concealed propositions which are to connect the parts of your enthymems As now for example I profess vnto you I am at my wits end and haue done my best endeavour to find some glue or sodder or cement or chaine or thred or any thing to tye this antecedent and this consequent together and at length am forced to giue it over and cannot doe it 54. Answer If you were in a condition to reply I would advise you to write not Syllogismes or enthymems but with truth Christian modesty and humility If there be any obscurity in Charity Maintayned you did not find but make it by breaking the thred of his discourse and disjoyning into severall Numbers of Sections or Yours that which is delivered in that one continued N. 16. which you impugne For having proved that according to the grounds of Protestāts they before they address themselves to the Church must know what Points are Fundamentall they learne not of her but will be as fit to teach as to be taught by her And then to confute this Doctrine of Protestants he saieth S. Austine was of a very different mind from Protestants If saieth he Epist 118. the Church through the whole world practice any of these things to dispute whether that ought to be done is a most insolent madness And in an other place he saieth Lib 4. de Bapt Chap 24. That which the whole Church holds and is not ordained by Councells but hath alwaies been kept is most rigthly believed to be delivered by Apostolicall authority Now Sr. I beseech you doe vs the favour to declare whether these words of S. Austine doe not proue that we are to learne of the Church and her Traditions and not presume to teach her Which was the very thing which Cha Ma affirmed and proved not by any Syllogisme or enthymem but by a continued discourse as men are wont to doe which yet might be easily drawne into a Syllogisme or some other Lawfull Forme of Logicall Argument if need were as any true Discourse may be so reduced 55. All that you haue N 44.45.46 containes no difficulty which may not be answered out of the grounds which I haue Laied heretofore Tertullian is rightly alledged for Traditions in generall but to the Church belongs the office of judging in particular what be Lawfull and Apostolicall or divine Traditions and not humane invētions Neither can it be prejudiciall to Traditions in generall that some haue bene lost as I hope you will not deny some Bookes of Scripture to be Divine though some haue bene lost and some conterfaited In your N. 46. you thought it best to dissemble what Ch. Ma. alledges out of Withaker De Sacra Script Pag 678. concerning an Authority of S. Chrysostom for Traditions I answer that this is an inconsiderate speach and vnworthy so great a Father 56. In your N. 47. you spend many words about a sentence of S. Austine which that you may overcome with more ease you with a pettie policy divide from the other places which Ch Ma in the same N. 16. cites out of the same Saynt one place strengthening an other Whosoever reades with due consideration your long discourse will finde that your ayme was covertly to vent your Socinianisme against the Church and openly contradict S. Austine while you pretend to answer the sentences which Cha. ma. cited out of him which are these Epist 119. the Church being placed betwixt much chaffe and cockle doth tollerate many things but yet she doth not approue nor dissemble nor do these things which are against Faith or good life you say That because S. Austine sayes the Church doth not approue nor dissemble nor doe these things which are against Faith or good life Ch. Ma. concludes that it never hath done so nor ever can doe so And then you add But though the Argument hold in Logick a non posse and non esse yet I never heard that it is would hold back againe a non esse ad non posse The Church cannot doe this therefore it does it not followes with good consequence but the Church does not this therefore it shall neuer doe it this I belieue will hardly follow In the Epistle next before to the same I anuarius writing of the same matter he hath these words It remaines that the thing you enquire of must he of that third kind of things which are different in diverse places Let euery one therfore doe that which he finds done in the Church to which he comes for none of them is against Faith or good manners And why do you not infer from hence that no particular Church can bring vp any custome that is against Faith or good manners Certainly this consequence has as good reason for it as the former 57. Answer S. Austines meaning to be that the Church neither doth nor can approue any thing against Faith or good life appeares by the very Epist 1 18. next before to the same Iannarius as you speak where he saieth 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 madnes Where you see the Saynt speakes not only de facto but de jure what ought to be done and therfore as I saied no wonder if you divided the Sentences of S. Austine which you found set downe by Charity Maintayned in the same N. 16. Besides you should know that in matters belonging to doctrine of Faith an indefinite Proposition ordinarily is equivalent to an vniversall as for example God approves not sinne the Church ere 's not in fundamentall Points of Faith Works of Christian Piety require the assistance of Gods Grace He that believes not shall be damned c And indeed how could S. Austine say vniversally of all tymes and places without limitation the Church doth not this but by supposing that it is certaine she will never doe it which must implie some particular Priviledg of Divine assistance securing her from doing it For if he spoke only of a casuall and contingent thing for a determinate tyme he could not be sure of what he affirmed seing it might be done in some place without his knowledg and whosoever vnpartially considers these words The Church does not this will confess that they signify she never does it and that something is attributed to Her which agrees not to private persons casually not doing a thing Which also appeares by the Antithesis he puts betweene the Church and chaffe and cockle that is imperfections or superstitions of which he speaks Your Argument taken from a particular Church is of no force For you confess S. Austine speaks of things indifferent and rhen I grant that no particular Church can bring vp any custome against Faith or good manners as long as she practises only
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
of setting downe particular Truths Whence it followes that that article alone cannot be a Creed as men speake of Creeds and particular points may be a Creed though that article of the Church were not exprest but presupposed and proved independently both of the Creed and Scripture in manner declared heretofore And here Dr. Potter should remember his owne doctrine and the doctrine of most Protestants that the Church cannot erre in Fundamentall Articles of Faith and therfor according to your manner of arguing this short Creed I belieue the Church to be infallible in all Fundamentall points would haue been better that is more effectuall to keepe the believers of it from heresy and in the true Faith then this Creed which now we know and so either you must forsake the Doctor about the Churches infallibility in fundamētalls or he must reject your argument and both of you grant that you proue nothing against Ch Ma but only contradict one another You confesse that the Creed containes not Agenda why doe you not say It had been better to refer vs to the Church then to set downe in the Creed only Credenda which alone are not sufficient to bring any man to heaven and so make men thinke hey haue all in the Creede when the haue scharsly halfe Motrover If you respect only infallibility or being more effectuall to keepe men from heresy in your grounds neither the Articles of the Church nor the other articles as they are now in the Creed could haue so great commodity and no danger as you say speaking of the Churches infallibility as this one generall article belieue the Scripture to be infallible and therfor either you must take this one article as the best Creed which no man will ever grant or answer your owne argument by saying To belieue the Scripture is too generall an object and that a Creed or Catechisme must include some other particular objects or some such answer you must giue which will be easily turned vpon yourselfe Thus your N. 78. and 79. which goe vpon your first supposition that that Creed is the better that keepes the believer of it frō heresy c remaine confuted and the Syllogisme which you make proves a meere paralogisme For that petite Creed which you propose would be so farr from having greater commodities in order to the intent of Creeds then this other that it could be no Creed at all in that sense in which hitherto the ancient Fathers and all Divines haue spoken of Creeds and of summaries of Faith If you haue a minde to change the name and meaning of Creeds and to substitute some one proposition indeed I know no better in order to vse and safety then this The visible Church of Christ is infallible For this being once believed I may learne what is true Scripture what the sense therof what points be necessary in all occasions which commodity we cannot attaine by Scripture alone as hath been often sayd 64. You say N. 80. That having compared the inference of Ch. ma. and Dr. Potters togeather you cannot discover any shadow of resemblance betweene them nor any shew of reason why the perfection of the Apostles Creed should exclude a necessity of some Body to deliver it Much lesse why the whole Creeds containing all things necessary should make the beliefe of a part of it vnnecessary As well for ought I vnderstand you might avouch this inference to be as good as Dr. Potters The Apostles Creedcontaines all things necessary therfor there is no need to belieue in God Neither does it follow so well as Dr. Potters Argument follows That if the Apostles Creed containes all things necessary that all other Creeds and Catechismes wherin are added diuers other particulars are superfluous For these other particulars may be the duties of obedience they may be profitable points of Doctrine they may be good expositions of the Apostles Creed and so not superfluous and yet for all this the Creed may still containe all points of beliefe that are simply necessary These therfor are poore consequences but no more like Dr. Potters then an apple is likean Oister 65. Answer Dr. Potter argued that if the Apostles did not deliver in the Creed all necessary points they might as well haue given only that Article of the Church Which manner of arguing Ch. Ma. retorts and sayth we may rather inferr thus If the Apostles delivered in the Creed all necessary points what need we any Church to teach vs And consequently what need is there of the Atticle concerning the Church What need we the Creed of Nice Constantinople c. Superfluous are your Cathecismes wherin besides the articles of the Creed you haue divers other particulars These would be poore consequences and so is yours Thus Ch. Ma. who as you see doth not approue these consequences but expresly saith they are poore ones Which consequences while you also labour to disproue you doe but take paines for your adversary to your owne cost But at least you will say ther is no shadow of resemblance betweene them and that of Dr. Potters Yes ther is this resemblance That as the Doctour argues all necessarie points are not contained in the Creed therfor it had been as good or better to haue no Article of the Creed but that of the Church least that as he saieth Pag. 226. in setting downe others besides that and yet not all they may make vs belieue we haue all when we haue not all So contrarily Ch Ma argues That if all other necessary points be contained in the Creed what need we the Church to teach vs or that Article of the Church which deduction might be made good by the Doctours feare least that if we haue that Article of the Church we may thinke that alone sufficient wherein he might be confirmed by the commodityes which you say are implied in the point of the Churches infallibility and so be carelesse in seeking any other particular object or article of Faith Which argument is like to that of the Doctours except only that indeed it is much better than his and may be made a kinde of demonstration by adding that in your grounds the article of the Church is not fundamentall or necessary to salvation and therfor whosoever believes all the articles of the Creed if it be supposed to containe all necessary points of Faith may be saved though he belieue not that of the Church of which you say expresly in this your fourth Chapter N. 34.45 that it is not a fundamentall article and consequently not necessary to salvation yea it is further infer'd from hence that D. Potters argument is of no force seing it cannot be better to haue one only vnnecessary article of Faith then to haue divers fundamentall articles which no man denyes the Creed to containe and want that one not necessary or vnfundamentall point You say that you cannot discover any shew of reason why the perfection of the Apostles Creed should exclude
of this Introduction LIII Let vs now come to handle the matter it selfe for which I know and acknowledge the necessity of grace and therfore renouncing all confidence in humane reason and force of nature with profoundest humility begge of the Eternall Father for the Merits of his only son Christ Iesus true God and true Man the assistance of the holy Ghost and his diuine spirit of Wisdome Vnderstanding Counsell Strength Knowledge Piety and aboue all the spirit of the Feare of our Lord mouing and assisting me willingly to suffer death rather than wittingly vtter any least falshood or conceale any truth in matters concerning Faith and Religion and so prostrate in soule and body I pray with the Wiseman Sap. 9 4.10 O Lord of mercy giue me wisdome the assistant of thy seates send her from thy holy Heauens and from the seate of thy greatness that she may be with me and may labour with me that so my labours of themselues most weake may by Grace tend first to the Glory of the most blessed Trinity and next to the eternall good of soules CHAP I. CHRISTIAN FAITH NECESSARY TO SALVATION IS INFALLIBLY TRVE 1. AS all Catholiques haue reason to grieue that we were necessitated to proue the necessity of Gods grace against our moderne Pelagians so euery Christian yea euery one who professes any Faith Religion or worship of a God may wonder that dealing with one who pretends to the name of Christian I should be forced to proue the Certainty and Infallibility of Christian Faith which M. Chillingworth not only denies but deepely censures Pag. 328 N o 6. as a Doctrine most presumptuous and vnchariatble and Pag. 325. N. 3. as a great errour and of dangerous and pernitious consequence and takes much paines to proue the contraay that is the fallibility of Christian Faith A strang vndertaking wherby he is sure to loose by winning and by all his Arguments to gaine only this Conclusion that his Faith in Christ of Scripture and all the mysteryes contained therin may proue fabulous and false And yet I confesse it to be a thing very certaine and euident that the deniall of jnfallibility in Gods Church for deciding controuersyes of Faith must ineuitably cast mē Vpon this desperate vnchristian and Antichristian doctrine and while Protestants mayntaine the Church to be fallible they cannot auoide this sequele that theire doctrine may be false since without jnfallibility in the Church they cannot be absolutely certaine that Scripture is the word of God O what a scandall doe these men cast on Christian Religion by either directly acknowledging or laying grounds from which they must yeild Christian Faith not to be jnfallibly true while Iewes Turks Pagās and all who professe any religion hold their belief to bee jnfallible and may justly vpbraide vs that euen Christians confess themselues not to be certaine that they are in the right and haue with approbation of greatest men in a famous Uniuersity published to the world such their sense and belief In the meane tyme in this occasion as in diuerse others I cannot but observe that Heretiques alwayes walke in extreams This man teacheth Christian Faith in generall and the very grounds therof not to be infallibly certaine Others affirme Faith to be certaine euen as it is applyed to particular persons whom they hold to be justifyed by an absolute certaine beliefe that they are just 2. But now let vs come to proue this truth Christian Faith is absolutely and infallibly true and not subject to any least falshood wherin although I maintayne the cause of all Christians and of all men and mankind who by the very instinct of nature conceiue the true Religion to signify a thing certaine as proceeding from God and vpon which men may and ought securely to rely without possibility of being deceiued and that for this reason the whole world ought to joyne with me against a common adversarie yet even for this very reason I knowe not whether to esteeme it a more dissicile taske or lamentable necessity that we are in a matter of this moment and quality to proue Principles or a Truth which ought to be no less certaine then any Argument that can be brought to prove it as hitherto all good Christians haue believed nothing to be more certainly belieued by Christian Faith than that it selfe is most certaine Yet confiding in his Grace whose Gift we acknowledg Faith to be I will endeauour to proue and defend this most Christian and fundamental truth against the pride of humane witt and all presumption vpon naturall forces 3. Our first reason may be taken from that which we haue touched already of the joynt conceypt vnanimous concent and inbred sense of men who conceyue Diuine Faith and Religion to imply a certainty of Truth and if they did once entertayne a contrary perswasion they would sooner be carryed to embrace no religion at all than weary their thoughtes in election of one rather than another being prepossessed that the best can bring with it no absolute certainty Thus by the vniversall agreement of men we proue that there is a God and from thence conclude that the beliefe of a Deity proceeds from the light of nature which also assures vs that God hath a prouidence ouer all things and cannot want meanes to communicate himselfe with reasonable creatures by way of some light ād knowledg exempt from feare or possibility of fraude or falshood especially since Rationall nature is of it selfe 〈…〉 truth and Religion or worship of a God This consideration is excellently pondered and deliuered by S. Austin de vtilitate credendi Cap. 16. in these words Authority alone is that which incites ignorant persons that they make hast to wisdome Till we can of our selues vnderstand the truth it is a miserable thing to be deceyved by Authority yet more miserable it is not to be moued therwith For if the Divine prouidence do not command humane thinges no care is to be taken of Religion But if the beauty of all things which without doubt we are to belieue to flow from some fountayne of most true pulcritude by a certaine internall feeling doth publikly and priuatly exhort all best soules to seeke and serue God We cannot despaire that by the same God there is appointed some Authority on which we relying as vpon an infallible stepp may be eleuated to God Behold a meanes to attaine certainty in belief by some infallible authority appointed by God which can be none but the Church from which we are most certaine what is the writtē or vnwrittē word of God 4. M. Chillingworth professes to receiue Scripture from the vniuersall Tradition of all Churches though yet there is scarcely any booke of Scripture which hath not beene questioned or rejected by some much more therfore ought all Christian to belieue Christian Faith to be jnfallible as beinge the most vniversall judgment and Tradition of all Christians for their Christians beliefe and of all men for their
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
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
are written that you may belieue that Iesus is Christ the Sonne of God and that believing you may haue life in his name John 20. V 31. By these are written may be vnderstood either those things are written or these signes are written Take it which way you will this conclusion will certainly follow That either all that which S. Iohn wrote in his Gospell or less then all and therfor all much more was sufficient to make them belieue that which being believed with lively Faith would certainly bring them to eternall life 169. Answer Of this Text we haue spoken already Who would ever haue dreamed of this Argument S. John sett downe in his Gospell as much of the Miracles which our B. Saviour wrought as was sufficient to oblige men to belieue that he was the Son of God Therfor he sett downe evidently all things necessary to salvation as if nothing were necessary except the belief of that single Point or as if none can be damned if he belieue that Point which is to say no Christian can be damned For he who believes not Jesus Christ to be the Son of God and the Messias is no Christian Doth the Apostles Creed consist only of that Poynt And yet Potter and you say it containes only things belonging to Faith Do not many Heretiks beleeve that Point Yea if they did not belieue that Article they were not Heretikes but Jewes Turks or infidells and Aposttaes from Christian Faith Suppose S. John had written only some Miracles sufficient to proue Jesus Christ to be the Son of God without mentioning any other doctrinall point at all who will say that he had evidently sett downe all things necessary to salvatiō And S. John Epist 1. C. 2. V. ◠saith these things I write to you that you may not sinne as he saith in his Gospell These things are written that ye may belieue that Jesus is Christ the son of God Therfor as you will not say that in that Epistle he evidently setts downe all Points of Faith and other conditions required for keeping the commandements and avoyding sin but only that he wrote it to that end which yet was not to be obtained by that Epistle alone so although S. John saith Ep. 1. C. 1.4 These things we write to you that your ioy may be full yet the contents of that Epistle alone could not giue full ioy which requires the state of Grace and observation of all things belonging to Faith and Good life Nothing is more ordinary than to attribute an effect to some one cause because indeed it is a cause though it alone be not sufficient to produce such an effect He that shall belieue and shal be baptized shall be saved Mark 16.16 and yet Historicall Faith alone even according to Calvinists togeather with baptisme is not sufficient for salvation Luther Postilla in Dominic 5. post Pasch saith Here we see that to belieue in Christ doth not consist in believing that Christ is one Person which is God and man For this would availe no man Sadeel Resp ad Artic abjurat 33. Pag 495. saith it is not enough to belieue that Iesus Christ came into the world that he suffered death that he rose againe and ascended into Heaven for this Historicall Faith will not saue me This you did see and therfor to helpe the matter you closely add that S. John wrote sufficient to make men belieue that which being believed with lively Faith would certainly bring them to eternall life With lively Faith Therfor not by believing that Point alone Jesus is the Son of God A lively Faith signifyes the belief of all other Points of Faith and all things necessary for keeping all the Commandements and you should haue proved that S. John setts downe in his Gospell evidently all Points belonging to Faith and manners Here I must put you in mynd of your doctrine that there cannot be given a Catalogue of necessary or fundamentall Points of Faith and yet it may be easily and speedily given and you actually give it in this place if the belief of this Article alone Iesus Christ is the Son of God will certainly bring men to eternall life 170. But indeed is this Poynt which you alledg cleare and evident in S. Johns Gospell You could scarcely haue picked out a place or Poynt less for your and more for our purpose Do not Protestants differ both from Catholiks and amongst themselves about the Consubstantiality Merit and Satisfaction of out B. Saviour And for that which you say was S. Johns prime intent in writing his Gospell Vt credatis That you may belieue do not you in this differ from other Protestants toto genere as much as a belief only probable and fallible differs from a most certaine and infallible assent And concerning the words that you may haue life in his name do not you and your Socinian brethren differ from other Protestants who belieue the Value of our Saviours workes his Merit Satisfaction for our sinnes and Redemption of mankind And so in his name must be vnderstood by different Protestants in a very different sence which is the life of scripture In which maine differences you in your Principles will not say but that many or divers or at least some Protestants do sincerly seeke the true meaning of scripture and therfor could not disagree among themselves and from Catholikes if those words of S. John were evident according to your owne Rule That a thing is not evident when men so qualifyed disagree about it Catholique Bishops did overthrow the Arians who made no end of alledging scripture for their Heresy by Tradition and the word homoousion which is not found in scriprure And so you could not haue brought any Text of greater strength to proue the necessity of Tradition and of a Living Judg then this which you alledg for the evidence and sufficiency of scripture alone and if this Text itself be so difficult how can you by it proue that all other necessary Points are evident especially if we reflect on your words Pag. 93. N. 106. That the Evangelists wrote not only for the learned but for all men And therfor that they intended to speake plaine even to the capacity of the simplest A pretty paradox that the simplest are able to learne with certainty out of the bare words of scripture alone the most sublime mysteryes of Christian Religion which is more than the learned can do without observing divers Rules exceeding the capacity of the vnlearned and yet this absurdity cannot be avoyded if scriprure alone be the sole Rule of Faith because God hath provided meanes of salvation both for the learned and vnlearned and therfor if there be no other meanes beside scripture it must be cleare to all sorts of people What is this but to cast men into despayre 171. By what hath bene sayd there offers it self an easy answer to the Objection which you make Pag. 93. N. 105. Where speaking of the Evangelists
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
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
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
in the Church they meane not those only of whose Authority there was simply no doubt at all by any man in the Church But such as were not at any tyme doubted of by the whole Church or by all Churches but had attestation though not vnâ—versall yet at least sufficient to make considering men receaue them for Canonicall In which number they may well reckon those Epistles which were sometimes doubted of by some yet whose number and Authority was not so great as to prevaile against the contrary suffrages 47. Nothing could more lively set before our eyes the necessity of believing that Gods Church from which we receaue Holy Scripture is infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost than these your Assertions and pernicious Errours which yet do naturally result from the Opinyons of those Protestants who deservedly laughing at the pretended private spirit of rigid Calvinists and yet denying the infallibility of the Church are driven to such Conclusions as you publish and for which those others had disposed the Premises For if the Scripture be receaved vpon the Authority of the Church considered only as a company of men subject to errour and not as infallibly directed by the Holy Ghost who can blame one for inferring that if those men once doubted of some Bookes of Scripture such books cannot chalenge so firme a belief as others in which all haue alwayes agreed Though even these in which all haue agreed can never arriue to be believed by an infallible assent of Divine Faith while these men though never so many are believed to be fallible 48. But to come to your Errour If it be granted that we belieue some bookes of Scripture more vndoubtedly then other by reason of a greater or less consent and so giue way to more or less in the belief of Gods word we shall soone come to end in nothing For why may not those bookes of which somtyme there was doubt and were afterward receyved for Canonicall in tyme loose some voices or sussrages and by that meanes come to be discanonized You teach that we haue not infallible certainty but only a probability for any part of Scripture how farr then shall we be removed from certainty for those bookes which participate of that probability in a less and less degree The common Doctrine of Protestants is that Scripture became a totall Rule of Faith when the Canon was perfited because they cannot determine with certainty in what particular bookes necessary Points are contayned If then some parts of Canonicall Scripture be more vndoubted than others in case some fundamentall points chance to be set downe only in these others it followes not only that they cannot be so certaine of the Truth of those necessary Points as of other truths not fundamentall or of no necessity at all being considered in themselves but also that they cannot be certaine at all since it is supposed that they do not belieue those bookes with absolute certainty but with a lower degree even of a probable assent Your pretended Bishop of London D. King in the beginning of his first Lecture vpon Jonas sayes comparisons betwixt scripture and scripture are both odious and dangerous The Apostles names are evenly placed in the writings of the holy Fundation With an vnpartiall respect haue the children of Christs family from tyme to tyme receyved reverenced and embraced the whole volume of scriptures Marke that it is both odious and dangerous to make comparisons betwixt scripture and scripture and that the children of Christs family with an vnpartiall respect receyve the whole Volume of scriptures Yourself Pag 68. N. 42. say that the controversy about scripture is not to be tryed by most Voyces and what is the greater number of which we haue heard you speake in the next N. 43. that it was sufficient to prevaile against the contrary suffrages but only most voyces or consent in one judgment seing you attribute infallibility or the certaine direction of the Holy Ghost to no number great or small And as for the greater authority which in the same N. 43. you ascribe to one part more than to another what can it be in your Principles except greater learning or some such kind of Quality nothing proportionable to that authority on which Christian Faith must rely Take away the speciall assistance of the Holy Ghost and few for number even one single person may for waight haue as good reason for what he sayes as a great multitude for the contrary There is scarcely any part of scripture which hath not bene Questioned by so many as would haue made men doubt of the works of Cicero Livie c as we see men doubt of some workes which haue gone vnder the name of Old Authours because for example Erasmus or others haue called them in Question vpon meere conjecturall reasons as seeming difference of Stile or the like If then men haue not presumed to doubt of scripture as they would haue done of other Writings it is because they belieue Gods church to be equally infallible in all that she propounds though some perhaps doubted before such a Proposition or Definition I haue proved that in your grounds we haue greater certainty for what is related in humane storyes then for the contents of the most vndoubted Bookes of scripture What strength then can those Books of scripture haue which you receaue with a less degree of belief 49. You Object Pag 67. N. 36. and 38. Some Saints did once doubt of some parts of scripture therfor we haue no warrant to damne any man that shall doubt of them or deny them now having the example of Saints in Heaven either to justify or excuse their doubting or deniall 50. Answer This very Objection proves the necessity of an infallible Living Judg as will appeare after I haue first told you that by this forme of arguing we may now be saved though we belieue no part of the whole Bible because the tyme was when no part of it was written We may now adhere to many old Heresyes condemned by the whole Church which before such a condemnation or definition Saints might haue held without damnation or sinne We may now reject the Faith of Christ because many were Saints and saved in the Law of Nature and Moyses without it Yourself Pag 280. N. 66. affirme That what may be enough for men in ignorance may be to knowing men not enough That the same errour may be not capitall to those who want meanes of finding the truth and capitall to others who haue meanes and neglect to vse them Howsoever we Catholikes are safe by your owne words since we haue the example of Saints in Heaven and holy Fathers as is confessed even by Protestants for those Practises and Doctrines which you will needs call Errours beside S. Bernard S. Bonaverture and others whom Protestants confess to be Saints in Heaven and therfor by your owne rule you haue no warrant to damne vs having such examples either to justify or
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
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
attaine Faith by the mere consideration of Gods creatures or by the Law written in our harts or by immediate extraordinary lights but by the Ministery of the Church and therfor Ephes 4.11.12 Pastours and Doctours are sayd to be given to the consummation of the Saints vnto the worke of the Ministerie vnto the edifying of the Body of Christ Which declares that men cannot be made members of the Body of Christ but by the Ministery of Pastours and Doctours And even those Protestants who rely vpon the private Spirit for knowing true Scripture will grant that the Spirit is not given but when the Churches Ministery precedes as an Introduction or as Potter Pag 139. speakes the present Church workes vpon all whithin the Church to prepare induce and perswade the mynd as an outward meanes to imbrace the Faith to reade and belieue the Scriptures 71. It remaymes then that not Scripture but the Church which was before Scripture and from which we receaue it must be the necessary meanes in the ordinary course which God hath appointed to produce Faith and decide Controversyes in Religion and consequently must be infallible according to your owne Doctrine Pag 35. N. 7. that the meanes to decide Controversyes in Faith and Religion must be indued with an vniversall infallibility in whatsoever it propoundeth for a divine truth For if it may be false in any one thing of this nature in any thing which God requires men to belieue we can yield vnto it but a wavering and fearfull assent in any thing 72. 5. I vrge the Argument of Charity Maintayned Part 1. Chap 2. N. 23. Pag 69. If Protestants will haue Scripture alone for their Judge or Rule let them first produce some Text of Scripture affirming that by the entring therof infallibility went out of the Church 73. To this you answer Pag 104. N. 138. In these words As no Scripture affirmeth that by the entring of it infallibility went out of the Church so neither do we neither haue we any need to do so But we say that it continued in the Church even togeather with the Scriptures so long as Christ and his Apostles were living and then departed God in his Providence having provided a plaine and infallilde Rule to supply the defect of Living and infallible Guides Gertainly if your cause were good so great a wit as yours is would devise better Arguments to maintaine it We can shew no Scripture afsirming infallibility to haue gone out of the Church therfore it is infallible Some what like to his discourse that said it could not be proved out of Scripture that the King of Sweden was dead therfore he is still Living Me thinks in all reason you that chaleng privileges and exemption from the condition of men which is to be subject to errour you that by vertue of this privilege vsurpe Authority over mens consciences should produce your Letter-patents from the King of Heaven and shew some express warrant for this Authority you take vpon you otherwese you know the Rule is vbi contrarium non manifestè probatur presumitur pro libertate 74. This Answer is easily confuted First I must returne it vpon yourself with thankes for your voluntary express grant That no Scripture afsirmes that by entring of it infallibility went out of the Church Remember your owne saying that there are only two Principles common to Christians Reason and Scripture Seing then it is evident that meere naturall Reason cannot determine any thing in this matter and that you grant it cannot be proved by Scripture that infallibility went out of the Church by the entring of Scripture what remaines but that you haue no proofe at all for it And since that you directly grant infallibility to haue continued for some tyme in the Church even togeather with the Scriptures and that neither by reason nor Scripture you can proue that it ever departed from Her we must of necessity conclude that she still enjoyes that priviledge most necessary for deciding controversyes belonging to infallible Christian faith You say God hath provided a plaine and infallible Rule to supply the defect of living and infallible Guides But we haue proved the contrary That Scripture is not plaine in all Points belonging to Faith and though it were so yet yourself confess in this place that infallibility in the Church may stand with the sufficiency and plaines of Scripture and therfore you cannot inferr scripture is sufficient therfore the Church is not infallible You teach Pag 101. N. 126. That though all the necessary parts of the Gospell be contained in every one of the foure Gospells yet they which had all the Bookes of the New Testament had nothing superfluous for it was not superfluous but profitable that the same thing should be sayd divers tymes and be teslifyed by divers witnesses Therfore the Testimony of the Church if she were supposed to be infallible might be profitable although Scripture were cleare and sufficient Protestants pretend that we can proue matters belonging to Faith only by Scripture Wherfore you must either proue by some plaine Text of Scripture that infallibility dyed as I may say with the Apostles or never affirme herafter any such groundless voluntary and pernicious Proposition From Scripture we learne that with out repentance are the gifts of God Rom 11.29 And it is an Axiome of naturall Reason Melior est conditio possidentis God once bestowed vpon the Church the gift of infallibility and therfore without some evident positiue proofe you are not to depriue her of it And we are not obliged to produce any other Argument except to plead Possession which you cannot take from vs without some evident proofe to the contrary And you being the Actor and we the Defendents not wee but you must prove and performe what you exact of vs to shew some express warrant c though it be also most true that we haue great plenty of convincing proofes for the infallibility of Gods Church 75. As for your Instance about the King of Sweden I belieue you will loose your jeast whē I shall haue asked whether this were not a good Argument we can know by Scripture alone whether the King of Sweden be aliue or dead but we know by Scripture he was once Living and know not by any Scripture that he is dead Therfore for ought we know he is aliue and so your example returnes vpon yourself that seing you know by Scripture infallibility to haue bene once in the Church and that by no Scripture which with you must be the only proofe in this case you know that it ever departed from Her you must belieue that still she enjoyes it As for vs we challeng no Priviledges but such as were granted by our Saviour to his Church and which we proue by the same Arguments wherby the Apostles and their Successors proue their Authority as shall be shewed herafter and the Rule Ubi contrarium manifestè non probatur praesumitur pro libertate
Churches Governours Pastours and Parents as Judges of Controversyes in Faith and Religion and the only Meanes to propose to vs all Points necessary to be believed Certainly if we were obliged to heare and obey them in so eminent a degree as we are not we ought also to belieue them to be infallible even according to your owne Assertion repeated in divers places of your Book I wonder you and other Protestants will be still thrusting vpon vs this worne-out Objection without taking notice of the Answer which hath bene so often given and which shewes that your Objection tumes against yourself And as for our obligation to seeke the Church none can speake more home than Dr. Field one of the chiefest Protestant Divines of England in his Treatise of the Church in his Epistle Dedicatory to the Lor◠Archbishop teaching expressly that there remaineth nothing for men desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence but diligently to search out which among all the societyes in the world is that Church of the Living God which is the Pillar and Ground of Truth that so they may embrace her Communion follow her directions and rest in her judgment 85. Fiftly I know not whether you speake more vntruly or perniciously or giue me leaue to speake truth more ridiculously when Pag 105. N. 139. you say to Charity Maintayned You must know there is a wide difference between being infallible in Fundamentalls and being an infallible Guide even in Fundamentalls Dr. Potter sayes That the Church is the former that is There shall be some men in the world while the world lasts which erre not in Fundamentals for otherwise there should be no Church For to say the Church while it is the Church may erre in Fundamentalls implies contradiction and is all one as to say The Church while it is the Church may not be the Church So that to say that the Church is infallible in Fundamentalls signifyes no more but this There shall be a Church in the world for ever Thus you And thus the sons of men and children of darkness take pleasure to seeme witty by jeasting sacrilegiously in things belonging to God The Church cannot erre in Fundamentall Ponts because if she erre in such Points she is no more a Church Why say you not thus All men are infallibly true because if they erre they cease to be true in that wherin they erre Mr. Chillingworth is immortall and cannot dy because if he dy he is no more Mr. Chillingworth and happy had it bene for him and others seduced by his sophistry si non fuisset natus homo ille Thus also you may say That God when he threatned and decreed that Adam should be mortall and dye if he transgressed his command at the same tyme even after his transgression he was immortall and could not dye because if he died he should no more be Adam To be immortall in common sence signifyes a certainty not to dye and not ridiculously that if he dy he doth exist no more and so not to exist implyes the direct contrary of being immortall and supposes one to be mortall and therfore to say The Church is infallible because if she erre she is no more a Church comes to this that she is fallible which is directly contrary to infallible For as we sayd of immortality so in proportion infallibility must signify an assurance not to erre and the Church to be infallible in Fundamentall Points must signify that she cannot erre in them and so not loose her being by such errour which is plainly opposite to your saying that she may erre and therby cease to be You erre therfore in not distinguishing between Actum primum and secundum or Potentiam and Actum as Philosophers speake To say a Church is infallible or cannot erre or be destroyed signifyes some antecedent either extrinsecall or intrinsecall Principle or Power preserving Her in such manner as that such a Principle cannot actually consist with errour And therfor you speake not like a Philosopher in saying The Church is infallible in Fundamentalls that is There shall be some men in the world while the world lasts which erre not in Fundamentalls passing ab actuad potentiam and proving that men are infallible because de facto they erre not wheras men may chance not to erre and yet not be infallible You haue heard Whitaker saying We beleeue to the comfort of our soules that Christs Church hath continued and never shall faile so long as the world indureth and we account it a prophane Heresy to teach otherwise What comfort I pray can it be to soules that the Church may erre in Fundamentall Points yet so as she remaynes no more a Church which Whitaker accounts a prophane Heresy Every one conceaves infallibility to be a favour and Priviledge You tell vs the plaine contrary That infallibility in the Church for the most principall and necessary Points of Faith doth not signify that she may not erre in them but that if she erre she must inevitably perish or dye by such a damnable errour and become as it were the Divells martyr by dying for so bad a cause Which surely is no favour or Priviledge especially if we call to mynd an other Doctrine of yours that Errours not Fundamentall are compatible with the Being of a Church which is a greater favour than to be destroyed And therfore how can infallibility in Fundamentall Points in your way of explication that if she erre in such Points she ceaseth to be a Church be a Priviledg or Favour seing no body will say that fallibility and errour in Points not Fundamentall which yet destroy not the Church are favours Other men conceaue that these Propositions are convertible Whosoever is infallible cannot erre and whosoever cannot erre is infallible But you contrary to all other mens Logick say the Church is infallible because she may erre damnably and desperatly and therby loose her Being 86. When Protestants teach That the Church cannot perish but is infallible in Fundamentall Points they make a difference between Points Fundamentall and not Fundamentall and teach That she may faile and de facto hath fayled in these but cannot faile in those But you in opposition to all others maintayne That the Church may erre both in Fundamentall and not Fundamentall Articles from whence every one would inferr that she is absolutly fallible in both and infallible in neither or if infallible in either in both And yet you haue found a devise that though she erre in both those kinds of Articles she is infallible in one of them only that is in Fundamentall Points And fallible in Points not Fundamentall A rare piece of Philosophy To erre damnably and Fundamentally and yet be infallible Yea which is most admirable to be infallible because she erres most deeply and be fallible because she erres in matters of lesser moment Beside other Protestants put a difference between the vniversall Church is infallible ād cannot erre in
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
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
her communion and by Ecclesiasticall censures oblige them to doe that which otherwise they are by divine Law most strictly obliged to performe And further if the separation be causeless the separatists from the externall communion of the Church do jointly leaue the Church either by professing a different Faith or denying obedience both to the Church and to God who commands vs not to forsake the communion of the Church faith and obedience being those requisites which say you constitute a man a member of a Church And so all is reduced to your Memorandum a causeless separation from the externall communion of any Church is the sin of Schisme Yourselfe say expressly Pag 267. N. 38. The cause in this matter of separation is all in all And why then would you entangle men with I know not what other vnnecessary and vntrue remembrances But necessity hath no Law You cannot giue any reason why you leaue vs aÌ„d yet why Protestants must not leaue one another since it is cleare that they in disagree Points at least not fundameÌ„tall and therfore you fly to other chifts besides the cause which yet you say is all in all though Pag 267. N. 40. you expressly say that the cause or the corruption of our Church is not the only or principall reason of your not communicating with vs. A pretty congruity the cause is all in all and yet is not the principall reason 21. Now to that pretended maine ground of yours It is not lawfull to professe known errours or practise known corruptions I say That either we may consider what is true in it selfe or what in good consequence followes from the principles of Protestants and in particular of Potter and Chillingworth or as the Logicians speake ad hominem which are two very differenr considerations and yet by the assistance of Gods holy grace I will shew that according to both of them Protestants are guilty of the sin of Schisme 22. For the first It is most true in itselfe that in no case it can ever be lawfull to dissemble Equivocate or Ly in matters of Faith and he shall be denyed in Heaven who in that manner denyes God on earth But as I began to say aboue from this very ground we proue that the Church cannot erre in such matters For seing all Fathers Antiquity and Divines haue hitherto proclaimed with a most vnanimous consent that to forsake the externall communion of Gods Visible Church is the sin of Schisme it followes that there can be no cause sufficient for such a division and consequently that she cannot fall into such errours or corruptions as may force any to leaue her Communion And therfore as we proue a priori that the Church cannot fall into errour because she is infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost So as it were a posteriori or ab absurdo we must inferr that she is infallible and not subject to errour because otherwise we might forsake her Communion and men could haue no certainty who be Heretikes or Schismatikes but all would be obliged to leaue all Churches seing none are free from errour and so remaining members of no Church on earth could hope for no salvation in Heaven 23. For this cause in the definition of Schisme our Forfathers never put your limiting particle causless well knowing and taking it as a principle in Christianity that there could be no cause to forsake the Communion of Gods Church as in proportion if one should say it is not lawfull to divide ones selfe from Christ without cause he should insinuate that there might be some cause in some case to do so and yet Potter Pag 75. affirmes That there neither was nor can be any just cause to depart from the Church of Christ no more than from Christ himselfe Durum telum necessitas It could not be denyed that Luther departed from all Churches and so there was no possible way to avoyde the note of open Schisme but by inventing a new definition of that crime and supposing the possibility of a thing impossible that there may be just cause of separating from the Communion of the Church But while they labour to avoide Schisme they broach a most pernicious Heresy that indeed there may be any such just cause verifying what S. Hierome sayth vpon those words of the Apostle which a good conscience some casting off haue suffered shipwracke Though schisme in the beginning may in some sort be vnderstood different from Heresy yet there is no Schisme which doth not faine some Heresy to itselfe that so it may seeme to haue departed from the Church vpon good reason That is that their divsion may not seeme to be a causless separation as you speake in your new definition But I pray you heare S. Austine Lib 2. Cont Petil Chap 16. saying I object to thee the sin of Schisme which thou wilt deny but I will straight proue For thou dost not communicate with all Nations To which if you add what he hath Epist 48. It is not possible that any may haue just cause to separate their communion from the communion of the whole world and call themselves the Church of Christ as if they had separated themselves from the communion of all Nations vpon just cause and Lib 2. Cont Parm Cap 11. There is no just necessity to divide vnity And Lib 3. Cap 4. The world doth securely judge that they are not good who separate themselves from the world in what part of land soever If I say you consider these sayings of S Austine the conclusion must be that Luther who divided himselfe from the communion of the whole world and all Nations was a Schismatike seing it is not possible that any may haue just cause to do so as S. Austine affirmes Obserue also what this same glorious Doctour sayth Lib de Vnit Eccl Cap 4. Whosoever belieue that Iesus Christ came in flesh in which he suffered was borne c yet so differ from his Body which is the Church as their communion is not with the whole whersoever it is spread but is found separate in some part it is manifest that they are not in the Catholike Church Was Luthers communion with the whole which was not with any one place or person Dr. Lawd Pag 139. sayth plainly The whole Church cannot vnâ—versally erre in absolute Fundamentall Doctrines And therfore t' is true that there can be no just cause to make a Schisme from the whole Church Which must be vnderstood that absolutely there can be no cause at all For it were ridiculous to say There can be no just cause to make a causeless Schisme or division seing if there be cause it is not causeless And it is to be observed that the Reason he gives why there can be no just cause to make a Schisme from the whole Church is because she cannot erre in absolute Fundamentall doctrines which supposes both that she may erre in Points not Fundamentall and that errours in such points cannot
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
any other worldly hope I betray my selfe to any errour contrary to any Divine revealed truth that errour may be justly stiled a sin and consequently of it self to such a one damnable And if he dy without Contrition this errour in it selfe damnable will be likewise so vnto him I haue set downe your words at large that Protestants may learne by them how to examine their conscience about what care they vse to find the true Church ād Religion which imports them no less then the eternall salvation or Damnation of their soules And that every one may clearly see that you do not only grant more than once the errours of Protestants to be in themselves damnable but also a reason for it namely because all errours in Faith are contrary to some Divine Revelation which reason is common to Protestants to the Church of England and to all who erre in matters of Faith And then with what sincerity could you affirme that whosoever holds the doctrine of the Church of England and lives according to it vndoubtedly he shall be saved Can one who is in an errour damnable of itselfe be vndoubtedly saved without repentance Haue we not heard you say To him who dyed without contrition the errour in itselfe damnable will be likewise so vnto him Do you not say Pag 138. N. 23. For ought I know all Protestants and all that haue sense must grant that all errours are alike damnable if the manner of propounding the contrary Truths be not different Therfore you must grant that as errours against Fundamentall Truths sufficiently propounded are damnable so also errours against not Fundamentall Truths are damnable if both be equally proposed How then are the Errours of all Protestants and of the Church of England in particular not damnable 51. Thus we haue sufficiently confuted your first Memorandum and shewed that the separation of Protestants was causeless both in reality and ad hominem or according to the principles and professions of Protestants themselves In reality because there can never be just reason to separate from the Church of God which therfore must be infallible and free from all corruptions and errours Ad hominem because according to the principles of Protestants errours not Fundamentall being not destructiue of salvation cannot yield sufficient cause of separation nor free any from yielding obedience even in the supposed vnfundamentall errours as they confess ours to be and if somtyme Protestants say the contrary at other tymes they contradict themselves which serves only for their greater condemnation in leaving the communion of all Christian Churches vpon vncertaintyes in which themselves do waver somtyme affirming somtyme denying And vpon this very ground of vncertainty I go forward to proue more and more that their separation was causlesse 52. For Pag 308. N. 108. you do not disallow the saying of Cha Ma Part 1. Pag 207. In cases of vncertainty we are not to leave our Superiour nor cast of his obedience nor publikly oppose his decrees And Hooker cited by you in your Pag 310. 311. N. 110. teaches two things to our present purpose The one That an Argument necessary and demonstratiue is such as being proposed to any man and vnderstood the mynd cannot chuse but inwardly assent The other that in case of probability only or vncertainty Lawes established are to be obeyed and men are bound not to obserue those Lawes which they are perswaded to be against the law of God but for the tyme to suspend their perswasions to the contrary and that in otherwise doing they offend against God by troubling the Church This ground being layd I subsume besides what hath now been sayd of the variousness ād vncertainty of Protestants about Points not Fundamentall Protestants cannot possibly haue evidence or certainty against Catholiks therfore they offended against God by dividing theselves from vs and troubling the peace of all Churches The subsumption or Minor I proue diverse wayes abstaining from examination of particular Controversyes and 53. First in this manner An Argument necessary and Demonstratiue is such as being proposed to any man and vnderstood the mynd cannot chuse but inwardly assent saith Hooker If therfore the arguments of Protestants against vs were necessary and demonstratiue learned Catholiks could not chuse but inwardly assent and vnless they were extreme wicked dissemblers against their conscience would also publikly professe And yet we see that all Catholiks in all Ages and places learned holy wise and such as God vsed for instruments in working many great and evident Miracles and in converting nations to the Faith of Christ all these I say did and do and ever will dissent from the Arguments and conclusions of Protestants therfore it is cleare that their reasons against vs are not necessary nor demonstratiue and so according to Hooker the Lawes established were to be obeyed and Protestants were bound to suspend their perswasions to the contrary Truly this is an Argument which must convince any man of a mynd not perverse and resolved to persever in his errour 54. Secondly I prove that they cannot produce against vs any necessary or demonstratiue Argument in regard of the Antiquity of our doctrine confessed even by our Adversaryes as may be seene in Brierley P. 129. seqq Edition Ann. 1608. now how could these doctrines haue passed the search and examine of so many learned men and watchfull Prelats for the space of so many ages if any necessary or demonstratiue argument to which men cannot but assent could haue been produced against them 55. Thirdly Learned Protestants confess that the Fathers hold with vs against them in many and chiefest Points of Doctrine controverted in these dayes as we haue seene hertofore which could not happen if the Arguments of Protestants against the Fathers and vs were necessary and demonstratiue 56. Fourthly In all our chiefest differences diverse most learned Protestants agree with vs against their pretended Brethren as we haue also demonstrated hertofore Now these men being learned could not but see and assent to necessary and demonstratiue Arguments if any could haue been alledged against vs and being Adversaryes would not haue fayld to make vse of them nor would they haue ever left their Brethren and joyned with vs if evidence of truth and reason had not forced them therto or if they could haue espyed any even probability in the grounds and Doctrines of their Brethren wherby it appeares that the tenets of Protestants are so farr from being evident or their Arguments necessary and demonstrative that they are not so much as probable Who I pray will belieue that you could haue any necessary demonstratiue Arguments for your so many changes of Religion and for your ending in Socinianisme which you never durst openly profess and yet men are not wont to be ashamed of truths proved by necessary and demonstratiue Reasons One demonstration or evidence cannot be contrary to another and yet no doubt but you pretended evidence for all your alterations to contrary
of Luther Cardinall Caietan being sent to Germany for that very purpose a safe conduct being assured to them And for Communion in Sacraments Liturgy and Obedience to Prelats they did separate from them as well as from profession of the same Faith one of their Errours being that our worship of God being corrupted they could not communicate with vs in Liturgy publike prayers c. Therfore they first did separate themselves Fugitivi non fugati the contrary wherof they are wont to affirme And not only they ceased to communicate with vs nor were content to hold their peace bearing with patience the corruptions of the tymes as they falsely styled them but also drew men to conventicles of their owne pretended to erect new Churches and set vp aultar against aultar and the like and this against the commands of Bishops and Princes both Ecclesiasticall and Temporall You profess hightly to esteeme Hugo Grotius If in this you beleeue not me beleeve him in voto pro pace Ecclesiastica Pa 5. Intelligebam saith he ex seniorum relatu ex perscriptis Historiis extitisse postea homines qui illā in qua majores nostri fuerant Ecclesiam deserendā omnino dicerent neque tantum ipsi desererent nonnulli etiam priusquam excommunicati essent sed novos caetus facerent quos vocabant ipsi Ecclesias nova ibi facerent presbyteria docerent Sacramenta administrarent idque multis in locis contra edicta Regum Episcoporum dicerentque vt haec defenderent planè quasi de caelo mandatum haberent quale Apostoli habuerant obediendum Deo magis esse quà m hominibus Which refractary proceeding how much he disliked is declared by him Pag 31. Novum caetum vt nunc loqui mos est Ecclefiam colligere mihi etiamsi liceret non liberet video quà m malè id aliis cesserit Multiplicarunt numerum non laetitiam If you ponder the words of Grotius you cannot chuse but see how perfectly they agree to Luther and his followers and clearely confute this your Memorandum And indeed whosoever considers this Point will find it to be no better then non-sense and a contradiction to alledg this cause for justifying your separation since before any Excommunication men leaue the Church by professing a contrary Faith and in vertue of that new Faith forsake Her Communion and yet say that they leaue it because we require as a condition of our Communion that they leaue not that which necessarily and as I may say essentially and antecedently they of themselves do leaue whether we require it or no and therfore our requiring it cannot be the cause of that Effect which is preexistent before that which you say is the cause therof and would be the same whether we required it or no and we may say that Heretiks are the first as it were to excommunicate and divide themselves before the Church can excommunicate them Therfore this allegation of imposing vnder payne of Excommunication a necessity c is plainly impertinent and all must be reduced to the cause it selfe whether our doctrines be sufficiently and clearly convinced to be Errours and then whether such Errours being not Fundamentall can be sufficient to cause a separation And so I retort this ground and say that since you confess our Errours alone not to be a sufficient cause to excuse your separation from vs and for this reason you say Protestants are not obliged to separate themselves from one another you must also acknowledg that indeed they had no sufficient cause to divide themselves from all Churches 63. Secondly Yourselfe contradict this Memorandum For Pag 276. N. 59. You say Though your corruptions in doctrine in themselves which yet is false did not yet your obliging vs to profess your doctrine vncorrupted against knowledg and Conscience may induce an obligation to depart from your Communion Now if our corruptions in themselves induce an obligation to depart from our Communion this obligation is induced before the imposing vpon men vnder paine of Excommunication a necessity of professing knowne Errours and why then do you say that imposing vpon men vnder payne of Excommunication a necessity of professing knowne Errours is the cause which Protestants alledg to justify their separation Since there is another cause precedent to that and such a cause as without it this other of imposing vpon men c cannot subsist For if our Errours in themselves do not impose vpon you an obligation to forsake vs it is a signe that they are not damnable in themselves nor necessarily to be avoided and consequently you may and ought to remaine with vs notwithstanding such Errours and if you ought to do so the Church may justly command it vnder payne of Excommunication as a punishment of precedent obstinacy and a medicine to prevent it for tyme to come and so yourselfe overthrow this memorandum wherby you would excuse your division from the Church Yet on the other side if our pretended errours do in themselves induce an obligation to forsake our Church different Sects of Protestants must for the same reason forsake one another because you deny not their Errours to be in themselves damnable and therfore you put a difference between them and vs only because they exact not of others a profession of their errours and we do and so you reduce all to this exacting or not exacting a profession of known errours and not to the errours in themselves and yet we haue heard you say that our Errours in diverse of which chiefe learned Protestants agree with vs against their Brethren in themselves induce an obligation vpon you to forsake vs. What is here but contradicting saying and vnsaying the same thing Which shewes that with you nothing is certaine except that you are certaine of nothing And consequently could haue no necessary and certaine reason to forsake all Churches 64. Thirdly To bring you out of the cloudes and to vnderstand things as they are The separation we meane when there is speech of division by Schisme and Heresy is not that separation which is caused by the Ecclesiasticall censure of Excommunication which deprives men of the publike suffrages of Gods Church of vse of Sacraments and conversation with faithfull people and may consist with the Grace of God and Charity not only when it is vnjust but also when the party censured repents himselfe by perfect contrition of the sin for which the Censure was imposed though he be not actually absolved from it in regard of some cause or invincible impediment which is not in his power to alter or remooue but hartily desires to be absolved and so is vnited to the Church in voto And this Censure of Excommunication is wont to be inflicted not only for Schisme or Heresy but for other offences also against God or our neighbour But Luther and his fellowes voluntarily put themselves vpon another kind of separation to wit from the profession of the same Faith and
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
and salvation Neither can they be accused of any least imprudence in erring if it were possible with the vniversall Church 2. Since she is vnder paine of eternall damnation to be believed in some things wherin consessedly she is indued with infallibility I cannot in wisdome suspect her credit in matters of less moment 3. Since we are obliged not to forsake the Church in Fundamentall Points and that there is no Rule to know precisely what and how many those Fundamentall Points be I cannot without hazard of my soule leaue her in any one Point least perhaps that Proue to be Fundamentall and necessary to salvation 4. That Visible Church even that Church which confessedly cannot erre in Points Fundamentall doth without distinction propound all her desinitions concerning matters of Faith to be believed vnder Anathemas or Curses holding it as a Point necessary to salvation that we belieue she cannot erre wherin if she speake true then to deny any one Point in particular which she defineth or to affirme in generall that she may erre puts a man in state of damnation wheras to belieue her in sch Points as are not necessary to salvation cannot endanger our salvation as likwise to remayne in her communion can bring no great harme because she cannot maintayne any damnable errour or practise but to be divided from her she being Christs Catholique Church is most certainly damnable 5. The true Church being in lawfull and certaine possession of Superiority and Power to command and require obedience from all Christians in some things I cannot without grievous sin withdraw my obedience in any one vnless I know evidently that the thing commanded comes not within the compasse of those things to which her Power extendeth And who can better informe me how far Gods Church can proceed then Gods Church herselfe Or to what Doctour can the children and Schollers with greater reason and security fly for direction than to the Mother and appointed Teacher of all Christians In following her I shall sooner be excused than in cleaving to any particular Sect or Person or applying Scriptures against Her Doctrine or interpretation 6. The fearfull examples of innumerable Persons who forsaking the Church vpon pretence of her errours haue fayled even in Fundamentall Points and suffered shipwrack of their salvation ought to deterr all Christians from opposing her in any Doctrine or practise As to omit other both ancient and moderne heresyes we see that divers chiefe Protestants pretending to reforme the corruptions of the Church are come to affirme that for many Ages shee erred to death and wholy perished which Dr. Potter cannot deny to be a Fundamentall errour against that Article of our Creed I belieue the Catholike Church as he affirmeth it of the Donatists because they confined the vniversall Church within Africa or some other small tract of soile Least therfore I may fall into some Fundamentall errour it is most safe for me to believe all the decrees of the Church which cannot erre Fundamentally especially if we add that according to the Doctrine of Catholique Divines One errour in Faith whether it be for the matter itselfe great or small destroyes Faith and consequently to accuse the Church of any one errour is to affirme that she lost all Faith and erred damnably which very saying is damnable because it leaves Christ no Visible Church on earth 125. These are the reasons of Charity Maintayned in the sayd N. 20. which I wish you had set downe as you found them that the Reader might haue judged how much they ought to weigh with every one who hath a serious care to saue his soule Sure I am they are growne stronger by your Objections as will appeare to any indifferent Reader 126. Your chiefest and as I may call it Fundamentall Answer is That I begg the Question in supposing that any Church of one denomination is infallible in Fundamentall Points and that Protestants when they say the Church is infallible in fundamentall Points vnderstand only That there shall be alwayes a Church to the very being wherof it is repugnant that it should erre in Fundamentalls But I haue shewed hertofore that you wrong even your pretended Brethren the Protestants in fastening on them so ridiculous an interpretation of the Churches infallibility in Fundamentall Points and therfore I must still insist vppon that ground in the sense which Protestants grant and which I haue proved to be true Which truth being supposed yourselfe are forced to favour vs so farr as to say Pag 163. N. 55. We never annexed this Priviledge of not erring in Fundamentalls to any one Church of any one Denomination as the Greeke or the Roman Church which if we had done and set vp some setled certaine Society of Christians distinguishable from all others by adhering to such a Bishop for our guide in Fundamentalls then indeed and then only might you with some colour though with no certainty haue concluded that we could not in wisdome forsake this Church in any Point for feare of forsaking it in a necessary Point And in the next N. 56. you say First we confesse no such thing thas the Church of Rome was then this Church vnerring in Fundamentalls when Luther arose but only a Part of it Secondly that if by adhering to the Church we could haue beene thus far secured this argumēt had some shew of Reason And P 150. N. 39. If the Church were an infallible director in Fundamentall thē must we not only learne Fundamētalls of her but also learne of her what is Fundamentall and take all for Fundamentall which she delivers to be such In the performance wherof if I knew any one Church to he Infallible I would quickly be of that Church Eternally be Gods Infinite Goodness blessed who hath made vs Catholikes members of that infallible Church But in the meane tyme you grant as much as will serue to overthrow all your owne Arguments in granting that if the Church be infallible in Fundamentall Points we haue all reason not to forsake Her And you giue that very Reason which is alledged by Charity Maintayned to wit for feare of forsaking it in a necessary point so that you make good both his Assertion and reason therof and further you are ready to seale your Doctrine with your practise by being quickly of that Church Heere I beseech you remember your owne words Pag 280. N. 95. May not a man of judgment continue in the Communion of a Church confessedly corrupted as well as in a Church supposed to be corrupted And then suppose such a Church should erre in Points not Fundamentall what would you doe The same reason of not erring in Fundamentalls for which you would quickly joyne yourselfe to her would also oblige you nor to forsake her and then you must find some Answer to all those Objections which you make against the Reasons of Charity Maintayned alledged by him to proue that if once I belieue the Church to be infallible in
vnderstanding to an assent in despite of any pious affection of the will and reverence due to Gods Church and Councells and the many and great reasons which make for Her which is vnanswerably confirmed by considering that Protestants disagree amongst themselves and many of them in many things agree with vs which I must often repeate which could not happen if the reasons against vs were demonstratiue or evident and in this occasion your Rule that the property of Charity is to judge the best will haue place at least for as much as concernes those your owne Brethren who agree with vs As also your other saying Pag 41. N. 13. That men honest and vpright hearts true lovers of God and truth may without any fault at all some goe one way some another which shewes that there can be no evidence against the Doctrine of the Church with which even so many Protestants agree but that Catholikes haue at least very probable and prudent reasons not to depart from the Church in any one point and that although we should falsely suppose Her to erre in points not fundamentall the errour could not be culpable nor sinfull but most prudent and laudable And in this our condition is far different and manifestly better than that of Protestants who disagreeing not only both from the Church but amongst themselves also must be certaine that they are in errour which for ought they know may be fundamentall seing they cannot tell what Points in particular are fundamentall wheras we adhering to the Church are sure not to erre against any necessary or fundamentall truth And yourselfe say Pag 376. N. 57. He that believes all necessary Truth if his life be answerable to his Faith how is it possible he should faile of salvation 168. And then further vpon this same ground is deduced another great difference with great advantage on our side that Protestants are obliged vnder paine of damnation to make choyse of the more certaine and secure part and must not be content with a meere probability if they can by any industry care study prayer fasting almes-deeds or any other meanes attaine to a greater degree of certainty For if indeed they erre in any one Article of Faith necessary necessitate medij they cannot be saved even though their errour were supposed to be invincible as hertofore we haue shewed out of Protestants Wheras we being assured that adhering to the Church we cannot erre in any point of it selfe necessary to salvation for the rest we are sure to be saved if we proceed prudently and probably because the truth contrary to our supposed errours cannot be necessary necessitate medij as not being fundamentall Yea since indeed Protestants can haue no other true and solid meanes of assurance that they erre not Fundamentally except the same which we embrace of believing the Church in all her definitions they are obliged vnder deadly sin to belieue all that she proposes for feare of erring in some Fundamentall Article What I haue sayd that we proceede prudently though our Doctrines were supposed to be errours may be confirmed by an Adversary Dr. Jer Taylor who in his Liberty of prophesying § 20. N. 2. saieth that our grounds that truth is more ancient then falshood that God would not for so many Ages forsake his Church and leaue her in errour that whatsoever is new is not only suspitions but false are suppositions pious and plausible enough And then having reckoned many advantages of our Church he concludes These things and divers others may very easily perswade persons of much reason and more piety to retain that which they know to haue been the Religion of their fore-Fathers which had actuall possession and seizure of mens vnderstandings before the opposite professions had a name before Luther appeared And in express tearmes he confesses that these things are instruments of our excuse by making our errours to be invinc1ible which is the thing I would proue But here I must declare that when I say It is sufficient for vs to proceed probably and prudently It is still vpon a false supposition that the Church may erre in some Point not Fundamentall though in reall truth there be no such distinction For we are obliged vnder payne of damnation to belieue the Church equally in all points and vse all not only probable but possible meanes to find the true Church and belieue her with absolute certainty in all matters belonging to Faith and in particular That she cannot erre in any point Fundamentall or not Fundamentall without the beliefe of which truth Christian Faith cannot be certaine and infallible as hath been shewed at large 169. Thirdly I answer to your Objection That we absolutely deny the Catholique Church to be subject to errour either in Fundamentall or not Fundamentall Points or that she can erre either Fundamentally or damnably in what sense soever And therfore wheras you say Pag 280. N. 95. The errours of Protestants are not so great as ours we vtterly deny that our Church can belieue or propose any errour at all And though those Catholique Verityes which we belieue were errours yet they could not be greater than those of Protestants speaking in generall seing in all the chiefest controverted points we haue diverse chiefe learned men on our side who think themselves as good Protestants as those other from whom they disagree Besides in our Question respect must be had to the kind and not to the degree of errours that is nor whether the points be FundameÌ„tall or not FundameÌ„tall nor whether they which be Fundamentall be greater or less in their owne nature nor whether one not Fundamentall be worse than another not Fundamentall because if one errour not Fundamentall yield not sufficient cause to forsake the Communion of the Church another cannot otherwise you will not be able to assigne any Rule when the Church may be forsaken and when she cannor and it is damnable to professe against ones conscience any errour in Faith be it never so small which is the ground for which you say the Communion of the Church may be forsaken And lastly it is more wisdome to hold a greater vnfundamentall errour with the Church which I know by the confession of our Adversaryes cannot erre fundamentally than by holding a less vnfundamentall errour expose my selfe to danger of falling into fundamentall errours as I proved hertofore As it is less evill to commit a veniall sinne that is which abstracting from the case of perplexity would be certainly a veniall sinne than to expose ones selfe to true danger of falling into a mortall offence of God 170. Fourthly I answer that as I haue often noted according to you and Dr. Potter it is Fundamentall to the Faith of a Christian not to deny any point though otherwise of its nature not Fundamentall being proposed and belieued to be revealed by God and so your distinction between Fundamentall and damnable Points as if the eâ—â—ours of Catholiks and Protestants were damnable
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
forsaking the Faith and communion of the vniversall Church or of all Churches extant when Luther appeared and therfore that Protestancy vnrepented destroyes salvation 169. Having then proved that Christian Faith is absolutely Infallible that therfore some Infallible judge or Rule of Faith is necessary that this cannot be Scripture alone that all though Scripture did containe all points of Faith necessary to salvation yet it could neither be a sufficient Rule nor any Rule at all of Faith if the errours which Mr. Chilling worth holds concerning it were true that the Infallible Judge of controversyes in Faith must be the alwayes visible Church of God that to oppose her doctrine and forsake Her communion is Heresy and Schisme that Protestants cannot be saved without Repentance These things I say being proved and every one of them having such connexion that from the first to the laast one is deduced from another by evident consequences We must now see whether Mr. Chilling worth though he hath not been able to defend Protestants from the sins of schisme ād Heresy at least that he hath taught thē some remedy to obtaine pardon for those and all other deadly sins by proposing some true way to Repentance and our next Chapter shall shew that the Repentance which he would teach them is neither sufficient nor possible but plainly destructiue of itselfe A hard condition of Protestants to be forced for their defense to chuse an Advocate who neither can excuse them from sin nor prescribes any possible meanes for pardon therof CHAP VIII Mr. CHILLINGVV ORTHS ERROVRS CONCERNING REPENTANCE ARE EXAMINED AND CONFVTED 1. NO benefit is wont to be more welcome than that which we receiue from an enemy against his will in regard we enjoy the favour and yet are absolved from all obligation of rendring thankes or even acknowledging it You are forced to confesse Pag 34. N. 5. That the Doctrine and practise too of Repentance is yet remaining in our Church and by that confession you grant that safety to vs which we cannot yield to Protestants since without true Faith Repentance will proue but a meere illusion And in this Protestants are greatly obliged to our sincere declaration of so necessary a Truth that being in due tyme clearly warned of the danger they may seeke to put their soules in safety by embracing that Religion wherin both we and our Adversaryes grant a possibility of Salvation But now as I sayd hertofore that although it were granted that true Scripture alone is a perfect and totall Rule of Faith as we haue proved it not to be yet it could not be so much as any Rule at all if your pernicious errours concerning it were true so here I will proue That although the Doctrine and practice of Repentance were supposed to remaine amongst Protestants which we can never grant yet that Repentance which you hold sufficient and necessary is such as either in the way of Defect or too little or of Excesse and too much no man can hope for Salvation by meanes therof This we will proue by a particular examination of your severall errours of which the 2. First is delivered by you Pag 32. N. 4. in these words God hath no where declared himselfe but that whersoever he will accept of that Repentance which you are pleased to call contrition he will accept of that which you call Attrition For though he like best the bright flaming holocaust of Loue yet he rejects not he quenches not the smoaking flaxe of that repentance if it be true and effectuall which proceeds from hope and feare In confutation of which pernicious errour I need not spend paines or tyme since it seemes proper to yourselfe or perhaps some Associats of yours But what can be hoped from those who haue forsaken the direction of Gods Church but that they should crosse one another in their wayes and end in Extremes as I haue observed in severall occasions and appeares in this particular matter of which we treate Luther as may be seene in Bellarmin de Poenit Lib. 1. Cap. 6. taught that Attrition makes a man an hypocrite and a greater sinner So far was he from dreaming that it alone is a sufficient disposition to obtaine remission of sins Others in a contrary extreme hold that perfect sorrow or Contrition is not sufficient without Absolution as Kemnitius affirmes 2. part Exam p. 960. and even your opinion is That perfect Contrition will not serue without extirpation of all vicious habits which you say being a worke of difficulty requires tyme and so you are singular in a matter vpon which eternall salvation depends agreeing neither with Catholikes who teach that Attrition is not sufficient without Absolution and that Contrition alone in all tymes and moments is enough nor that contrition is sufficient without absolution as Kemnitius holds but you teach that no Repentance is sufficient without the extirpation of all vicious habits as we shall see herafter 3. For the thing itselfe I wonder what could bring you to such a Doctrine as this That an Act which you confess Pag. 32. N. 4. proceeds from Hope and Feare could alone be a sufficient disposition for justifying Grace and the Theologicall vertue of Charity and Loue of God As well might you say That an Act of Historicall Faith is a sufficient disposition for the vertue of Hope and Hope for Charity and so Faith would come to justify I say an Historicall Faith which no Protestant holds can justify But this is the worke of our common enemy to suggest Doctrines which can produce no other effect except damnation of soules For to what other purpose can this your invention serue God is always ready to giue sufficient Grace for an Act of Contrition when it is necessary as alwayes it is necessary for the Remission of deadly sinnes when Sacerdotall Absolution cannot be had and yet this your Doctrine if once it be accepted for true can haue no better effect than to make men rely vpon it and not apply themselves to an Act of contrition wherby they might be secure wheras if your Doctrine be false as most certainly it is whosoever contents himselfe with Attrition for remission of any deadly sin shall infallibly be damned even though we should suppose that the beliefe of this errour were inculpable because true Repentance is absolutely necessary to salvation necessitate medij wherin invincible ignorance doth not excuse in which case every one is obliged to embrace not only a probable but the most safe and secure part And therfore this your errour being against both Catholikes and Protestants every one is bound by the most strict obligation Charitatis propriae which obliges vs to take the safest meanes for the salvation of our owne soules in things absolutly necessary not to rely on your conceypt but to procure that which is safe either contrition or Attrition with Absolution and so your Doctrine can never be practiced without a deadly sin though it were supposed to
places And therfore Charity Maintayned had reason to say that in this particular he never touched the Point really seing he himselfe destroyes what himselfe might seeme once to haue builded 5. All that you haue N. 10. is answered by saying that it is damnable not to belieue any least Point which the Church proposes to be a Divine trurh that is as revealed by God till which tyme one may erre without Heresy Now to determine what Points in particular be so proposed were to run overall particular Articles of Faith Yet to your instances I answer briefly The Quarta decimani who held that Easter was to be kept according to the Rite of the Jewes were justly condemned of Heresy not precisely for the Circumstance of Tyme but for the ground of that Assertion that it was necessary to doe so which would haue brought with it a necessity of keeping all the Rites of the Jewes And therfore you say vntruly that God had not then declared himselfe about Easter But the keeping of Chrismass day ten dayes sooner or later goes vpon no such ground For I never heard that the Jewes kept our Saviours Nativity either according to the new or old Calendar As for believing that there are Antipodes if you can produce any Text of Scripture or definition of Gods Church I will hold it a matter of Faith Sure I am it is a matter of reason not to produce such impertinent examples as you doe The same I say of Predetermination that what the Church shall determine will become a matter of Faith The example of Millenaryes and necessity of Eucharist for Infants which last you vntruly Father vpon S. Augustine you are still obtruding vpon vs without proving what you say as also that S. Austine did not hold it as a matter of Faith that the Bishops of Rome had Right and Power to judge of all appeales from all parts of the world and it is manifestly false that the Church ever determined the Doctrine of the Millenaryes or that S. Austine did deny the Pope had Right to judge of all appeales though for the Practise therof there might be just cause not to vse it promiscuously in all occasions You say Justine Martyr denyes that some good Christians held the contrary to the Millenaryes But even learned Protestants and more skillfull in the Greeke toung than you are interpret S. Justine Martyr in a direct contrary sense as I shew hereafter And in fine our Question is only concerning matters defined by the Church and not what any particular Doctour might hold It seemes you hold it not to be a matter of Faith that Heretikes may giue true Baptisme but S. Austine held and Gods Church believes it to be such and by this example we proue that some Points are matter of Faith which are not evidently contained in Scripture 6. To your N. 13. I answer Charity Maintayned N. 6. said not that a perswasion that men of different Religions may be saved is Atheisme but a ground of Atheisme yea he sayd not this absolutely but thus there is not a more pernicious Heresy or rather marke this modification a ground of Atheisme than a perswasion that men of different Religions may be saved Where you see such a Doctrine is not absolutely called Atheisme but only that it may be rather called a ground of Atheisme than a pure or ordinary kind of Heresy And I pray is not a perswasion that men of different Religions may be saved without repentance a ground and disposition either to deny the Deity which is to be worshipped ōly by a true Religion or not to care much for God or Religion And who would dislike this saying of Charity Maintayned pronounced in generall except a Socinian or some such creature Yourselfe say N. 8. That to deny a thing sufficiently proposed to be revealed by God is to giue God the lye and to say that men may be saved who giue God the lye is it not a ground and disposition to end in Atheisme Potter saith Pag 212. Whatsoever is revealed in Scripture or propounded by the Church out of Scripture is in some sense fundamentall in regard of the Divine Authority of God and his word by which it is recommended that as such is may not be denyed or contradicted without infidelity Why do you not question the Doctor and aske how he can be an infidell who believes the true God Remember your owne saying that the naturall fecundity of errour is to beget Errour And so what will follow of freedom and indifferency for all beliefes of which one only can be true but a flitting from one Errour to another till they hold no Religion at all But the truth is you could not impugne Charity Maintayned but by changing or rather falsifying the Question which was whether men of different Religions may be saved without repentance and you say they may be saved by repentance wherby it may seeme you do not deny but it were a ground of Atheisme to assirme that men of different Religions may be saved without any repentance though they liue and dy in their errour 7. The rest of your Answer being only an Answer to such Demands as Charity Maintayned proposed which haue been handled at large in other places I will only briefly note First what you say Pag 18. N. 26. in these words why an implicite Faith in Christ and his word should not suffice as well as an implicite Faith in your Church I haue desired to be resolved by many of your side but never could hath been expressly answered Chap 2. where I haue shewed that Scripture alone neither extensiue containes all necessary Points of Faith nor as I may say intensiue seing euen those Articles which it containes for the true and certaine vnderstāding of them require the authority of the church to say nothing that we cannot haue an implicite Faith in the Scripture vnless it be resolved into our beliefe of the Church for whose authority we receaue Scripture it selfe Secondly That N. 19. you answer not directly to the Question of Charity Maintayned Part 1. P. 15. N. 12. What visible Church was there before Luther disagreeing with the pretended Church of Protestants But transferr it from a Church to particular men as if it were necessary for vs to shew that every man agreed with the Roman Church seing we know many particular men haue fallen into errours but we affirme that before Luther there was no visible true Orthodox Church which disagreed from the Roman and particularly in those Points wherin Protestants disagree from vs. Thirdly that Pag 23. N 27. as it should be you accuse vs of want of Charity even while you are in the act of giving the same ill measure to vs saying that for want of Charity to Protesiants we alwayes suspect the worst of them and what greater want of Charity can there be in you than not only to suspect but to pronounce and proclaime in print that we want Charity which is
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
knowledge of Scripture Do not these words speake of the first Principle among Christians who alone receiue Scripture and not of Principles in Metaphysicke Mathematicke c which were nothing to the purpose Or who ever dreamed that Scripture could be the most knowne in all sciences seing it is not knowne by any naturall science but depends on Divine Revelation Yea doth not Ch Ma expressly say That if Potter meane Scripture to be one of those Principles which being the first and most knowne in all sciences cannot be Demonstrated by other Principles He supposes that which is in question Which words declare That Scripture is none of those Principles which are most knowne either in all naturall sciences or in Christianity 16. Out of what hath beene sayd very often it is easy to answer and retort all that you haue in all your sections till the N. 62. For to vs who belieue the Church of God to be infallible diversity of Tranlations or corruptions can bring no harme seeing we are sure that the Church can neverapproue any false Translation or corruption nor ground vpon them any Point of Faith But for you who deny the infallibility of the Church and rely vpon Scripture alone false Translations or corruptions may import no less than the losse of your soules by being led into some damnable errour or left in ignorance of some Point necessary to salvation For to rely vpon Scripture alone and yet not to know with certainty what Scripture in particular is Canonicall and incorrupted is to take away all certainty from it and from the Faith of Protestants grounded on it alone The Church did exist before any Scripture was written and must last although we should imagine that all Scripture were lost as some say it happened to the Old Testament at least it lay hid Only I must note for answer to your N. 58. and 59. that Catholikes object to Protestants not only difference of Translations of which you speake N. 59. but that one of them most deeply condemnes the Translation of the other as Ch Ma Pag 52. N. 16. sets downe at large As for the vulgate Translation approved by the sacred Councell of Trent we are sure that it can containe no errour against Faith and for diverse Readings we are certaine that the Church can never approue any one that is false or settle any doctrine vppon it as I sayd even now But to treate at large of this Translation would require a Uolume and is not for this tyme for my or even your purpose In your N. 61 you pretend to make good or excuse Luther who in the Text where it is said Rom 3.28 We account a man to be justifyed by Faith translates justifyed by Faith Alone and in stead of proving you only ask What such great difference is there between Faith without the works of the Law and Faith alone without the works of the Law Or why does not without Alone signifie all one with Alone Without Answer there is as great difference between those two Propositions as betwene Truth and Falshood That a man is justifyed by Faith without the works of the Law is a truth believed both by Catholiques and Protestants for both of vs belieue that Faith concurres to justification But that other Proposition A man is justifyed by Faith alone without the works of the Law signifyes that we are not justifyed by the works of the Law but by Faith alone that is by nothing but by Faith which is false and excludes justification by Hope Charity and works of Christian piety and accordingly Luther being admonished of this shamefull falsification answered poenitet me quod non addiderim illas duas voces omnibus omnium vz. sine omnibus operibus omnium legum Besides it is strang you will defend this falsification of Alone seing Pag 406. N. 32. you wish that those Chapters of S. Paul which intreat of justification by Faith without the works of the Law were never read in the Church but wheÌ„ the 13. Chap of the 1. Epist to the Corinth Concerning the absolute necessity of Charity should be to prevent misprision read togeather with theÌ„ But then good Sr. what danger of misprision must it needs be when people shall think S. Paul spoke of Faith Alone as Luther makes him speak To this may be added what you haue Pag 218. N. 49. of the danger of justification by Faith alone Neither I nor others with whom I haue confered can make any sense of your other workes Or why does not Without c. The translation of Zuinglius This signifyes my Body in stead of This is my Body is rejected by Protestants themselves where of see Brereley Tract 2. Cap 3. Sect. 9. Subd 3. 17. In your N 62. till the 80 inclusiue you vainly triumph as if you did invincibly proue that according to our Groundes mens salvation depends vpon vncertaintyes All which I haue answered at large hertofore 18. Concerning your N. 83 I desire the Reader to consider what Charity Maintayned recites out of Dr Couell about our vulgate Tanslation of Scripture and he will find that your Answer to that particular is but a vaine speculation and that he supposes the Translation which is called the Bishops Bible and is approved in England to be the best as coming neerest to the vulgate which had been no proofe at all vnless he had also supposed the Vulgate to be the best all things considered and so made it a Rule to Judge of the goodness and quality of that English Translation 19. To your N. 86. I answer that if Dr Field when he saith in his Treatise of the Church in his Epistle Dedicatory to the L. Archbishop Seeing the Controversyes of Religion in our tymes are growne in number so many and in nature so intricate that few haue tyme and leasure fewer strength of vnderstanding to examine them what remayneth for men desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence but diligently to search out which among all the societyes in the world is that blessed Company of holy Ones that how should of Faith that Spouse of Christ and Church of the living God which is the Pillar and Ground of Truth that so they may imbraâ—e her Communion follow her directions and rest in her judgment If I say Dr. Field did not thinke of any company of Christians invested with such Authority from God that all men were bound to receiue their decrees as you say he did not I can only say that when he spoke of searching out that Blessed Company of holy Ones c he spoke of a Chimera or of a thing impossible and yet he saith that there remaineth for men desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence only this that they search out which among all the societyes in the world is that Blessed Company of holy Ones c which had bene nothing els but to bring men to desperation by prescribing one only meanes for salvation and that an
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
were not the Apostles an aggregation of men of which every one had freewill and was subject to passions and errour if they had beene left to themselves And therfore by your Divinity it was in their power to deviate from the infallibility which the Holy Ghost did offer to them I wonder you durst publish such Groundes of Atheisme But is the Church indeed nothing else but an aggregation of men subject to paâ—sions and errour Hath she not a promise of divine assistance even according to Protestants against all Fundamentall errours which surely is more than to be nothing else than an aggregation of men subject to passions and errours even Fundamentall And as for freewill I aske whether that be taken away by the Churches infallibility in Fundamentall Points or no. If not then freewill may well consist with infallibility If it be taken away then what absurdity is it to say that it is takeÌ„ away by infallibility in Points not FudameÌ„tall In aword whatsoever you answer about infallibility and freewill in the Apostles for all Points and in the Church for Fundamentall articles the same will serue to confute your owne Objection and shew that you contradict your owne doctrine and the Doctrine of Protestants yea of all Christians who belieue the Apostles to be infallible But of this I haue spoken hertofore more than once and will now passe to the examination of your answer to the argument of Charity Maintayned that by Potters manner of interpreting those texts of Scripture which speake of the stability and infallibility of the Church and limiting it to Points Fundamentall he may affirme that the Apostles and other Writers of Canonicall Scripture were endued with infallibility only in setting downe Points Fundamentall For if it be vrged that all Scripture is divinely inspired Potter hath affoarded you a ready answer that Scripture is inspired only in those parts or parcells wherin it delivereth Fundamentall Points Of these words of Charity Maintayned you take no notice but only say that the Scripture saith All Scripture is divinely inspired Shew but as much for the Church shew where it is written that all the decrees of the Church are divinely inspired and the Controversy will be at an end But all this is not to the purpose to shew by what Law Rule Priviledge or evident Text of Scripture you take vpon you to restraine generall Promises made for the Church to Points Fundamentall and not limite those words All Scripture is divinely inspired to the same Fundamentall Points For this you neither doe nor are able to answer but dissemble that Charity Maintayned did expressly prevent your alledging this very Text All Scripture is divinely inspired Nay beside this you do not shew by what authority you do not only restraine the Praedicatum divinitus inspirata but also the subjectum togeather with the signe all All Scripture which not only may but in your doctrine must be limited in a strange manner seing you teach that some Part of Scripture is infallible neither in Fundamentall nor vnfundamentall Points For here N. 32. you endeavour to proue that S. Paul hath delivered some things as the dictates of humane Reason and prudence and not as Divine Revelation And so it will not be vniversally true for any kind of Points that All Scripture is divinely inspired How then will you proue by these words that Scripture is infallible in all Points if yourselfe limite the Subjectum of that Proposition which is Scripture to certaine Parts of Scripture and that indeed the Praedicatum divinely inspired may be limited to Fundamentall Points vpon as good ground as you limite the generall promises ef God and words of Scripture which concerne the infallibility of the Church 39. But N. 33. you will proue that Dr. Potter limits not the Apostles infallibility to truths absolutely necessary to salvation because he ascribes to the Apostles the Spirits guidance and consequently infallibility in a more high and absolute manner than to any since them and to proue this sequele you offer vs a needlesse Syllogisme But I haue shewd that the Apostles may haue infallibility in a more high absolute and independent manner than the Church although the Churches infallibility reach to Points not Fundamentall as Protestants will not deny that the Apostles had infallibility in Fundamentall Points in a more high manner than the Church hath though yet she be absolutely Infallible in all Fundamentall articles Yea if you will haue the Doctour speake properly to say the Apostles had the guidance of the Spirit in a more high manner than the Church must suppose that the Church hath that guidance and consequently as you inferr infallibility though not in so high a manner as the Apostles I intreate the Reader to peruse Charity Maintayned N. 13. and judge whether he speakes not with all reason and proves what he saith in this behalfe and if Potter declare himselfe otherwise and teach notwithstanding his owne confession that what was promised to the Apostles is verifyed also in the vniversall Church that the Church may erre in Points not Fundamentall I can only favour him and you so far as to tell you he contradicts himselfe 40. Whatsoever you say to the contrary Charity Maintayned N. 13. spoke truth in affirming that Potter Speakes very dangerously towards this purpose of limitting the Apostles infallibility to Fundamentall Points For though the Doctor name the Church when he saieth Pag 152. that there are many millions of truths in Nature and History whereof the Church is ignorant and that many truths lie vnrevealed in the infinite treasurie of Gods wisdome where with the Church is not acquainted yet his reasons either proue nothing or els must comprise the Apostles no less than the Church as Charity Maintayned expressly observes Pag 93. though I grant that some of the Doctors words agree only to the Church which is nothing against Charity Maintayned that other of Potters words and reasons agree also to the Apostles and therefore I assure you he had no designe in the c at which you carp But let the Doctour say and meane what he best pleases sure I am that neither he nor you will ever be able to proue by any evident Text of Scripture that the foresayd or other generall promises of infallibility extend to all sorts of Points for the Apostles and to Fundamentall Articles only for the Church And this is the maine businesse in hand Though in the meane tyme I must not omit to say that your Syllogisme is very captious and deceitfull which is He that grants the Church infallible in Fundamentalls and ascribes to the Apostles the infallible guidance of the Spirit in a more high and absolute manner than to any since them limits not the Apostles infallibility to Fundamentalls But Dr Potter grants to the Church such a limited infallibility and ascribes to the Apostles the Spirits infallible guidance in a more high and absolute manner Therfore he limits not the Apostles
infallibility to Fundamentalls I say the Major of this Syllogisme on which all depends is deceitfull For though he that grants the Church infallible in Fundamentalls and ascribes to the Apostles the infallible guidance of the Spirit in a more high and absolute manner than to any since them limits not the Apostles infallibility to Fundamentalls by only and precisely granting the Church infallible in Fundamentalls and ascribing to the Apostles the guidance of the Spirit in a more high manner yet he may doe it by some other way and in particular by the meanes of which now we speake that is by restraining the selfe same words of Scripture which without distinction speak of the Apostles and the Church to Fundamentall Points in respect of the Church and not in order to the Apostles and this voluntarily without proofe from any other evident Text of Scripture which yet in the Grounds of Protestants were necessary in this case As also by proving the fallibility of the Church by Arguments which must involue the Apostles no lesse than the Church as even now I haue proved Howsoever that you are not a faithfull interpreter of Dr Potter appeares by your saying He out of curtesy grants you that those words the Spirit shall lead you into all Truth and shall abide with you for ever though in their high and most absolute sense they agree only to the Apostles yet in a conditionall limited moderate secondary sense they may be vnderstood of the Church For where doth Dr Potter say that these words agree to the Church in a conditionall sense Which conditionall sense you interpret N. 34. to singify if the Church adhere to the direction of the Apostles and so far as she doth adhere to it which overthrowes the doctrine of Potter and other Protestants that the Church is absolutely infallible and cannot erre in Fundamentall Points in which yet she might erre if the promise of our Saviour were only conditionall and it would giue no more to the Church than to any private person who is sure not to erre not only in Fundamentall but even in vnfundamentall Points as far as he adheres to the direction of the Apostles And by this reflection the difficulty against Dr Potter and you growes to be greater how the same words of Scripture are vnderstood both of the Apostles and of the Church absolutely for Points Fundamentall and only conditionally for the Church in Points not Fundamentall And how will you be able to proue this various acception of the same words in order to the same Church and not only in respect of the Apostles and the Church by any other evident Text of Scripture You say to Cha Ma Do you not blush for shame at this Sophistry The Doctour sayes which yet I know he never intended no more was promised in this place therfore he sayes no more was promised Are there not other places besides this And may not that be promised in other places which is not promised in this 41. Answer If the Doctour spoke beyond or contrary to what he intended I cannot wonder since whosoever defends a bad cause is subject to write contradictions which yet men intend no to doe You say there may be other places besides this I answer It is neither in your nor in any mans power to alledg any place which may not be interpreted and restrayned as you limit this of which we speake Certainly the Doctour being to proue the absolute infallibility of the Apostles was much to blame for alledging ineffectuall Texts if He could haue found better Indeed I find in his Pag 152. these words That other promise of Christs being with his Matth 28.20 vnto the end of the world is properly meant as some Ancients truly giue the sense of his comfortable ayde and assistance supporting the weaknesse of his Apostles and their Successours in their Ministery or preaching of Christ But it may well be also applyed as it is by others (a) 5. Leo Scrm 10 de Nativ Cap 5. to the Church vniversall Which is ever in such manner assisted by the good Spirit that it never totally falls from Christ But as in the other Texts so in this the Question returnes to be asked by what evident place of Scripture can you or He proue that this Text speakes of an vniversall Assistance for the Apostles and only a limited direction for the Church seeing Potter grants that it may well be also applyed as it is by others to the Church vniversall You could say N. 30. Shew where it is written that all the Decrees of the Church are divinely inspired and the Controversy will be at an end And much more may we say to you Shew some evidenr Text of Scripture that the Apostles are infallible in all Points Fundamentall and not Fundamentall the Church only in Fundamentalls or that any Text of Scripture makes any such distinction I say much more may we say Shew c. Because the truth Authority and infallibility of the Church is proved independently of Scripture as the infallibility of the Apostles was proved before any Scripture of the New Testament was written But you who hold that we can belieue nothing as a matter of Faith vnlesse it be evidently set downe in Scripture are obliged either to proue the difference of infallibility in the Apostles and the Church by some evident Text of Scripture or els you cannot be assured of it as a thing revealed by God You see how hard you were pressed and therfore were forced to giue this noble answer That Dr. Potter out of courtesy grants vs that those words The spirit shall lead you into all truth and shall abide with you for ever in a conditionall limited moderate secondary sense may be vnderstood of the Church But I haue shewed that you misalledge the Doctour who sayes expressly that promise was directly and primarily made to the Apostles and is verifyed in the Church vniversall Now I aske whether or no it be true that this promise is verifyed in the Church If it be true that is if God hath revealed it to be so one would thinke it were no point of ceremony or courtesy but a matter of necessity to acknowledge so much It seemes you thinke the Doctour was of your disposition who Pag 69. N. 47. say to Charity Maintayned You might haue met with an answerer that would not haue suffered you to haue sayd so much Truth togeather but to me it is sufficient that it is nothing to the purpose But I goe on and say if it be not true nor revealed that those words are verifyed of the Church how durst Potter affirme that they were verifyed of Her Is it lawfull to add to the old and coyne new Revelations Doth not Potter say Pag 222. to add to it he speakes of the Creed is high presumption almost as great as to detract from it 42. You say The Apostles must be ledd into all such truths as was requisite to make them the
yourself who say heere N. 33. If we once suppose they the Apostles may haue erred in some things of this nature in things which they delivered constantly as certaine revealed Truths it will be vtterly vndiscernable what they haue erred in and what they haue not Now if God hath promised to giue his Apostles infallibility only in things necessary to salvation which heere you expressly suppose it is cleare we cannot be certaine of the truth of their writings in any one thing Which supposed that we cannot be certaine that their writings are true how can you say that God both by his word and by his works hath assured vs that he aid assist them farther Seing vpon that supposition the Scripture may be false and recount works never wrought and so it is consequent that we can haue no assurance by his written word of any farther assistance that God gaue them if it be supposed that he gaue them infallibility only in things necessary to salvation which is the contradictory to your assertion and yet it is evidently deduced from your owne express words and doctrine Nay you could not be sure that the Apostles had infallibility even for Fundamentall Points if once it be supposed that they and consequently their writings were subject to errour in any thing So farr from truth is your saying we could haue assurance of farther assistance Your N. 35.36 containe no difficulty which hath not bene answered heretofore 48. I wish you had in your N. 37. set downe at large the words of Charity Maintayned whereby he proves N. 15. that according to the grounds of Protestants it is sufficient for salvation that Scripture be infallible in Fundamentall Points only as they limit to such Points the infallibility of the Church and accordingly interpret Scriptures speaking thereof The summe of his Discourse is this Put together these Doctrines That Scripture cannot erre in Points Fundamentall that they cleerely containe all such Points that Protestants can tell what Points in particular be Fundamentall it is manifest that it is sufficient for salvation that Scripture be infallible only in Points Fundamentall For seing all are obliged to belieue explicitely all Fundamentall Articles it is necessary to know which in particular be Fundamentall which Protestants cannot know except by Scripture which alone in their grounds containes all that is necessary for vs to knowe and therefore knowing by Scripture what Points in particular be Fundamentall as N. 40. you say expressly men may learne from the Scripture that such Points are Fundamentall others are not so and that Scripture is infallible in all Fundamentalls they are sure that it is infallible in such particular necessary Articles though it were supposed to be fallible in other Points by this Argument All Fundamentall Points are delivered in Scripture with infallibility this is a Fundamentall Point therefore it is delivered in Scripture with infallibility And the Syllogisme at which you say men would laugh is only your owne The Scripture is true in something the Scripture sayes that these Points only are Fundamentall therefore this is true that these are so For say you every fresh-man in Logick knowes that from meere particulars nothing can be certainly concluded But you should correct your Syllogisme thus All that is necessary the Scripture delivers with infallibility but to know what Points in particular be Fundamentall is necessary therefore the Scripture delivers it with infallibility Besides you say If without dependance on Scripture Protestants did know what were Fundamentall and what not they might possibly belieue the Scripture true in Fundamentalls and erroneous in other things Now both you and Potter affirme that there is an vniversall Tradition that the Creed containes all Fundamentall Points and consequently that in vertue of such a Tradition men may belieue all Fundamentall Points without dependance or knowledg of Scripture as also for vniversall Tradition you belieue Scripture itself Heare your owne words Pag 198. N. 15. 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 Therefore according to your owne grounds Protestants may belieue the Scripture to be true in Fundamentalls and erroneous in other things And you did not well to conceale this Argument taken from the Creed which was expressly vrged by Ch Ma in that very N. 15. which you answer By what I haue saied it appeares that in the grounds of Protestants the knowledg of Fundamentalls neede not haue for Foundation the vniversall truth of Scripture as you say but only the truth thereof for all Fundamentall Points and for knowing what Points in particular be Fundamentall as I haue declared So we must conclude that the Argument of Ch Ma stands good that if you limit the infallibility of the Church you may vpon the same ground limit the infallibility of the Apostles and their writings namely the Holy Scripture 49. Your N. 39. goes vpon a meere equivocation or a voluntary mistake you being not ignorant that Charity Maintayned saied N. 16. that no Protestant can with assurance believe the vniversall Church in Points not fundamētall because they belieue that in such points she may erre which sequele is very true and cleare For how can I belieue with assurance an Authority believed to be fallible If she alledg some evident Reason Scripture c I belieue her no more than I would belieue any child Turk or Jewe and so I attribute nothing to her authority nor can be saied to belieue her Thus you say N. 36. We cannot belieue the present Church in propounding Canonicall Bookes vpon her owne Authority though we may for other reasons belieue these Bookes to be Canonicall which she proposes Your instances are against yourself For if the divell proue that there is a God or a Geometritian demonstrate some conclusion I neither belieue the divell who I knowe was a Lier from the beginning nor the Geometritian whom I knowe to be fallible but I assent for the Reason which they giue by whomesoever it had bene given and therfore you speak a contradictory in saying N. 38. Though the Church being not infallible I cannot belieue Her in every thing she sayes yet I can and must belieue her in every thing she proves either by Scripturs or vniversall Tradition This I say implies a contradiction to belieue one because he proves seing the formall object or Motiue of Beliefe is the Authority of the speaker and not the Reason which he gives which may produce assents of diverse kinds according to the diversity of Reasons as Demonstration Scripture c which may cause an infallible assent not possible to be produced by the authority of the Church if it were fallible 50. In your N. 39. First you cite the words of Charity Maintayned thus The Churches infallible direction extending only to Fundamentalls vnless I know them before I goe to learne of her I may be rather deluded than instructed by her and then you
cockle is to be suffered or as I may say tolerated to growe with the wheate least vntymely weeding the cockle spoile the good corne that is of two vnavoidable evills it is not only lawfull but laudable yea necessary to chuse the lesser which taken formally with comparison to the greater is in some sorte good as in some proportion I declared heretofore speaking of the case of invincible and inculpable Perplexity as heere the Church is necessitated without any fault of hers either to suffer a less or doe a greater evill by vntymely and fruiteless rigor Did not the Apostles and must not all Prelats permit many sinnes of diverse kinds which they cannot hinder without greater damage to the Christian Commonwealth vnless they were Omnipotent to rule the wills of men and effectually drawe them only to good But you speak very vnworthily of the vniversall Church of Christ when you would make the world belieue that the farre greater part of Christians in S. Austines tyme was guilty of vaine superstitions and avowed and practised them yea or even dissembled them in silence when prudent Charity and zeale could dictate the contrary As for your parity betwen the whole Church and particular members thereof it hath bene confuted heretofore infallibility being promised to the Church not to private persons and you might make the same Argument to proue that the Apostles might erre in matters which they delivered as Points of Faith and yet remaine parts of the Church as well as particular men might erre and remaine members of the Church if their errours were inculpable If you say the Apostles were to teach others and so could not erre even inculpably you know we say the same of the Church which is Judge of Controversyes and was before Scripture and from which we receyue true Tradition Scripture and the interpretation thereof But if we suppose that those superstitious persons chanced to erre in any Point against Faith and remained obstinate therein after sufficient Declaration of the Churches Doctrine to the contrary then they became formall Heretiques excluded from being members of the Church and so cannot be saied to be either the greater or lesser or any part thereof 60. In your N. 49. You say But now after all this adoe what if S. AustaneÌ„ sayes not this which is pretended of the Church viz that she neither approves nor dissembles nor practises any thing against Faith or good life but only of good men of the Church Certainly though some Copies read as you would haue it yet you should not haue dissembled that others read the place otherwise viz. Ecclesia multa tolerat tamen qûae sunâ— contra Fidem bonam vitam nec bonus approbat c The Church tolerater many things and yet what is against Faith or good life a good man will neither approue nor dissemble nor practise 61. Answer But who beside yourself hath made all this adoe Which certainly you would never haue made vnless you had believed that the Common Reading goes as Charity Maintayned cites it and for that cause you found it necessary to take so much paines spend so many words and make so much adoe to answer it If an English Protestant should cite the English Translation approved in England as the Text hath it were he obliged to take notice of every different Lection quoted in the Margin And were not such English Protestants obliged to answer according to the Reading which all things considered the Translators though fittest and securest to be placed in the Text itself If the Text condemne can the margent acquit him I haue procured to know what divers Editions haue and amongst the rest one of Basilea Anno 1556 and not one of them all hath in the Text nec bonus only the Edition of Lovaine hath it in the margin But you are much mistaken if you conceyue that our Argument looses its force though we should read nec bonus approbat For to omit your owne manner of arguing els where and even in this place that good men are part of the Church and therefore it is impossible that the whole Church can be saied to approue or dissemble or practise those things we ground our proofe on such considerations as I touched aboue that the Church is saied only to tolerate and is contradistinguished from those who approue or practise the saied abuses as also she is opposed to cockâ—e and chasse yea yourfelf confess that S. Austine affirmes that they were neither contained in Scripture deâ—reed by Councells nor corroborated by the Custome of the vniversall Church Which shewes how innocent she was from being obnoxious to that imputation of approving those presumptions Which also appeares by the whole drift of S. Austines discourse where still he makes a difference betwene the Church and those erring persons Besides when you would haue him say A good man will neither approue nor c by a good man you must not vnderstand every pious or devout or even holy person who may be subject to such abuses as S. Austine speaks of seing you cite him saying Multa hujusmodi propter nonnullarum vel sanctarum vel turbulentarum personarum scandala devitanda liberius improbare non audeo Many of these things for fear of scandalizing many holy persons or provoking those that are turbulent I dare not freely disollow But by good men you must of necessity vnderstand such as haue zeale with knowledg such as are of a right and settled true judgment in matters belonging to Faith and Religion and certainly such they cannot be in the opinyon of S. Augustine who could think that the Church can approue any errour or superstition seing we haue heard him say Ep 118. If the Church through the whole world practise any of these things to dispute whether that ought to be done is a most insolent madness Will you haue an vnderstanding good man to be guilty of most insolent madness If a good man cannot approue such things much less in truth and in the opinion of S. Austine the Church could doe it So that reade S. Austine as you please the sentence which Charity Maintayned alledged proves the infallibility of Gods Church neither can you finde any meanes to avoide this inference except by vnmasking yourself and saying as you doe here N. 44. To deal ingeniously with you and the world I am not such an idolater of S. Austine as to think a thing proved sufficiently because he saies it or that all his sentences ore oracles And so I may returne your owne words and say But now after all this adoe what if S. Austine saies what Charity Maintayned affirmes him to say seing you do not much regard what S. Austine saies 62. For answer to your N. 53. I say that Charity Maintayned had reason to affirme that seing no private persoÌ„s ought to presume that they are endued with greater infallibility than the Church which Protestants teach to be infallible only in Fundamentall Points they cannot
Church and your labour and paines taken therin are lost in order to any other effect except contrary to your desires to stregthen the saying of Charity Maintayned which was That our very difference about the meaning of these Texts shewes the impossibility of agreement in matters of Faith by Scripture alone To which purpose He setts downe what sense Catholiques giue them and the different interpretation of Protestants from Catholikes and from one and other While therfore you profess to confute the interpretation of Catholikes but indeed impugne also that of most Protestants and of Dr. Potter in particular what doe you els but make good the saied Affirmation and intention and proofe of Cha Ma that Scripture alone is not sufficient to interpret it self And you could not but see that Charity Maintayned did not alledg any Text to proue the Churches infallibility but only to shew the difficulty of Scripture taken alone by those examples which he alledges and Protestants interpret in a different sense from Catholiques and in which you differ from both So that even by your disagreeing from Catholiques in the meaning of those places you in fact and Deeds proue the truth of that which your adversary affirmed and the more you object against Charity Maintayned the more you prejudice yourself and make good these his words If words cannot perswade you that in all controuersies you must rely vpon the infallibility of the Church at least yeald your assent to Deeds Which thing considered I haue no obligation at all to examine your Objections against the interpretation of those Texts in favour of the Churches infallibility for which purpose they were not produced by Charity Maintayned but only to proue by an Argument drawen from Experience and Deeds or matter of fact that there must be some Living Guide to interpret Scripture and you were wise enough not to take notice of this Argument which was evident by experience but dissemble the matter and divert the Reader with discourses no less repugnant to Protestants than Catholiks and therefore your interpretations proue nothing because they proue too much even in the common grounds and tenets of Protestants Nevertheless by way of supererogation I will examine all that you can object 72. N. 69. you bring certaine objections in a different letter as if they were made eypressly by Ch Ma and yet I finde them not in him whatsoever they be in themselves Then N. 70. you say The Church may erre and yet the gates of Hell not privaile against her 73. Answer you know we deny this and in diverse occasions haue given good reasōsfor our denyall And what cā be more incōsistēt with being of a true Church than errour against Faith which Faith is the most essentiall constitutiue of the Church or congregation of Faithfull people Yourself teach that every errour repugnant to Divine Revelation is damnable of itself and what can set the gates of Hell more open than damnable sinnes Neither can you flie to ignorance whereof you cā haue no certainty especially for the whole vniversall Church and yet we are certaine by our Saviours Promise that the gates of Hell cannot prevaile against her whereof we could not be certaine if the Church may erre damnably and be excused only by ignorance which as I saied is an vncertaine hidden thing Beside The Church being appointed by our Saviour Christ to be the teacher of all Christians it is essentially necessary that she cannot erre even by ignorance but must be believed to be infallible in all matters belonging to Faith seing otherwise we cannot belieue her with certainty in any point fundamentall or not fundamentall as you confess in this Chapt. N. 36. that vnless the Church be infallible in all things we cannot rationally belieue her for her owne sake and vpon her owne word and Authority in any thing For an authority subject to errour can be no firme or stable foundation of my belief in any thing Now that the office of the Church is to teach all Christians you teach Pag. 119. N. 164. in these words Though the visible Church shall alwaies without faile propose so much of Gods Revelation as is sufficient to bring men to heaven for otherwise it will not be the visible Church yet it may sometimes ad to this Revelation things superfluous nay gurtfull nay in themselves damnable And in this Chapter N. 78. you say That the true Church alwaies shall be the maintainer and Teacher of all necessary truths you know we grant and must grant for it is the Essence of the Church to be so and any company of men were no more a Church without it then any thing can be a man and not be reasonable But as a man may be still a man though he want a hand or an eye which yet are profitable parts so the Church may be still a Church though it be defectiue in some profitable truth And as a man may be a man that has some biles and botches on his body so the Church may be the Church though it haue many corruptions both in Doctrine and practice Out of these sayings of yours this argument offers it self The Church is essentially a Teacher of all necessary truths And consequently we are to belieue her in such points But the Church cannot be believed in necessary points vnless we belieue her to be infallible in all that she proposes as matter of Faith This also is our Doctrine Therefore we must belieue her to be infallible in all points So that in denying the vniversall infallibility of the Church you contradict both truth and your owne Assertions 74. And heere I must put you in minde of your saying that there is difference betweene being infallible in Fundamentalls and an infalllible Guide in Fundamentalls and yet we haue heard you say that the Church is an infallible Teacher of so much as is necessary for salvation and what is to be an infallible Teacher or Proposer but to be an infallible Guide And then further seing you say P. 105. N. 139. To make any Church an infallible Guide in Fundamentalls would be to make it infallible in all things which she proposes and requires to be believed we must necessarily infer that de facto the Church which is an infallible Teacher and Guide is infallible in all things which she proposes and requires to be believed 75. This is not all that I am to deduce from your saied Assertions You say in this same Page and Number No Church can possibly be fit to be a Guide but only a Church of some certaine Denomination To which Proposition I subsume But we haue heard you say that it is of the essence of the Church to be a Teacher of all necessary Truths and that she shall alwayes without faile propose so much as is sufficient to bring men to Heaven Therfore you must grant that there is some infallible Church of one denomination which is the direct contradictory of your Title to this
Potter to proue that the Church cannot erre against any Fundamentall Truth Which limitation I haue confuted already and joyntly your first Answer Your Second and Third are directly against the Doctor who Pag 151. teaches that the Promises which our Lord hath made vnto his Church for his assistance are intended to the Church Catholique and they are to be extended only to Points Fundamentall And then he alledges the saied text Joan 16.13 And Chap 41.61 adding that Though that Promise was direstly and primarily made to the Apostles yet it was made to them for the behoof of the Church and is verifyed in the Church vniversall Now if the Church cannot erre fundamentally she is taught by the holy Ghost not only sufficiently but effectually And if those Promises were made to the Apostles not only primarily as Potter affirmes but to them only as you say how could the Doctor proue by them the Infallibility of the Church for all Fundamentalls Can a Text of Scripture proue that to which it nothing belongs As well by this Text interpreted as you doe he might haue proved you or himself or any other infallible in Fundamentall Points So that now I must defend the Doctor against Mr. Chill who among all English Protestants was picked out as a fit champion to maintayne the cause of Protestants and defend Potters Booke You are greatly mistaken and offend against the knowen Rule which Logicians give for Division while you say one may be taught only sufficiently and not irresistibly as if these were adequately the membra dividentia of being taught whereas one may be taught effectually and neither sufficiently only nor yet irresistibly as hath bene declared more than once Do not yourself tell vs heere that the saied Promises were made to the Apostles only Who I hope you will say were taught effectually and not sufficiently only Otherwise we cannot be sure but that de facto they deviated from the direction of the Holy Ghost and so we can haue no certainty that their writings are infallible Or if the doctrine of freewill which you Socinians also defend can consist with the infallibility of the Apostles how can it be inconsistent with freewill in the Church You say The word in the Originall is hodegesei which signifyes to be a guide and director only not to compell or necessitate But what is this to any purpose against vs who teach nothing against Freewill by our Doctrine of the infallible assistance of the Holy Ghost And yet I must say that you vse fraude by writing so as if the word did signify a guide or director only with exclusion of being necessitated whereas the Greeke word is verified whether one be a guide or director resistibly or irresistibly For in both cases he is a guide and so Cornelius à Lapide interprets it ducet rectâ viâ ad virtutem quasi dux viae which one may doe either by leading and leaving one to his liberty to follow or by forcing him to followe his guidance and so the places which you alledg out of Scripture of men that had eyes to see and would not see are to no purpose except to ingage you to answer them in case of the Apostles whom I suppose you will not deny to haue bene secured from errour both sufficiently and effectually Yea you take much vnprofitable paines to proue that the saied Texts were by our Saviour meant only of the Apostles by reason of circumstances which appropriate them to his Disciples 80. But Dr. Potter hath told you that Though that promise directly and primarily was made to the Apostles yet it was made to them in behoof of the Church and is verified in the Church vniversall For we may consider in the Apostles a double capacity either as they are private and particular Persons or as they respect and represent or beare the place of the Church and for her good receiue some Power or priviledg and not meerely with relation to their owne persons And therefore although some words in the places which you alledge be referred to the Apostles only yet it does not follow that all must be restrained to them Otherwise you will destroy the whole Church of Christ and all Christianity Nothing is more necessary in Christian Religion than Preaching to all Nations and Baptizing which our Saviour injoyned Matth. 28. Mark 16. Luke 24. yet by your manner of arguing it may be proved that they concerned the Apostles only For it is saied Mark 16.14 Last he appeared to those Eleven as they sate at the table and he exprobrated their incrudelity and hardness of hart because they did not belieue them that had seene him risen againe And N. 15.16 he saied to them Going into the world preach the Ghospell to all Creatures He that believes and is baptized shall be saved Heere you see that although some circumstances be proper to the Apostles as sitting at table and incrudelity yet it does not follow that all must concerne them only as that preaching and baptizing belongs to the whole Church I imagine you will not deny In the same manner Matth. 28. N. 16.17.18.19.20 divers things are specified which belong to the Apostles only as going into Galilee adoring doubting and our Saviours speaking to them and yet his command Going teach ye all Nations baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the Holy Ghost belongs to the whole Church The like Argument may be taken out of S. Luke Cap. 24. N. 44.45.46.47.48.49 where some thing is personall to the Apostles and we must not say that pennance to be preached in his name and remission of sinnes vnto all Nations as is sayd N. 47. belonged to the Apostles only though it be expresly saied beginning from Hierusalem which seemes proper to the Persons of the Apostles and yet Preaching Pennance a thing common to the whole Church is set downe in the same verse with beginning from Hierusalem which was personall to the Apostles Thus Joan. 20. Some particulars are spoken and done to the Apostles only as N. 21. He saied to them againe Peace be to you and N. 22. He breathed vpon them and yet N. 23. he gives them Power to forgiue sinnes which Power did not cease with the Death of the Apostles These instances shew that you must answer your owne Objections and will force you to confess that it is no good way of arguing that all things in the Texts which Ch. Ma and Dr. Potter alledg out of S. John for the infallibility of the Church must be appropriated to the Apostles for the substance because some circumstances concerne them alone and that we must prudently distinguish betwene those two kinds of things as certainly not to be led into any errour against Faith is most necessary for the Church which God hath appointed for Teacher of all Christians and Judge of controversies And that the Apostles may be and are sometyme considered as publike persons and with relation to the Church
that men may be of the same Church and hope for salvation for the only belief of fundamentall points though they differ in non-fundamentalls you contradict yourself and Dr. Potter who saieth it is infidelity and damnable and a Fundamentall error to disbelieve any point sufficiently propounded as revealed by God So that vpon the whole matter you perforce stand for Charity Maintayned whom you impugne and overthrow Potter Yourself and Protestants whom you vndertake to defend To all this I add that Charity Maintayned might haue saied not only that as the foundation of a House is not a House so the belief of only fundamentall points cannot make a Church but also that seing it is fundamentall to a Christians Faith not to deny any point revealed by God as we haue seene in Potters assertion it followes that they who disagree in such points want the foundation of Faith and of a Church and so cannot pretend to so much in order to a Church as a foundation is in respect of a House You say that Ch. Ma. Pag 131. takes notice that Dr. Potter by Fundamentall Articles meanes all those which are necessary But by your leaue in this you falsify both the Doctor and Ch. Ma. who cited the words of Potter as you acknowledg he doth that by fundamentall doctrines we vnderstand such as are necessary in ordinary course to be distinctly believed by every Christian that will be saved In which words you see the Doctor saieth not that all necessary Articles are fundamentall but only that all fundamentall Articles are necessary to be believed distinctly and explicitely and so he speaks Pag 213. Fundamentall properly is that which Christians are obliged to belieue by an express and actuall Faith Now I hope Protestants will not deny that it is necessary to belieue every Text of Scripture and yet will not affirme that every Text of Scripture is a Fundamentall point to be believed by an express and actuall Faith Therefore necessary and Fundamentall according to the explication of the Doctor doe not signify the same thing nor are of the same extent 44. In your N. 53.54.55.56.57.58.59.60.61.62.63 you shew so much choler bitterness and ill language that the best answer will be to apply my selfe only to the matter desiring the Reader to consider the points which I shall set downe and he will finde your objections answered by only applying my considerations to them as they come in order 45. First Before you can refer any considering man as you speake to the Scripture for his satisfaction you must assure him that it is the word of God which you confesse we can only learne from the Church and then if he be indeed a considering man it will instantly inferr that the Church must be infallible or else that he cannot be infallibly true that Scripture is the word of God nor of any one truth contained therin and as you say he may know that the Church holds such bookes to be canonicall so by the like Tradition he may know what she holds in points of Doctrine and either belieue her in them or not belieue her in delivering the canon of Scripture Besides of whom shall he learne the sense of Scripture or who will oblige him even to reade Scripture Seing in the principles of Protestants he cannot learne any such precept except from Scripture itselfe and he cannot be obliged to finde that precept in Scripture vnless aforehand he knowes independently of Scripture that there is such a precept which as I sayd is against the principles of Protestants Moreover yourself teach that the Scripture is a necessary introduction to Faith and therfor a man must first learne the Church and of the Church before you can in wisdome refer him to the Scripture Which is also conforme to Dr. Potters assertions if he will not contradict himselfe For Pag 139. he teaches that the Church works powerfully and probably as the highest humane Testimony and you say Faith is but probable in the highest degree and consequently the Church Works powerfully enough to settle an Act of your kinde of Faith vpon Nouices and we speake of such weakelings and doubters in the Faith to instruct and confirme them till they may acquaint themselves with and vnderstand the Scripture Therfore men must first be referred to the Church and not to the Scripture as Potter in the same place saieth expressly The Testimony of the present Church though it be not the last resolution of our Faith yet it is the first externall motiue to it 46. Secondly you say to Charity Maintayned To the next question cannot Generall Councells erre You pretend he answers § 19. they may erre damnably Let the Reader see the place and he shall find damnably is your addition 47. Answer Amongst the Errata or faults of the Print Charity Maintayned notes this in the Pag 136. Lin. 22. Damnably Corrige damnably I meane it ought not to be in a different or Curciffe letter because it is not Dr. Potters word though it follow out of his doctrine All this saieth Charity Maintayned in the correction of the Errata where you see he was scrupulous not to adde one word which was not expressly the Doctors though it be most true that it doth not only follow out of his doctrine as Ch Ma saieth but his words in this very place at which you carp signify no lesse yea more For Ch Ma cites these words out of Potter Pag 167. Generall Councells may weakely or wilfully misapply or misvnderstand or neglect Scripture and so erre Now what difference is there to say a generall Councell may erre by wilfully misapplying or misvnderstanding or neglecting Scripture and a Councell may erre damnably Is it not damnable wilfully to misapply or misvnderstand or neglect Scripture Nay wilfully expresses more then damnably because one may erre damnably if his errour be culpable by reason of some weakeness which D. Potter distinguisheth from wilfullnes or for sloath humane respects of hope feare c. and yet not be so culpable as when it proceeds from wilfulness and therfor Charity Maintayned might haue sayd that in the doctrine of Potter Generall Councells may erre more than damnably Haue we not heard the Doctours words Pag. 212. whatsoever is Revealed in Scripture is such as can not be denied or Contradicted without infidelity And shall not a wilfull misapplying or neglect of Gods Word be damnable and more then simply damnable even infidelity The Doctour teaches that the vniversall Church cannot erre fundamentally but he neither doth nor can say according to the doctrine of Protestants that Councells cannot erre fundamentally and if Fundamentally surely damnably But why doe I spend tyme in this Yourselfe here N. 53. confesse that to say Prelats of Gods Church meeting in a Lawfull Councell may erre damnably is not false for the matter but only it is false that Dr. Potters sayes it A great wrong to say the Doctour speakes a truth which he himselfe teaches and so finally Charity
divided in externall communion one of the which true Churches did triumph over all errour and corruption in doctrine and practice but the other was stained with both For to finde this diversity of churches cānot stand with reds of Histories which are silent of any such matter It is against Dr. Potters owne grounds that the Church may erre in points not fundamentall It contradicts the words in which he sayd Pag 155. The Church may not hope to triumph over all sinne and errour till she be in Heaven It evacuateth the brag of Protestants that Luther reformed the whole Church Of these last words you say Let it be so I see no harme will come of it What indeed Is it no harme that it may be sayd with truth that your Protestants are proved bragging false Lyars in saying Luther reformed the whole Church But to omit this these words declare that Ch. Ma. speakes of two Churches wherof one did triumph over all errour and then adds to find this diversity of two Churches cannot stand with records of Histories c where the particles this diversity are referred to two kinds of Churches wherof one did triumph over all sinne and errour and yourselfe explicating the Doctors words say To triumph over errour is to be secure from it to be out of danger of it not to be obnoxious to it This supposed the objection is clearly of no force wherin you say To suppose a visible Church before Luther which did not erre is not to contradict this ground of D. Potters that the Church may erre Vnless you will haue vs belieue that May be and Must be is all one which rule if it were true then sure all men would be honest because all men may be so And you would not make so bad Arguments vnless you will pretend you cannot make better But this whole objection is grounded vpon concealing the words of Ch. Ma. who spoke of a Church triumphing over all errour as we haue seene by his express words and therfor when in the very next consequent period he mentions a Church free from errour it cannot be otherwise vnderstood then of such a freedome as he spoke of immediatly before that is of a Church as indeed the true Church ought to be free from all danger of falling into any least errour against Faith Besides suppose he had spoken of a Church which defacto did not erre in any point fundamentall or not fundamentall from the Apostles time to Luther it had been no ill argument to inferr that she could not erre because morally speaking and without a miracle or particular assistance or infallible direction of the Holy Ghost it had been impossible for so many men in so many Ages of so different dispositions through the whole world to haue agreed in the same beliefe concerning matters not evident of themselves but farr exceeding the light of naturall reason and seeming contrarie to it and therfor if they had not been effectually preserved from errour no doubt but some would haue fallen into it which is so true that Dr. Potter sayth Pag 39. it is a great vanity to hope or expect that all learned men in this life should absolutely consent in all the pieces and partiticles of divine truth The rest of this Number hath been particularly answered heretofore and your weakning the strength of Historie and tradition serves only to call in question all Religion in your ground who belieue Scripture for tradition 17. In your N. 57. you say to those words of Ch. Ma. N. 18. Our Saviour foretold that there would be in the Church tares with choice 〈◊〉 Looke again I pray and you shall see that the field he speaks of is not the Church but the world Answer Ch. Ma. doth not as interpreting our Saviours Parable Matth 31. saie that the field he speaks of is the Church but that he foretold that there would be in the Church tares with choise corne which is very true seing he expresly makes the parable of the kingdom of Heaven which is the Church saying The Kingdom of Heaven is resembled to a man c. and the amplitude of the word world doth not exclude the Church for which and her Pastours he gaue that wholesome Document Sinite vtraque crescere Let both grow vp and I pray where but in the Church can there be the wheat which our Saviour would not haue rooted out And because your owne guiltiness moves you in this occasion to tax Catholiques because they punish obstinate Heretiques you should reflect that the tares are not to be gathered when there is danger least by so doing the wheat may be rooted out and therfore a contrario sensu if there be no such danger yea that by sparing the cockle the good corne will suffer the cockle is rather to be taken away than the corne destroied In your N. 58. may be observed a strange kinde of saying that God is infinitly mercifull and therfor will not damne men for meer errours who desire to finde the truth and cannot Is it mercy not to damne men for that which is no fault And for which to damne one were injustice and therfor not to doe it is not mercy but justice 18. Your N. 59.60 haue bene answered at large in the Chap 7. about Schisme Neither can these propositions be defended from a contradiction The Church of Rome wants nothing necessary to salvation and yet it is necessary to salvation to forsake her For as I haue proved even he who believes she erred yet is supposed to belieue that notwithstanding that error still she wants nothing necessary to salvation and therefore the distinction of persons whereof one believes she errs and the other believes she does not erre cannot saue this contradiction 19. That which you say N. 61. is answered by these few lines Almighty God hath promised to giue his sufficient grace to avoyd all deadly sinne and consequently all damnable errour as you confesse every errour against any revealed Truth to be vnles ignorāce excuse it which cannot happen if as you affirme such an assistance is promised to vs as shall lead vs if we be not wanting to it and ourselves into all not only necessary but very proficable truth and guard vs from all not only destructiue but also hurtfull errours because this assistance supposed the Church if she fall into errour must be wanting to herselfe and her ignorance can not be invincible but culpable and damnable both in it selfe and to her and if her errours be damnable she wants some thing necessary to salvation that is the true assent of Faith contrary to that damnable errour and she hath something incompatible with salvation namely that damnable errour and so indeed that truth which you call only profitable becomes necessary and that errour which you suppose to be only hurtfull is destructiue if your Doctrine be ttue that God gives sufficient Grace to avoyd all sortes of errour and to lead to all very profitable truths
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.
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
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.
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
words 22. Your N. 30.31.32.33.34 doe only demonstrate that you vndertake to declare the Doctine of Protestants about good works repentance justification c without any commission from them which you could not but see and therfore are forced N. 33. to say If this doctrine about justification by Faith onlie be otherwise expounded then I haue here expounded I will not vnder take the justificatioÌ„ of it And therefore you had no reason to affirme that C Ma spoke without sense in saying that according to the rigid Calvinists Faith is either so strong that once had it can never be lost or so more then weake and so much nothing that it can never be gotten For seing that Faith which Calvinists hold to be justifying can never be lost if once it be gotten this Disjunctiue must needs be evidently true either it cannot be gotten or if it be gotten it cannot be lost That which you vntimely talk heere of the subject wherein God hath placed the Authority of defining matters of Faith hath bene answered already as much as this Work can permit without descending to particular Controversies against the purpose and Intention of Cha Ma who yet Part 2. Chap 5. N. 15.16.21 answers all the particular Authorities of Catholiques which Potter objects about this matter and shewes his ill dealing in alledging them But this is not the first tyme that you dissemble what Cha Ma delivers in his second Part though yet you make vse of it when it may serue your turne which certainlie is no just kind of proceding But to returne to your defense of other chiefe Protestants whereas Cha Ma saied heere N. 12. out of his Chap 3. N. 19. that justification by Faith alone is by some Protestants avouched to be the soule of the Church the principall Origin of salvation of all other points of Doctrine the chiefest and weightiest yet you say heere N. 32. For my part I doe hartly wish that by publique Authority it were so ordered that no man should euer preach or print this Dostrine that Faith alone justifies vnless he joynes these together with it that vniversall obedience is necessary to salvatioÌ„ if the Commandments cannot be kept how can the observation of them or vniversall obedience be taught as necessary to salvation And besides that those Chapters of S. Paul which intreat of justification by Faith without the works of the Law mark heere how impertinently Protestants apply the Authority of S. Paul against justification by works seing Mr. Chillingworth declares that he speaks of the works of the law were never read in the Church but when the 13. Chap. of the 1. Epist to the Corinth concerning the absolute necessity of Charity should be to prevent misprision read together with them So diffideÌ„t are you of this soule of the Church this principall origen of salvation of Protestants Your last lines are so obscure and confused that after consideration by myself aÌ„d with others I can drawe from them nothing but non-sense and for such I must leaue them Concerning our greater safety I haue touched in the Preface to the Reader some Points taken from your express doctrine and words which heere I judge needles to repeete 23. For Conclusion of my Book I disposed myself to giue a particular Answer to the conclusion of yours wherein you are not ashamed to say that you are well assured that Ch. Ma. had in his hands your Book twelue-months before it was published which vpon my certaine knowledg is must vntrue But vpon carefull examination thereof I finde that labour to be needless You would make the Reader belieue that Ch Ma omitted to answer some materiall points of Dr. Potters Book and that you had observed all the Directions which were given in that litle Treatise intituled A Direction be to observed by N. N. If he meane to proceede in answering the Book intituled Mercy and Truth or Charity Maintayned by Catholiques c But both these affirmations are fully and truly answered by an absolute deniall that either of them is true as any man will judge who shall consider the Answer of Cha Ma to Dr. Potter and this my answer to you And as for the latter in particular How can it be denied that you procede in a destructiue way which in that Direction you were warned to avoide who deny Christian Religion to be infallibly true And how can Christian Faith be supernaturall if it be only a probable Conclusion evidently deduced from evident probable Premises And I wonder with what face you can say heere § And lastly that thefe archer of all hearts knowes that you had no other end in writing this Book but to confirm the truth of the divine and infallible Religion of our dearest lord and Saviour Christ Iesus seing you haue endeavoured nothing more through your whole Book than to proue that Christian Religion is not infallible That you haue contradicted Dr. Potter hath bene shewed heretofore in severall occasions And the same I meane that you haue not observed those Directions might be demonstrated in everie particular if it were worth the labour but for that Direction which was not to contradict yourself you haue trangressed it so notoriously as I should never haue believed if my owne experience had not convinced me thereof which made it as hard to giue an answer to your Book as it is to make on coate fitting the moone in all its changes which is your owne similitude which I confess was one of the greatest difficultyes in answering to find you so various obscure contrary and contradicting yourself accordingly as you were prest with different Arguments that I could not but often say with much Truth Quis teneat vultus mutantem Protea Nodus FINIS INDEX In which Pr. signifieth the Preface I. the Introduction C. the Chapter N. the Number P. the Page A. Absolution validly given by an Heretique if he be a true Priest and hath intention to administer the Sacrament C. 4. N. 42. P. 377. 578. Absurdityes in Catholique Faith falsely supposed by I hil c. 1. n. 76. p. 90. but proved by his owne tenets to be truly in his Faith N. 77. and p. 97. n. 84 seq Accidents dispose to effects more noble then themselves yea held by many to be reall â—uses of substances c 1. n 79. 80. p 94. 95. Acts proper to necessary Powers must needs be produced if the meanes to worke be compleate but free Powers may with compleate meanes suspend the act c 11. n 65. p 694. seq The essence of acts ignorantly discoursed of by I hil c 12. n 21. p 721. seq Advertisements for whomsoever shall vndertake to answere this Booke not to follow I hil his stepps in commencing new controversies Pr. n. 5. 6. p. 2. 3. If the Apostles could erre in any poynt of Religion they can be certainly believed in none c. 2. n. 95. p. 200. c. 12. n. 47. p. 742. alibi Out Saviours Words to them as
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
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
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
that the alteration of the Sabboth from Satterday to Sunday is not proved by scripture but is acknowledged to be an Apostolyque Tradition to be perpetually observed sett tymes of Fasting and from certaine meates appointed not only for politique order but for spirituall considerations the primacy of one over the Church in seuerall Nations and Kingdomes vnwritten traditions necessary to be observed blessing of our meate and forhead with the signe of the crosse and further vse therof in the publike liturgy about which Joannes Creecelius in his descriptio refutatio Ceremoniarum Missae c Printed Magdeburgi An 1603. Pag 118. giveth testimony of the Lutherans doctrine saying We do not disallow the signe of the holy Crosse if once or twice without superstition it be freely vsed in the Divine Service yea if in private our meate and drinke be-signed therwith For when we goe to bed or rise we signe our selves with the Crosse according to the institution of Luther and other godly men And Joannes Manlius Luthers Scholler in loc Commun Pag 636. saith Luther sayd Having made the signe of the Crosse God defend me c As also the Communion-Booke in the tyme of King Edward the sixt penned by advise and approbation of Cranmer Latimer Ridley and other Protestant Divines of that tyme printed Ann 1549. Fol 116. prescribeth the Priests signing of the Sacrament with the signe of the Crosse And Fol 131. it prescribeth the Priests like consecrating the Font of Baptisme with the signe of the Crosse 92. These Poynts and more than these which I omitt Brierley doth punctually demonstrate divers Protestants to hold with vs against their owne Brethren which I haue more willingly set downe that Protestants may see how little reason they haue to esteeme the very name of Papists odious since many of their greatest Divines are Papists in so very many and chiefest Poynts and which ought not to passe without reflexion even in those particular Doctrines which to the vulgar sort seeme most Superstitious and for which they are brought vp in contempt and hatred of our Religion and vs. If our Catholique Religion were as beggarly as that of Protestants which is content to call those Brethren who disagree from them in innumerable Poynts we might easily encrease our number with addition of as many Protestants as we haue rehearsed and of many more than we can easily reckon Certaine it is that Protestants will scarcely be able to object any Poynts of moment against vs but that joyntly they must wound their owne Brethren if indeed they did vnderstand what they say and did not think the name of Papists to be a sufficient cause of hatred whatsoever that name doth signify wherof many are very ignorant But for my purpose I conclude that Scripture alone cannot be cleare seing Protestants in so many and so important matters especially in those very particulars wherin they pretend to differ from vs are indeed so far divided among themselves as that they fall to joyne with vs with whom nothing but meere necessity and force of evident truth could moue them to agree And as the agreeing of so many Protestants with vs shews that the Scripture is not cleare at least in behalf of them who are forsaken by their owne Brethren sō their disagreeing among themselves doth convince the same For how can men if with sinceryty they seeke the truth be so divided having before their eyes one and the same cleare and evident Rule as they pretend scripture to be 93. If any for avoyding the premises adventure to say that those learned protestants who affirme the Ancient Fathers to stand for vs do not vnderstand the meaning of their words ād that for the same cause perhaps protestants do not agree with vs nor differ among themselves so much as their writings not well vnderstood make shewe To this answer although I might reply with those words of Tertullian in Apologet Nemo ad suum dedecus mentitur c No man will lye to his owne shame but rather to his owne credit we sooner believe the confession of men against themselves then their denyall against themselves as also I might say that the testimonies of protestants for the sayd purposes are so evident so many of so different persons and delivered not incidently or by some other occasion but of sett purpose at large and as I may say in cold bloud that they cannot with any modesty be avoyded yet I will only say and the Objection deserves no other answer that if the writings of mē which are infinitely beneath the Majesty and sublimity of the Style and misteryes of holy scripture and proportioned to the weakness of humane vnderstanding be so hard and obscure we ought even from this Objection to conclude that scripture alone cannot be evident Thus the Lutherans do grievously complaine against the Calvinists (a) Gerardus Gieskenius a Lutheran in his Book de veritate Corporis Christi in Coena contra Pezelium Pag 93. so charges the Calvinists because say they you alledge Luthers words against his meaning In like manner the same Lutheran Charges them for that they (b) Vbi supra Pag 77. endeavoured to make the Confession of Augusta which teacheth the Reall presence to be Zuinglian that is against the reall presence exclayming therat if this thing had bene done in Arabia America Sardinta or such like remote Countryes and of former tymes this vsurpation of fraud and historicall falshood were more tolerable But seing the questiō is of such things as be done in our owne tymes and in the sight of all men who with a quiet mynd can endure such lyes In like manner Fulk in his Answer to a counterfaite Catholique Artic 17. Pag. 61. is not ashamed to say that the Lutherans and the Zuinglians do both consent in this That the Body of Christ is receaved spiritually not corporally with the hart not with mouth which all the world knowes to be manifestly vntrue Thus also Dr. Field of the Church L. 3. C. 42. Pag 170. sayth I dare confidently pronounce that after due and full examination of each others meaning there shal be no difference found touching the matter of the Sacrament the Vbiquetary Presence or the like between the Churches reformed by Luthers ministery in Germany and other places and those whom some mens malice call Sacramentaryes And Dr. Potter Pag 90. is not afrayd to say that the Lutherans and Calvinists differ rather in forme and phrases of speech then in substance of Doctrine even in the maine controversy between them about Consubstantiation which after occasioned that of Vbiquity The maine truth on both sides is out of Controversy that Christ is really and truly exhibited to each faithfull communicant and that in his whole person hee is every where The doubt is only in the manner how he is in the symboles and how in Heaven and Earth which is no part of Faith but a curious nicyty Is it all one to be exhibited
of exercising humility in our selves and obedience to Gods Church and to our Saviour himself who sayd Luke 10.16 He that heares you heares me and Matth. 18.17 If he heare not the Church let him be vnto thee as a Heathen or Publican together with a dependence of one man vpon another as it was sayd to S. Paul even in that great vision Act. 9. V. 7. Goe into the citty And it shal be told thee what thou art to doe and to him who was cured of the leprosy Matth. 8.4 Goe shew thy self to the Priest As also for procuring peace and vnity in Religion which cannot be conserved if all controversyes must be tryed by scripture alone that being in effect to leaue every man to his owne witte will and wayes as we see by constant experience in all those who reject the Authority of a Living Judg. 148. But what you cannot evince by reason you endeavour to proue by an example in these words Suppose Xaverius had bene to write the Gospell of Christ for the Indians think you he would haue left out any fundamentall Doctrine of it 149. Answer Are these Arguments taken from evident Texts of scripture as yours against vs ought to be in this poynt which is the only foundation of Protestantisme If you tell vs what you meane in this particular Objection by the Gospell of Christ yourself may easily answer for vs out of what hath beene sayd already We haue heard you saying By the Gospell of Christ I vnderstand not the whole History of Christ but all that makes vp the covenant between God and man Now then to your example I Answer that if S. Xaverivs had intended to write the Gospell as it signifyes the History of Christ he had not bene obliged to write all necessary Points as neither the Evangelists who wrote the Gospell were obliged to do ād it is strāge that we denying it of them you would seek to proue it only by changing the person as if any would attribute more to S. Xaverius than to the Evāgelists But if S. Xauerius had purposed to write not the History of our B. Saviour as the Evangelists did but a Catechisme or summe of Christian doctrine or the Gospell as it signifyes to vse your words all that makes vp the Covenant between God and man which the Evangelists did not intend then what you say or imagine of S. Xaverius cannot be applyed to the Evangelists seeing in that case their ends in writing had bene very different Nevertheless even vpon this supposition that S. Xaverius had purposed to write a Catechisme we must consider some particular circumstances before we can affirme that he was obliged to write all necessary points of Faith for example if that Saint had bene assured that in his absence and for all future tymes there would never be wanting Preachers Teachers Prelats Pastors and Apostolicall men to instruct Christians convert Infidels and supply abundantly by word of mouth and a perpetuall Succession and Tradition whatsoever was not expressed in such a Catechisme as de facto we see God in his Goodness hath furnished the Indyes with so many Pastours Preachers c. that no one Cathecisme is absolutely necessary in that case I say no man can judge that S. Xaverius had bene obliged to leaue in writing precisely every particularnecessary Point but only such as Tyme Place Persons and all other particular circumstances considered should in prudence seeme most for the purpose and such a Catechisme togeather with those other helpes had bene a most sufficient Meanes for that End which S. Xaverius had proposed to himself vpon the sayd supposition of Pastours c. Now this is our case The Evangelists were most certaine that Hell-gates could no◠prevaile against the Church Matth. 16. that there should be a perpetuall Succession of Pastours that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth 1. Timot. 3. that he gaue some Apostles and some Prophets and other some Evangelists and other some Pastours and Doctours c. that now we be not children wavering and carryed about with every winde of doctrine in the wickedness of men in craftyness to the circumvention of errour Ephesi 4. Where we see that for avoyding errours Scripture alone is not appointed as the only Meanes yea is not so much as mentioned but Apostles Pastours Doctours c. to the worlds end To which purpose ancient S. Irenaeus Lib. 3. Cap. 4. speaks very fully in these words What if the Apostles had not left Scriptures ought we not to haue followed the order ād tradition which they delivered to those to whom they committed the Churches to which order many nations yielded 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 receiue the truth from Gods Church seing the Apostles haue most fully deposited in her as in a rich storehouse all things belonging to truth It is therfor cleare that the Evangelists had no obligation to write all necessary points in particular and some may retort your example thus the Evangelists had no reason to doe so therfor neither S. Xaverivs in the like case and circumstances had been obliged therto and not argue as you doe S. Xaverius should haue bene obliged to do so therfor we must say the same of the Apostles I will not stand heer to say that although S. Xaverius had bene obliged to set downe all Points necessary to be believed by every priuate person as such yet I hope you would not haue obliged him to expresse all things necessary for the whole Church as I sayd in the beginning which yet is a most necessary thing 150. But here occurs a difficulty which will shew your example of S. Xaverius or of any other to be not only insufficient or impertinent but also impossible and chimericall and even ridiculous in your grounds of which I believe you did not reflect You teach that there cannot be given a particular Catalogue of fundamentall poynts but that men may be sure not to faile in believing all such Articles if they belieue all that is evidently found in scripture which clearly containes all necessary things in particular and many more If then S. Xaverius could not know precisely what points in particular be fundamentall how will you oblige him or any other not to omitt any one such point Neither I do vnderstand how in your principles any man can set downe all necessary points in such manner as he may be sure to omitt none except by referring them to scripture or procuring that they haue either the whole bible according to the common opinion of other Protestants or at least the Gospell of S. Luke which you hold for certaine that it contaynes all necessary points for of the other three Evangelists you are doubtfull which is a strange kind of composing a Catechisme and yet there can be no other perfect Catechisme made either
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
certaine things by writing and certaine by tradition with vvhom agrees S. Basile de spiritui sancto Cap. 27. saying some things we haue from scripture other things from the Apostles tradition c both which haue like force vnto godlines that Dr. Reynolds in his conclusions annexed to his conference 1. conclus Pag. 689. ansvvering to these sayings of S. Epiphanius and S. Basil sayth I took not vpon me to control them but let the Church judge if they considered with advise enough c And for other Fathers both Greek and Latine they are so plaine for tradition against the sufficiency of scripture taken alone that as may be seene in Brierley Tract 1. sect 3. subdivis 12. wheras S. Chrysostome saith in 2. ad Thessal Hom 4. The Apostles did not deliver all things by writing but many things without and these be as worthy of credit as the other Whitaker de Sacra Scriptura Pag 678. in answer therto sayth I answer This is an inconsiderate speech and vnworthy so great a Father And wheras Eusebius Lib 1. Demonstrat Evangel Cap 8. is objected to say That the Apostles published their doctrine partly without writing as it were by a certaine vnwritten law Whitaker Pag 668. saith therto I answer that this testimony is plaine enough but of no force to be receyved because it is against the Scripture And of S. Austine Cartwright saith in Mr. Whitgifts Defence Pag 103. If S. Austines judgment be a good judgment then there be some things commanded of God which are not in the Scriptures Yea not to insist vpon every particular Father Kemnitius Exam Part 1. Pag 87.89.90 reproves for their like testimony of vnwritten Traditions Clemens Alexandrinus Origen Epiphanius Hierome Maximus Theophilus Basil Damascen c Fulk also confesses as much of Chrysostome Tertullian Cyprian Austine Hierome c And Whitaker acknowledgeth the like of Chrysost Epiphanius Tertullian Austine Innocentius Leo Basil Eusebius Damascene c. Now sir are not these Fathers and Ancient Doctours who teach that the Apostles haue not delivered all things in writing directly opposite to your contrary Assertion so often repeated but without any proofe which you know is but to begg the Question Of people without succession of Pastours which is the ground of Tradition we may truly say as Optatus saith of the Donatists Lib. 2. cont Parm. Sunt sine Patribus filii c. They are children without Fathers disciples without maisters and in a prodigious manner begotten and borne of themselves 166. I will make an end of this matter if first I haue noted that it is a false glosse of yours like to that which I haue noted aboue and directly against S. Irenaeus that when he sayth those Heretiks taught that truth cannot be found by those who know not Tradition he must meane sufficient truth as if those heretiks had agreed with Catholikes that all truth is not sufficiently contayned in scripture alone wheras S. Irenaeus expressly declares the doctrine of those Heretiks to haue been that the scriptures were not right and came not from good authority but were various one from another as I haue shewed and yourself affirme in those very words which you translate out of S. Irenaeus and so not only sufficient truth could not be learned in the scriptures but they could not assure vs of any truth at all Wheras you say to haue sayd against those Heretiks that part of the Gospell which was preached by Peter was written by S. Mark and some necessary parts of it omitted had been to speake impertinently and rather to confirme than confute their errour I must say that your consequence is no less impertinent than your supposition is false because no body did ever go about to confute those Heretiks by saying that part of the Gospell was written and some part omitted but by proving that the scriptures were true and of infallible authority which they denyed and also that beside scripture there are true Catholique Traditions opposite to the foolish traditions of those Heretiks from which truth may be learned both which Points S. Irenaeus proves and so confutes the double errour of those heretiks that truth could be found neither by the scriptures nor by the Traditions of Catholiques and therby expressly makes good such Traditions and that both out of scripture and Tradition we may learne some Points of Christian Faith which is directly against that very thing for which you alledge him and proves my chief intent that scripture is not the only Rule of Faith To which purpose I beseech you heare your owne words Pag 345. N. 29. where you bring S. Irenaeus Lib. 3. Cap. 2. speaking thus to those Heretiks Your calumnyes against Scripture are most vnjust but yet moreover assure yourselves that if you will be tryed by Tradition even by that also you will be overthrowne For our Tradition is farr more famous more constant and in all respects more credible than that which you pretend to It were easy for me to muster vp against you the vninterrupted Successions of all the Churches founded by the Apostles all conspiring in their testimonyes against you But because it were too long to number vp the Successions of all Churches I will content my self with the Tradition of the most Ancient and most glorious Church of Rome which alone is sufficient for the confutation and confusion of your doctrine c Thus you And though you render very imperfectly both the words and meaning of S. Irenaeus and in some words following those which I haue sett downe falsify his sense And therfor I beseech the Reader to examine the place yet this is sufficient to shew by your owne confession what was the judgment of this glorious Saint and Martyr concerning Traditions and the no-necessity that all Poynts of Faith should haue bene written since we may receyue them from the Church 167. By the way For what mystery do you goe about to proue that S. Mark hath written all things necessary because S. Irenaeus Lib. 3. Cap. 1. saith Mark S. Peters disciple delivered to vs in writing those things which S. Peter had preached and yet do not apply the same proof to S. Luke of whom S. Irenaeus in the same place saith Luke a follower of Paul wrote downe the Gospell which had bene preached by him S. Paul To what purpose would you goe the further way about first proving that S. Mark hath all necessary points and from the nce inferring that S. Luke whose Gospell is larger than that of S. Mark must needs haue written all such things When as you might haue immediatly proved the same thing of S. Luke of whom S. Irenaeus speaks in the very same manner as he speaks of S. Mark 168. From S. Mark you passe to S. John whom Pag. 211. N. 42. you would proue to haue written all necessary points because he saith Many other signes also did Iesus in the sight of his disciples which are not written in this Booke But these
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
containe something against scripture For example whether according to the example of our Saviour the Eucharist were not to be celebrated after supper or at the tyme when we are wont to supp as Protestants commonly call it the supper which certainly you cannot avoyd by scripture alone but only by authority of the Church which practiseth the contrary And this is so great a doubt that Januarivs consulted S. Austine about it and S. Austine answers that we are to follow the custome of Churches though yet in the same Epistle Cap. 7. he saith Nonnullos probabilis quaedam ratio c. Some were moved with a probable reason that vpon one particular day in the yeare on which our Lord gaue the supper the Body and Bloud of our Lord might be offered ād receyved after meate as it were for a more remarkable commemoration The same I say of washing the feete and other circumstances which abstracting from the practise of the Church you can haue no certainty but that we are obliged to follow our Saviours example in them all And in particular for washing of feet our Saviour Joan. 13. V. 8. said to S. Peter If I wash thee not thou shalt haue no part with me And V. 14. you also ought to wash one anothers feet Mark the word ought which may seeme to sound a commād and was spoken not only to S. Peter but to all the rest Therfor vnless we rely on the churches practise Declaration and infallibility we must say that there is a command to wash feete either before we receyve the Eucharist or els absolutely without relation to that Sacrament because our Saviour sayd absolutely you ought to wash one an others feet Morover How will you assure vs that bread for the Matter of Consecration must not of necessity be vnleavened and the wine only of that kind which our Saviour vsed at that tyme Or if you may cōsecrate in any kind of wine why not in any kind of bread Which are things belonging not only to decency or circumstance but also to the substance of the Sacrament and though they belonged only to circumstance yet if they were forbidden or commanded in scripture the doing or omission of thē were damnable therfor S. Austine must suppose that the vniversall church cānot erre Neither cā he be thought to say these things are not vnlawfull but indifferent therfor it is madness to dispute against them if they be practised by the whole church but contrarily he must say the whole church practises them therfore they are lawfull ād it is madness to dispute against them which were not so if the whole church might erre neither had he sayd any more of the vniversall than of any particular church which ought not to be disturbed for things indifferent as you ibid Pag. 151. N. 42. deny not but it might be esteemēd pride and folly to contradict and disturbe the Church for matter of order partaining to the tyme and place and other circomstāces of Gods worship And yet S. Austine in that Epistle Cap. 2. having first mentioned things contayned in scripture adds these words But those things which we keep not as written but by tradition if they be observed through the whole world are vnderstood to be kept as recōmended and ordayned either by the Apostles themselves or by generall Councells whose authority is most wholsome in the Church and having given examples of things which are differētly observed in different places and countryes saith this kind of things is freely observed neither is there any better order for a grave and prudent Christian then that he doe as he sees done in that church to which he chances to come ād afterward he disallowes their proceeding who are cause of disturbance for things which can be decided neither by the authority of holy scripture nor by tradition of the vniversall church Therfor according to S. Austine if ōce we haue a tradition of the vniversall church we may ād ought to defend it without further dispute ād to impugne ād reject whatsoever practise or doctrine of any particular church or countrey though it may seeme to be occasion of trouble which we could not doe without pride ād folly vnless we were assured that the vniversall church cannot approue any vnlawfull practise or deliver any thing against faith ād therfor he saith Cap. 4. that he who alledges only the custome of his particular country will not speake out of scripture neither will he take his proofes frō the voice of the vniversall church dilated through the world Where we see S. Austine makes a difference between a particular and vniversall church and constantly ioynes togeather the Holy Scripture and the voice of the vniversall church either of which whosoever can alledg he may confidently stand for what they deliver And for this cause cap. 5. he saith that Januarius to whom he wrote was to consider whether that of which there was Question be contayned in scripture or be vnanimously practised by the whole church or of the third kind which is different in divers places and countryes of which third kind he saith let every one doe what he findes in that church where he fynds himself But of the two first kinds he speakes as I noted aboue in another manner that there is no doubt but that we are to doe what the Holy Scripture prescribes as also whatsoever the vniversall church doth practise and that to dispute against any such thing is most insolent madness What could haue bene spoken more cleare to shew that we are not to follow the vniversall church because we judg aforehand that what she practises is lawfull but because we learne by her practise that it is lawfull and so ought not to doubt quin ita faciendum sit that is ought to be so done and so we must learne of her both the practise and the lawfulness therof And consequently whatsoever is against scripture or the practise of the vniversall Church must not be ranked among the third kind of things of which he sayd none of those things are against Faith or Manners and contrarily whatsoever is of the two first kinds that is against scripture or the vniversall Church must be esteemed to be of a different nature and contrary to Faith or Manners and therfor saith he velemendari opportet quod perperam fiebat vel institui quod non fiebat Either that must be mended which was done amisse or that is to be ordayned which was omitted And therfor your saying here that it is not to be accounted pride or folly to goe about to reforme some errours which the Church hath suffered to come in and to vitiate therby the substance of Gods Worship is directly against S Austine and you cannot avoyd the crime of schisme by parting from the Church vpon such false pretenses nor of Heresy even by this most pernicious Doctrine that the vniversall Church may erre 210. From these places of S. Austine and what we haue sayd
in England subscribing to the 6 of their 39 Articles That scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation in effect subscribe to nothing but may reject all those Articles whensoever they please But of the absurdity of this your doctrine herafter 5. For the present I must obserue some things delivered by you in the places which I haue cited First Pag. 66. N. 33. where you teach that scripture is an instrumentall Object of our Faith which is a strang kind of speach Philosophers tell vs of a materiall and formall Object of a totall and Partiall of an Adequate and Inadequate and some other Divisions of Objects but of an instrumentall Object I never heard Nothing can be stiled an Object of any act of our vnderstanding vnless it be apprehended by that act and nothing consequently can be called the Object of an Act of Faith vnless it be believed by an act of Faith and if it be believed by an act of Faith as a thing revealed it is a materiall Object of Faith and so your phrase of an instrumentall Object serves only to confute your owne doctrine and proue that scripture is a materiall Object of Faith Besides who ever dreamed that either the divine Revelation which is the formall Object of Faith or the things revealed which are the Materiall Objects therof can be called according to Philosophy the Instruments of an act of Faith Or who ever heard that an Instrument is divided into a Formall and Materiall Instrument 6. 2. You say in the same place All the divine Verityes which Christ revealed to the Apostles and the Apostles taught the Churches are contained in scripture Against which words I haue these just exceptions That they are against yourself who expressly teach that the Apostles declared diverse things to the Church of their tyme which declarations are not extant as also that they are against this doctrine of yours that scripture is not a materiall object of Faith For I aske whether or no the Apostles taught the Churches that the Bookes or Epistles or Prophecyes written by Canonicall Authors were the word of God If they did then the divine authority of scripture is a materiall object of our Faith as being a thing taught by the Apostles with divine infallible assistance which is the reason why we belieue that other mysteryes delivered by them are to be believed by an Act of Faith If the Apostles did not teach the Churches this Truth by what authority do you now belieue it to be the word of God Yourself speaking of the CaÌ„onicalness of some scriptures say 142. N. 28. If it were not revealed by God to the Apostles and by the Apostles to the Church then can it be no Revelation as on the other side you teach in the same place that if the Apostles delivered it it was to be believed as an article of Faith 7. 3. In your Pag 217. and 218. N. 49. which I cited aboue you say Is it not manifest to all the world that Christians of all Professions do agree with one consent in the belief of all those Bookes of scripture which were not doubted of in the Ancient Church without danger of damnation And how then say you Pag. 116. N. 159. that men might reject the scripture God requiring of vs vnder payne of damnation only to belieue the verityes therin contained and not the Divine Authority of the Books wherin they are conâ—ayned Will you make vs belieue that not to be damnable which yourself acknowledg Christians of all Professions to agree with one consent to haue bene damnable namely not to belieue all those Bookes which were not doubted of in the ancient Church Or how are not those bookes an Object of our Faith and belief in the Belief wherof Christians of all professions agree with one consent Or how can you say in the same Pag. 218. N. 49. Is it not apparent that no man at this tyme can without hypocrisy pretend to belieue in Christ but of necessity he must do so That is he must belieue all those Bookes of Scripture which were not doubted of in the Church seing he can haue no reason to belieue in Christ but he must haue the same to belieue the scripture And Pag. 116. N. 159. you say It were now very strange and vnreasonable if a man should belieue the matter of the Bookes of Scripture and not the Authority of the Bookes and therfor if a man should profess the not believing of these I should hane reason to feare he did not believe that How I say can you write in this manner who teach that scripture is not a materiall object of faith which we are bound to belieue vnder payne of damnation and yet that we are bound to belieue the verityes contained therin of which Christ is one Is there the same reason to belieue a thing revealed aÌ„d another acknowledged not to be revealed I hope your meaning is not that it is reasonable not to belieue the authority of scripture aÌ„d yet that it is resonable for the authority therof to belieue the matter of it which were not only vnreasonable but impossible also as no man can possibly assent to a Conclusion in vertue of Premises which he believes not to be true 8. But in this last place Pag 116. N. 159. you haue a subtilty expressed in these words There is not alwayes an equall necessity of the belief of those things for the belief wherof there is an equall reason We haue I belieue as great reason to belieue there was such a man as Henry the eighâ— King of England as that Iesus Christ suffered vnder Pontius Pilate yet this is necessary to be believed and that is not so So that if any man should doubt or disbelieue that it were most vnreasonably done of him yet it were no mortall sin nor no sâ—â—ne at all God having no where commanded men vnder payne of damnation to believe all which Reason induceth them to belieue Therfor as an Executor that should performe the will of the dead should fully satisfy the law though he did not belieuo that parchment to be his Written will which indeed is so so I belieue that he who believes all the particular doctrines which integrate Christianity and lives according to them should be saved though he neither believed nor knew that the Gospell were written by the Evangelists or the Epistles by the Apostles This is your discourse which deserves detestation rather then confutation Yet I must not omitt to make some reflexions on it 9. First then wheras you say There is not alwayes an equall necessity for the belief of those things for the belief wherof there is an equall reason I answer that you speake very confusedly and imperfectly and either vntruly if your words be so vnderstood as they may make any thing to our present Question or impertinently if they belong nothing to it I say therfor if the belief of one thing be necessary for the belief of another
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
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
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
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
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
will serue for an Answer to this very Objection of resistibility or irresistibility which you make against vs who defend the infallibility of the Church and absolute certaine Assistance that she shall never erre in matters belonging to Faith and Religion But to returne 80. Seing the Church cannot perish she cannot faile in Fundamentall Points and seing also you confess that it is impossible to determine in particular what Poynts be Fundamentall and we see other Protestants could never yet agree in giving a Catalogue of such Points we must either belieue that she can faile in no Points at all or else we cannot be sure that she failes not in Fundamentall Articles This granted I go a step further and say that seing in the ordinary course of Gods Providence we are not taught by immediate Revelations Enthusiasmes or the like but by the Ministery of the Church it followes that God hath indued and adorned her with such Prerogatives and Notes that all who will cooperate with Gods Grace may attaine the knowledg of Her and be able to joyne themselves to Her Communion and abandon all other false Synagogues or Congregations Otherwise it is all one to make the true Church invisible or vndiscernable from other Communityes and to say there is no true Church at all in order to any fruit which faithfull people can take or receiue from Her and infallibility in Fundamentall Points which even Protestants grant Her will serue to no purpose at all It is your owne saying Pag 105. N. 139. No Church can possibly be fit to be a Gaide but only a Church of some certaine denomination And what comfort can it be to our soules as Whitaker sayd That Christs Church never shall faile if we cannot know where that Church is nor that there be Meanes and Notes to shew her vnto vs Neither can any be obliged to obey her Commands follow her Doctrine heare her preachers frequent her Sacraments c vnless they can be sure to find her Rom 10. Vers 14.15 How shall they belieue him whom they haue not heard And how shall they heare without a Preacher But how shall they preach vnless they be sent Behold preaching in the ordinary course necessary to Faith and lawfull Mission necessary to Preaching All which can belong only to the visible true Church For this cause Ephes 4. There must be in the Church Pastors to governe and Doctors to teach And Esay 62.6 We reade vpon thy walles Jerusalem I haue appointed watchmen all the day and all the night for ever they shall not hold their peace If they hold not their peace they must haue auditours who must be knowne and these must know where their Preachers are to be found Even Calvin Lib 4. Inst Chap 1. Sect 4. Saith that the knowledg of the visible Church is not only profitable but necessary for vs and that we are to be kept vnder her custody and government all the dayes of our life our weakness requiring that we be her Disciples through the whole course of our life And having Sect 5. alledged the words Eph 4.11 He adds We see that God who could make men perfect in a moment yet will not do it but by the education of the Church God inspires Faith but by Meanes of the Gospell as Paul tell vs Rom 10.17 That Faith comes by hearing Although the Power of God be not tyed to outward meanes yet he hath tyed vs to the ordinary way of teaching Wherby we see that even those who talke so much of the private Spirit yet profess that it is not given without the Ministery of the Church as I saied above Fulk also in his Answer to the counterfaite Catholike Pag 100. sayes of Preachers Truth cannot be continued in the world but by their Ministery And in Propositions and Principles disputed in the vniversity of Geneva Pag 845. The Ministery is an esseÌ„tiall mark of the true Church Mr. Deering in his Reading vpon the Epistle to the Hebrewes Chap 3. Lecture 15. sayth Salvation springeth in preaching of the Gospell and is shut vp againe with the ceasing of it And Ibid Lectur 16. fine Take away preaching you take away Faith Cartwright in his second Reply Part 1. Pag 381. circa medium maintayneth that the people perish where there be no preachers although there be Readers And that by bare reading ordinarily there is no salvation no Faith Let Protestants marke this If Scripture were of itself evident in all Points of Faith it were sufficient to reade it and people need not perish for want of preaching but Faith and salvation might be had without it by only reading Scripture 81. Out of what hath bene sayd these important Corollaryes are manifestly deduced First That the true Church which all ought to seeke and may find if they indeavour aÌ„d be not waÌ„ting to Gods Grace is a visible Congregation which may be distinguished from all other aÌ„d so come to be of one denominatioÌ„ For it is evideÌ„t our Saviour sayd not of false pastours aÌ„d prelates he that heares you heares me Luc 10.16 nor were false Preachers sent by him nor did he appoynt Pastours Doctors c. to be followed in a false Church nor did he appoynt watchmen c. in Babylon but in Jerusalem nor can the sayings of Protesâ—nts which I haue â—ited aboue be vnderstood either of a false Church or of a true Church as it were in generall and in abstracto without being possible to be knowen in particular But they must be vnderstood of a true Church with relation to vs and the salvation of particular persons for which end our B Saviour did constitute and doth preserue Her What els â—â—n Calvins words signify That it is necessary for vs to know her That the keepes and defends vs That we must be her Discrples That our of her â—osome no remission of sins can be hoped That although God could yet he will not bring Vs to perfection but by the education of the Church That he inspires Faith by the instrument of the Gospell and Meanes of hearing and that God hath tyed vs to this ordinary way And what els can Fulk and other Protestants meane For it were but foolery to say That an vnknowne Ministery is an essentiall Mark of the true Church Or that salvation springeth in a preaching not known where to be found and is shut vp with ceasing of it Or that truth cannot be continued in the world without the ministery of Preachers Or of any such sayings 82. Secondly It followes that seing there must alwayes be a knowne particular Church which cannot perish that is in your Principles cannot erre in Fundamentall Points that knowen Church must be infallible absolutely in all Points Fundamentall and not Fundamentall For if we did conceiue she could erre in any one Point of Faith we could not rely on her Authority in any other which you also grant as we haue lately shewed and Pag 105. N. 139. you speake directly to our present
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
Circle into which we are not entered while first we belieue the Church for such Arguments as I haue spoken of and afterward embrace Scripture for the Churches Authority and if we be forced to proue the Church by Scripture it is propter incredulitatem vestram for your incredulity and not because indeed it is needfull of itself Whatsoever you object against vs in this way will be found vpon examination to impugne the infallibility of the Apostles and Primitiue Church and to proue that Insidels converted to Christianity in vertue of such Arguments as I haue touched were rather deluded than converted 3. If any object that although what we haue sayd be true of the true Church yet it remaines to be proved that the Roman Church is the true Church 4. I answer For our present purpose it suffices that the true Church be proved to be infallible without descending to other particular disputes in this place Though somthing I haue touched already This is cleare That neither Protestants nor any of our new Sectaryes can so much as pretend to the true Church if they grant her to be infallible since they belieue their owne Church to be fallible The same I might say of the Gift of working Miracles of which our Saviour saith Marc vlt Vers 17. Them that belieue these signes shall followe They shall cast out Divells c On which place Calvin in Harmonia confesses that the grace of Miracles is promised not to every one but to the whole body of the Church And in the marginall notes of the English Bible printed An 1576. vpon Joan 14. Vers 12. He that believes in me the works that I doe he shall doe and greater our adversaryes confess and say that this is referred to the whole body of the Church in whom this vertue doth shine for ever Luther also To 7. Lib de Judaeis c vrgeth against the Jewes the daily confirmation of our Christian Faith by Miracles in all Ages since Christ saying From God we haue learned and receaved as an everlasting word and verity of God for these thousand fiue hundred yeares confessed and confirmed by Miracles and signes How then can it be sayd that Miracles haue ceased ever since the Apostles tyme Now it is evident that this Gift is lasting in our Church and in our Church only The same appeares in the Motiue of Succession of Bishops Antiquity Unity perpetuall Existence Conversion of Nations which Propertyes we manifestly proue to be wanting in all Sects In England Protestants did once pretend a Succession of Bishops whose institution they pretended to hold as Divine But this pretence is to little purpose for them For 1. It was no vniversall consent but opposed by many even in England by Scotland France Holland Germany and other Protestant Congregations 2. They wanted both true Ordination and Succession and so could not be true Bishops 3. They held it not necessary but that they who reject them may be saved and it is strang that a Church rejecting and impugning a Divine Institution can hope for salvation yea even by this they either acknowledg themselves to haue had no absolute certainty that Episcopacy is de Jure Divino orels they speake very inconsequently and vnchristianly that without them there may be true Churches and salvation Who would not wonder to reade in Dr. Andrewes the pretended Bishop of Winchester and a prime man among Protestants in England these words directed to the French Hugonot Molin Respons ad Epist 2. Petri Molinaei Quia hîc idem nobiseum c I make no doubt but you are of the same opinion with vs in this matter If without offence you can profess so much you shall doe a thing very gratfull to vs if you cannot you shall performe a thing not vngratefull if for tyme to come you meddle not with our affaires For in the condition in which you are it will be hard both to please your owne and not displease ours Neither doth it follow if ours be divini juris of divine right that either silvation cannot be had or the Church cannot stand without it A strang Divinity and fortitude and zeale in a Bishop not to dislike dissembling in a thing believed to be Juris Divini least one offend his parishioners or that it is not damnable to impugne a thing which is Juris Divini But what doth Molin answer to this Divinity Heare him Epist 3. Non potui dicere c I could not say that the primacy of Bishops is Iuris Divini of divine right but that I should haue accused of Heresy our Church which hath shed so much bloud for Christ For to be obstinate against those things which are of divine right and to oppose the Command of God is plainly Heresy whether it be in a thing concerning either Faith or discipline And besides I must haue overthrowne that Principle by which our Religion doth chiefly defend itself against Papistery That all things which are Iuris Divint of Divine Lawe are contayned sufficiently and evidently in Holy Scripture I beseech the Reader to obserue two maine Points 1. That it is an Heresy to deny any thing which is Juris Divini of Divine right though it belong only to the discipline of the Church which is very true because whatsoever is against any thing revealed in Scripture is against Faith and damnable to be defended whether it concerne speculation or practise and to hold that it is not damnable to deny a thing sufficiently proposed as revealed by God is plaine insidelity 2. That to say Episcopacy is Juris Divini is to grant that not all things which are Juris Divini are sufficiently and evidently contained in Scripture alone which is the thing I affirmed in the beginning of my second Chapter And so English Protestants who teach Episcopacy to be Juris Divini must either say that some Pointâ—â—â—ealed by God is not evident in Scripture or els renounce their plea for Episcopacy that it is Juris Divini And indeed as long as they hold it not as a Point of Faith and consequently not necessary to be believed it is all one as if they did not hold it to be Juris Divini because in this case nothing is as good as no certainty For it is certaine and a matter of Faith that the true Church must haue Bishops and to deny it is an Heresy in a matter of greatest moment and which strikes at the very roote of Religion neither can any true Church communicate or dissemble or conniue with those Congregations who deny this truth as our English Protestants doe connive and communicate with them and Dr. Andrews expressly sayes may be done yea or with those who hold it to be only probable and the better doctrine though not certaine nor the contrary to be Heresy wheras to affirme that any Article of Faith is only probable is plaine Heresy And in this Point the Divinity of the French Hugonot Molin is better than that of the English
you take away you destroy the vnity of the Church For a Division of that which is essentiall is a plaine destruction Protestants teach the true preaching of the word and due administration of Sacraments to be so essentiall to the Church that without them a Church ceases to be a Church therfore if there be not agreement or Communion in them they cannot be essentially one Church but essentially different and divided one from another This true Principle being setled 4. The first reason which Charity Maintayned Chap 5. Part 1. N. 12. alledges to proue his Assertion is this Seing Schisme consists essentially in leaving the externall Communion of the Visible Church of Christ and that Luther and his Associars did so as he proves by evidence of fact and by the confessions of Protestants Luther saying in Prà efat Oper suorum in the beginning I was alone And Calvin Ep 141. We were forced to make a separation from the whole world besides the sayings of other Protestants it followes that they cannot be excused from Schisme 5. The Answer which may be gathered out of Dr. Potter to this Reason is That they left not the Church but her Corruptions Which evasion Charity Maintayned confutes by willing him to consider that for the present we speake not of Heresy or departing from the Church but of Schisme of leaving her externall Communion which manifestly they did by separating from all Churches and consequently from the Vniversall Church which is the most formall sinne of Schisme And indeed they ought to inferr that the Vniversall Church is not subject to any errour in Doctrine and not tell the world that they forsooke her Communion for her Errours seing her Communion is never to be forsaken and therfore it is not possible that she can giue any cause of such a separation by falling into errour This we learne of S. Austine Cont Parm Lib 2. Chap 11. There is no just necessity to divide Vnity And Ep 48. It is not possible that any may haue just cause to separate their Communion from the Communion of the whole world and call themselves the Church of Christ as if they had separated themselves from the Communion of all Nations vpon just cause And S. Irenaeus Cont Heres Lib 4. C 62. They can not make any so important reformation as the evill of the Schisme is pernicious 6. Secondly Charity Maintayned proves them to be Schismatikes by this Argument Potter teaches that the Catholique Church cannot erre in points of Faith Necessary to salvation and therfore it cannot be damnable to remayne in her Communion although she were falsly supposed to teach some Errours seing they cannot be damnable and consequently cannot yield any necessary cause to leaue her Communion but it is cleare that Luther and the rest left the whole vniversall Church which was extant before them vnder pretense of Errours which cannot be Fundamentall Therfore it is cleare they left Her without any necessary cause Which I confirme by your owne words Pag 220. N. 52. where you say May it please you now at last to take notice that by Fundamentall we meane all and only that which is necessary and then I hope you will grant that we may safely expect salvation in a Church which hath all things Fundamentall to salvation vnless you will say that more is necessary than that which is necessary And Pag 376 N. 57. he that believes all necessary Truth if his life he answerable to his Faith how is it possible he should faile of salvation Therfore say I seing the Church vniversall cannot erre in necessary Points whosoever embraceth her Faith for as much as belongs to Faith cannot faile of salvation vnless you will say that more is necessary then that which is necessary which are your owne words You say also Pag 33. N. 4. If a particular man or Church may hold some particular Errours and yet be a member of the Church vniversall why may not the Church hold some vniversall Errour and yet be shell the Church This parity is none at all yet seing you must make it good I may say much more with all truth and without any dependence vpon your false parity if the Church vniversall may hold some vniversall Errour as you confess she may which yet indeed is impossible and be still the Church why may not a particular man or Church hold some particular errours and yet be a member of the Church vniversall and consequently capable of salvation for as much as concernes his Faith And therfore none can forsake the Church by leaving her Communion and making himself no member of Her for any such errours as are not opposite to a necessary Truth into which kind of errours it is confessed the Church cannot fall To which I may add what yousay Pag 35. N. 7. if some Controversyes may for many Ages he vndetermined and yet in the meane while men be saved why should or how can the Churches being furnisht with effectuall meanes to determine all Controversyes in Religion be necessary to salvation the end itself to which these meanes are ordayned being as experience shewes not necessary O how truly may we say and happy had your progenitors bene if they had done so If for so many Ages before Luthers pretended Reformation but true Schisme men wrought Miracles converted Nations were eminent for Sanctity attained salvation and are esteemed Saints in Heaven by our Adversaryes and this in the belief and profession of those Points which Catholikes now professe how could any Reformation or separation be necessary since the end itself of salvation to which all meanes are ordained was not necessary but was attained without any such Reformation or separation 7. Like to this Argument of Charity Maintayned is another which N. 22. he tooke from these words of Potter Pag 155. It is comfort enough for the Church that the Lord in mercy will secure her from all capitall dangers and conserue her on earth against all enemyes but she may not hope to triumph over all sin and error tell she be in Heaven If it be comfort enough to be secured from all capitall dangers why were not the first pretended reformers content with enough but rent the Church out of a pernicious greedyness of more then enough or a pretended desire to free men from all errour which cannot be hoped for out of Heaven If even the vniversall Church may not hope to triumph over all Errour till she be in Heaven much less can particular Churches and men conceiue any such hope and so you must either grant that Errours not Fundamentall cannot yield sufficient cause to forsake the Churches Communion or you must affirme that all Churches may and ought to be forsaken and that a man cannot lawfully be of any Church yea and that every one is obliged to forsake himself if it were possible for avoyding errours not Fundamentall Besides as it is not lawfull to leaue the Communion of the Church for abuses in life and manners
because we cannot in this life hope to triumph over all sinne as Potter speakes so neither can her Communion be forsaken for Errours not Fundamentall seing the Doctor saith also that the Church may not hope to triumph over all Errours 8. Another Argument Charity Maintayned N. 25. tooke from these words of Potter Pag 75. There neither was nor can be any just cause to depart from the Church of Christ no more than from Christ himself But to depart from a particular Church and namely from the Church of Rome in some Doctrines and Practises there might be just and necessary cause though the Church of Rome wanted nothing necessary to salvation Marke what he saith There can be no cause to depart from the Church of Christ and yet he teaches that the Church of Christ the vniversall Church may erre in Points not Fundamentall therfore errours in Poynts not Fundamentall cannot be judged a sufficient and just cause to depart from the vniversall Church and for the same reason if the errours of the Roman Church be supposed to be not Fundamentall there can be no just cause to depart from Her But here he expressly speakes vpon supposition that the Roman Church wanted nothing necessary to salvation and consequently that she did not erre in Fundamentall Points therfore there could be no cause to forsake Her And that Potter affirmes absolutly in other passages of his Booke that the Roman Church doth not erre in Fundamentall Articles shall be demonstrated herafter and consequently that he contradicts himself in saying the vniversall Church cannot be forsaken and yet that there might be just and necessary cause to forsake the Church of Rome which erres only in Poynts not Fundamentall as he holds the vniversall Church may erre to say nothing for the present That Luther did forsake all Churches which is to forsake the vniversall Church as also that indeed all Ortodox Churches agreed with the Roman and so to forsake her was to forsake all Churches for which there can be no just cause 9. Another evasion Potter Pag 76. bring to avoyd the just imputation of Schisme and it is because they acknowledg the Church of Rome to be a member of the Body of Christ and not cut off from the hope of salvation And this saith he cleares vs from the imputation of Schisme whose property it is to cut of from the Body of Christ and the hope of salvation the Church from which it separates 10. This shift is confuted at large by Charity Maintayned as a strange Doctrine that men should be Schismatiks in for saking a Church which they judge to want somthing that is necessary to salvation and that they should be excused from Schisme who forsake her and yet profess that she hath all things necessary to salvation as if a man should thinke it a sufficient excuse for his rebellion to alledg that he held the Person against whom he rebelled to be his Lawfull Soveraine And Dr. Potter thinkes himselfe free from Schisme because he forsooke the Church of Rome but yet so as that still he held her to be a true Church and to haue all necessary meanes to salvation But I will no further vrge this most solemne foppery and do much more willingly put all Catholikes in mynd what an vnspeakeable comfort it is that our Adversaryes are forced to confesse that they cannot cleare themselves from Schisme otherwise thaÌ„ by acknowledging that they do not nor caÌ„not cutt off froÌ„ the hope of salvation our Church Which is as much as if they should in plaine termes say They must be damned vnless we may be saved Moreover this evasion doth indeed condemne your Zealous Brethren of Heresy for denying the Churches perpetuity but doth not cleere yourself from Schisme which consists in being divided from that true Church with which a man agreeth in all Points of Faith as you must profess yourself to agree with the Church of Rome in all Fundamentall Articles For otherwise you should cut her off from the hope of salvation and so condemne yourselfe of Schisme And lastly even according to this your owne definition of Schisme you cannot cleere yourselfe from that crime vnlesse you be content to acknowledg a manifest contradiction in your owne Assertions For if you do not cut vs off from the Body of Christ and the Hope of salvation how come you to say Pag. 20. that you Judg a reconcilation with vs to be damnable And Pag 75. that to depart from the Church of Rome there might be just and necessary cause And Pag 79. That they that haue the vnderstanding and meanes to discover their errour and neglect to vse them we dare not flatter them with so easy a censure of hope of salvation If then it be as you say a property of Schisme to cut off from the Hope of salvation the Church from which it separates how will you cleare yourself from Schisme who dare not flatter vs with so easy a censure And who affirme that a reconciliation with vs is damnable But the truth is there is no constancy in your Assertions by reason of difficultyes which presse you on all sides For you are loath to affirme clearly that we may be saved least such a grant might be occasion as in all reason it ought to be of the conversion of Protestants to the Roman Church And on the other side if you affirme that our Church erred in points Fundamentall or necessary to salvation you know not how nor where nor among what Company of men to find a perpetuall Visible Church of Christ before Luther And therfore your best shift is to say and vnsay as your occasions command I do not examine the Doctours Assertion that it is the property of Schisme to cut of from the Body of Christ the Church from which it separates wherin he is mistaken as appeares by his owne example of the Donatists who were formall and proper Heretiks as he affirmes because they denyed the perpetuity of Gods Church which he saith is in its nature a formall Heresy against the Article of our Creed I belieue the Catholike Church and not Schismatiks as Schisme is a vice distinct from Heresy Besides although the Donatists and Luciferians whom he also alâ—edges had bene meere Schismatiks yet it were against all good Logicke from a particular to inferr a generall Rule to determine what is the property of Schisme Thus farr Charity Maintayned And indeed this might seeme a good Argument The Church of Rome wants something necessary to salvation Therfore it is lawfull and necessary to forsake Her but not this We haue forsaken the Church of Rome but yet so as we belieue she wants nothing necessary to salvation Therfore we are not Schismatiques 11. A third devise Potter hath to cleere Protestants from Schisme saying Pag 75. There is a great difference between a Schisme from them and a Reformation of ourselves But this saith Charity Maintayned N. 29. is a subtility by which all Schisme and sin
so many worlds erre Were so many ages ignorant What if thou errest and drawest so many into hell to be damned eternally with thee And Tom 5. Annot breviss he sayth Dost thou who art but One and of no account take vpon thee so great matters What if thou being but one offendest If God permit such so many and all Mark all to erre why may he not permit thee to erre To this belong those Arguments the Church the Church the Fathers the Fathers the Councells the Customes the multitudes and greatnes of wise men Whom 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 mensall Fol 158. never begun this businesse wishing yet further that his Writings were burned and buried Praefat in Tom German Jen in eternall oblivion 15. Another Argument to proue that Protestants are Schismatiks at least for dividing themselves from one another is delivered by Charity Mamtayned Part 1. N. 38. Pag 203. For if Luther were in the right those other Protestants who invented Doctrines farr different from his and divided themselves from him must be reputed Schismatiks and the like Argument may proportionably be applyed to their further divisions and subdivisions Which reason is confirmed out of Dr. Potter Pag 20. affirming that to him and to such as are convicted in conscience of the errours of the Roman Church a reconciliation is impossible and damnable And yet he teaches as I shewe elswere that their difference from the Roman Church is not in Fundamentall poynts and therfore seing Protestants differ in Points at least not Fundamentall a reconciliation between them must be impossible and damnable Which yet may be further proved out of Potter who Pag 69. confesseth that even among Protestants the weeds thistles tares and cockle are not perfectly taken away nor every where alike Now I aske whether by reason of these weeds Ptotestants must separate from one another or no If they must there will be no end of Schismes and Divisions and what a Church or Churches are those from which one is obliged to divide himself If they must not separate from one another by reason of errours or weeds it was not lawfull for them to divide theÌ„selves from vs vnless they will returne to say that Protestants are obliged to separate both from Catholikes and from one another making eÌ„dless Schismes and Divisions not only lawfull but necessary For which Chilling worth opens a fayre way Pag 292. N. 91. in these words If the Church were obnaxious to corruption as we Protestants pretend it was who can possibly warrant vs that part of this corruption might not get in and prevaile in the 〈◊〉 or 4. or 3. or 2. age What is this but to say that in those primitiue ages for ought we know men were obliged to forsake the Communion of the vniversall visible Church 16. To these reasons we may yet add what Potter saith Pag 131 and 132. That the Donatists and Novatians were just branded for Schismatiks for opposing the Church and that it will never be proved that Protestants oppose any Declaration of the Catholike Church and therfore are vnjustly charged either with schisme or Heresy But M. Doctor I beseech you informe vs whether Luther and his followers did not oppose the doctrines and declarations of all Churches extant before them and consequently of the vniversall Church And therfore you are justly charged both with Schisme and Heresy according to your owne ground 17. Other Arguments Charity Maintayned alledges of which we shall haue occasion to treate herafter Particularly that is to be observed which N. 47 Pag 221. et seqq he proves to wit that Luther and the rest departed from the Roman Church and were Schismatiks for such their division from her Communion And because some Protestants are wont to produce certaine persons as members of their Church harity Maintayned demonstrates that the Grecians Waldenses Wickless Huss Muscovites Armenians Georgians cannot be of the same Church with Protestants and therfore that Luther and his followers opposed the doctrine and separated themselves from the Communion of all Christian Churches which cannot be done without Schisme and Heresy vnless men haue a mynd to deny that there are any such sins as Schisme and Heresy And here I must not omit that Chillingworth thought it not wisdome to answer the discourse of Charity Maintayned proving that the aforesayd people Waldenses Wickleff c were Protestants but dissembles that matter A signe that he judged those vulgar allegations of Protestants to be wholy false and impertinent 18. Now then we having proved that Potters evasions cannot cleare Protestants from Schisme we must examine what you can say whose answers being confuted this truth will remaine firme Protestants are guilty of the sin of Schisme 19. Your mayne and capitall answer consists in three propositions set downe Pag 264. And 265. N. 30 3â—.32 That not every separation but only a causelesse separation from the externall communion of any Church is the sin of Schisme That imposing vpon men vnder payne of excommunication a necessity of professing known errours and practâ—sing known corruptions is a sufficient and necessary cause of separation And that this is the cause which Protestants alledge to justify their separation from the Church of Rome That to leaue the Church and to leaue the externall communion of a Church at least as Dr. Potter vnderstands the words is not the same thing That being done by ceasing to be a member of it by ceasing to haue those requïsites which constitute a man a member of it as faith and obedience This by refusing to communicate with any Church in her liturgies and publike worship of God 20. These be his remembrances and memorandums as he calls them but indeed are conceypts borrowed out of a letter of Mr. John Hales of Eaton written to a private friend of his as I am most credibly informed by a Person well knowen to them both at that tyme and who sawe the letter itself And further affirmes of his owne certaine knowledg that Mr. Hales was of a very inconstant judgment one yeare for example doubting of or denying the Blessed Trinity the next yeare professing and adoring the same The substance of all consists in the first That only a causeless separation from the externall communion of any â—hurch is the sin of Schisme For if you aske the cause excusing from Schisme their separation from vs he will answer The Church was corrupted and it is not lawfull to communicate with any Church in her corruptions This I say is his mayne ground with which his other Momorandums must stand or fall For if either the Church cannot erre or els her errours and corruptions be not such as can yield just cause to leaue her externall communion the Prelates of Gods Church may impose vpon maÌ„ vnder paine of excommuniation a necessity to remaine in
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
in so much that in those respects his Feast is solemnly kept in the Grecian Church and all the Orthodox Bishops of the whole World never ceased to hold their Communion with Him his Predecessours and Successours which they neither would nor could haue done if they had discovered any one and much more if so many and so enormious Errours and corruptions had appeared in that Sea which was not any private obscure and as it were invisible Church but was ever visible and conspicuous and like a beacon to all Nations And therfore what she taught and professed could not be hidden vnder a bushell but being placed vpon a candlesticke did so shine to all that all must needs see it and either contradict which none did or approue it as they did And here we may alledg the saying of King James ad Peron Pag 388. Durst one but lightly corrupt the Faith approovea through the World It was easy for a child to discover the new Maister by his Novelty And the beliefe of truth being found all the Pastours of the whole World if need were were mooved and being moved did not rest till they had removed the ill and provided for the security of the sheepe of Christ How then is it possible that this heape of pretended Errours in the Roman Church could appeare without being discovered till Luther an Apostata from his Faith and Religious Order did sacrilegiously marry a vowed Nunne and in the middest of his shamefull carnall pleasures receaue revelations from the Divell as himselfe doth openly confess Wherfore we must conclude that these Points which Protestants would needs miscall Errours were indeed the Orthodox Doctrines of the Ancient Fathers and whole Church of all precedent Ages of the Possession of which Truths and good Name we ought not to be deprived without most certaine evidence which is impossible for any Heretike so much as pretend to doe with any modesty or shew of truth as I haue proved and will saie more hereafter 59. Sixthly Protestants can proue nothing against vs with evidence but by Scripture alone which is impossible for them to do as I haue shewed at large Chap 2. For seing words are capable of diverse senses it is impossible by the words alâ—â—e to convince that they are vnderstood in such or such a particular determinate sense and not in some other of which they are capable and what is possible for ought we know doth actually happen and Gods free Decrees in this matter of vsing words in some set meaning are not evident either in themselves or are notifyed to vs by any certaine Rule and therfore Protestants cannot with any evidence proue out of Scripture that our doctrine containes any Errour Fundamentall or not Fundamentall And it is well to be considered that the same Arguments which Protestants object against vs now were observed and answered by Catholike Divines before Protestants appeared to the world as they answered objections made against Christian Religion or Catholike Verityes by Pagans Turks Jewes and such Heretiks as Protestants detest and it is therby apparent that they did not dissemble difficultyes but did propose them with no less candor and sincerity than they answered them with truth learning and solidity They alone were the men who opposed themselves murum pro Domo Dei against all the enemyes of Christianity and the world believed that they gaue at that tyme as true solutions of those very objections of old Heretikes which now happen to be made by Protestants as they did to those difficultyes which were vrged against Christian Religion or against Catholique Verityes by old Heretiks whom even Protestants condemne Wherfore to come now and tell the world that the Answers of those Catholike Doctours against some few Points were not solid must needs breed a huge scandall against Christian Religion and Orthodox doctrine impugned by Pagans Jewes Turks and old condemned Heretiks Certaine it is that the enemyes of Christian Religion may object greater difficultyes against Christianity than any Heretike can invent against vs. It is therfore cleare that Protestants can haue no necessary or demonstratiue Argument to proue that the Church hath degenerated into any least falshood in matters concerning Faith and so we must conclude with these words of Hooker cited by Chilling Pag 311. As for the orders established sith equity and reason favour that which is in being till orderly judgment of decision be given against it it is but justice to exact of you and perversnes in you it should be to deny thervnto your willing Obedience Doth not every word of Hooker condemne Luther and his followers Sith equity and reason favour that which is in being and no orderly judgment of decision had been given against the orders which they found established in all Churches it was but justice to exact of them and worse then perversness in them to deny therunto willing obedience and a formall sin of Schisme by such disobedience to forsake the Communion of the whole Church 60. Seventhly As the Roman Church and all Churches of Her Communion could not be despoyled of the Possession they held of being accounted true and pure Churches so also the Pope Bishops and other Prelats and Pastours vnder Him could not without Sacriledge and injustice be disobeyed and deprived of the Right which they did peaceably possesse when Luther first appeared And for the Popes Primacy in particular it is acknowledged by Protestants to haue beene ancient and taught by Holy Fathers even with in the compass of yeares which Protestants admit for Orthodox and by some chief Protestants is held as a thing indifferent yea and profitable And I desire the Reader for his satisfaction in this behalfe to see Brierlyes Index Verbo Peters Primacy and Popes Primacy and turne to the places which there he shall find cited See also Charity Maintayned Pag 1. Cap 3. N. 19. of this matter If then this Point be maintayned by Ancient Fathers if believed and practised in those incorrupt Ages if acknowledged by Protestants for a thing profitable who will so much as pretend any evidence of Scripture or necessary demonstratiue reason against it And consequently who will not inferr that the separation of Protestants from the whole Church was causeless and so according to your owne Memorandum sinfull and Schismaticall 61. Let vs now come to examine your second evasion Pag 265. N. 31. The imposing vpon men vnder paine of Excommunication a necessity of professing knowne Errours and practising knowne corruptions is a sufficient and necessary cause of separation And that this is the cause which Protestants alledg to justify their separation from the Church of Rome But 62. First It is manifest that Protestants departed from the Roman Church voluntarily before they were forced by Excommunication or by any other meanes For they voluntarily professed a Faith contrary to that of the whole Church which most carefully and even sollicitously endeavoured by all meanes possible to reclaime them as appeares in the life
according to Protestants there can be no damnable Errour against Faith vnless either it be or be esteemed repugnant to some Truth plainly delivered in Scripture which you say is a necessary point the conclusion must be that Protestants differ in necessary Points and therfore according to your owne assertion are obliged to forsake one another without expecting any Imposing a necessity of professing knowne Errours and that this your Memorandum or condition is both impertinent and false or if as I sayd they are not obliged to parte one from another they could not without Schisme depart from vs. 71. Fiftly to come to the Point and strike at the roote Tell me whether you may be seriously present as members of one community and as I may say parts in the Quire with any sort of people in their Liturgy and publike service or worship of God as long as they do not expressly demand of you a profession of those particular Points wherin you disagree If you may then you may joyne yourselfe with Turks Jewes or even Pagans if they exact not of you such a profession which to any Christian must needs appeare most absurd and impious If you cannot communicate with those of a belief different from yours though they do not exact a profession of their Faith against your owne belief and conscience it still followes clearly that your Memorandum of imposing a necessity of professing knowne Errours is impertinent seing you cannot communicate with those of a different Faith though they impose it not vpon you and also that either Protestants cannot communicate one with another since they differ in Faith or els that they could not forsake vs vpon pretence that we impose vpon you a necessity of professing knowne Errours Seing that Condition of imposing c is impertinent Into how many difficultyes and contradictions do you cast yourself by impugning the Truth But enough of this Memorandum or condition 72. Your last Memorandum was That to leaue the Church and to leaue the externall Communion of a Church is not the same thing That being done by ceasing to be a member of it by ceasing to haue those requisites which constitute a man a member of it as Faith and obedience this by refusing to communicate with any Church in her Liturgyes and publike worship of God 73. Answer I wish you had declared yourself better First Pag 271. N. 51. you say We are not to learne the difference between Schisme and Heresy For Heresy we conceiue an obstinate defense of any Errour against any necessary Article of the Christian Faith And Schisme a causelesse separation of one part of the Church from another I haue not tyme to examine what you meane by a necessary Article of the Christian Faith Is not every Article of Christian Faith necessary to be believed vnder paine of damnation if it be sufficiently proposed as revealed by God And is it not Heresy to deny any such Article If it be so then your necessary Article of the Christian Faith implyes no such Mystery as one would haue expected in those so limited words and besides if it be Heresy to deny any Point though in itselfe never so small of Protestants differing in any Point of Faith some must be Heretiks and in state of damnation and they must be obliged to separate from one another as from formall Heretiks If it be not an Heresy nor damnable to deny any Truth sufficiently propounded as revealed by God Errours in Points not Fundamentall are not damnable Neither could you for such Errours divide yourselves from the Communion of all Visible Churches If you will needs say that no Errour is Heresy vnless it contradict some Article of itselfe Fundamentall What in particular is Heresy or who is an Heretik you cānot knowe seing you professe that it cannot be determined in particular what Points be Fundamentall and therfore you must retract your former words we are not to learne the difference between Schisme and Heresy For if you cannot possibly tell what Heresy is you will for ever be to learne the difference between Schisme ād Heresy to say nothing for the present that Potter Pag 212. acknowledges that whatsoeuer is revealed in Scripture or propounded by the Church out of Scripture is in some sense Fundamentall that is such as may not be denyed or contradicted without Infidelity therfore it is Heresy at least to deny Points sufficiently proposed as revealed by God though they be not Fundamentall in themselves And Pag 250. he declares expressly every Errour against any Point revealed to be Heresy in these words Where the revealed will or word of God is sufficiently propounded there he that opposeth is an Heretike and heresy is a worke of the flesh which excludeth from Heaven Gal 5 20.21 therfore if you will not contradict Potter and yourself in severall places you must confess that Heresy may be committed by Errour not Fundamentall in itselfe But to our purpose you say Schisme is a causeless separation of one part of the Church from an other and Pag 264. N. 30. you teach that a causeless separation from the externall Communion of any Church is the sin of Schisme Put these togeather Schisme is a separation of one part of the Church from an other And Schisme is a separation from the externall communion of any Church the Consequence will be this A separation from the externall communion of any part of the Church is a separation from the part itselfe and then proportionally a separation from externall communion of the whole Church or of all Churches must be a separation from the whole Church it selfe or from all Churches and so your distinction that to leaue the Church and to leaue the externall communion of a Church is not the same thing is confuted by your owne doctrine And though it make little to our present purpose whether Schisme be defined A separation of one part of the Church from an other as you speake for as I sayed if a separation from the Externall Communion of one parte be a separation from the parte it selfe a separation from the externall communion of the whole church must be a separation from the whole Church itselfe which is the thing I intended to prove against your Memorandum yet you must giue me leaue to say that your definition overthrowes itselfe For the Nature and Essence of Schisme being to separate one from the Church necessarily it is cause that the party so divided is no more a member or part of that Church nor a part of any Church and so Schisme is not a separation of one part from another but the Church which remaynes after such a sparation made in externall Communion is one whole Church and Totum est cujus nihil est extra and so he who is cut off from the Church as Schismatiks are is no part of it but a non ens or nothing for as much as belongs to the Denomination of being a part of the Church in which
but even from the publike Service of Heretiks and will touch and be of the same communion with them If the Apostle sayd to Titus who was a Bishop and in no danger of being perverted avoide an hereticall man could he haue sayd Fly the man but not communion with him If in any case certainly in this we must call to mynd our Blessed Saviours saying He that denyes me I will deny him And what doth it availe a man to gaine the whole world if he loose his owne soule To which purpose Tertullian saieth de Coron Mil Cap 11. Non admittit status Fidei allegationem necessitatis Nulla est necessitas delinquendi quibus vna est necessitas non delinquendi The condition of Christian Faith cannot admitt for excuse of a thing not lawfull to say they were necessitated therto There can be no necessity of sinning for them who acknowledg one only thing to be necessary namely not to sin What is that one thing which our saviour saith is necessary except not to sin Come loss of goods liberty and life let vs remember It is not necessary that we be rich or at liberty or enjoy a long and prosperous life but One thing is absolutely necessary that we do not offend our God If in a morall affaire we would guide soules by metaphysicke the next step will be to take the Zuinglian supper not forsooth as it is receaved by them in nature of a Sacrament but intending only to eate it as it is no more than bread and wine or as Christians may weare the apparell which Infidels vse according to the civill custome of their country But in matters of this nature middle wayes are most dangerous and next to precipices and you must remember those words 3. Reg 18. V. 22. If our Lord be God follow him but if Baal follow him Upon which place the Doway Testament makes this profitable Annotation Such zealous expostulation is necessary to all Neutralls in Religion who are neither hot nor cold but lukewarme such as Angells detest Apoc 3. Less harme it is if we respect the mischiefe which may accrew to others for a man to profess Heresy than professing himselfe a Catholike to be cause that others follow his Doctrine and example in communicating with Heretiks in that which they are wont to call Divine Service What a monster may it justly seeme for Catholiks at home abroad in their pulpits and all other occasions to impugne and speake against Heresyes and the next day to be seene in the same Church at the same publike service with Heretiks This Doctrine of the vnlawfulness for Catholiques to be present at the service or sermons of Heretiques is taught by those incomparable holy zealous and learned Authors of the Annotations vpon the Rhemes Testament Cardinal Alane Richard Bristo Willyam Raynolds Gregory Martin in Matth 10. N. 32. Marc 3. N. 13. 2. Cor 6. N. 14. Ad Tit 3. N. 10. Joan 2. N. 10. And who will not prefer the Authority of these men who opposed themselves against the Heresy Policy and Cruelty of those tymes before any who now should presume to teach the contrary Vpon the whole matter therfore I conclude that it is impossible to propound any Forme of Liturgy in which both sides can hold it lawfull to communicate And therfore Luther and his fellowes did absolutely renounce the Communion of all Churches by professing a contrary Faith and ceasing to communicate with them in Liturgy and publike worship of God which is the thing you denyed in your Objection 83. Object 2. Pag 263. N. 26. You say to your Adversarie That although it were granted Schisme to leaue the externall Communion of the visible Church in what state or case soever it be and that Luther and his followers were Schismatiks for leaving the externall Communion of all visible Churches Yet you faile exceedingly of clearing the other necessary Point vndertaken by you that the Roman Church was then the visible Church For neither doe Protestants as you mistake make the true preaching of the word and due administration of the Sacraments the notes of the visible Church but only of a visible Church Now these you know are very different things the former signifying the Church Catholique or the whole Church The latter a particular Church or a part of the Caâ—holique And therfore suppose we should grant what by Argument you can never evince that your Church had these notes yet would it by no meanes follow that your Church were the visible Church but only a visible Church Not the whole Catholique Church but only a part of it But then besides where doth Dr. Pâ—tter acknowledg any such matter as you pretend Where doth he say that you had for the substance the true preaching of the word or due administration of the Sacraments Or where doth he say that from which you collect this you wanted nothing Fundamentall necessary to salvation 84. Answer Your conscience could not but tell you that Charity Maintayned had evidently cleared this Point and answered your Objections Part 1. N. 47. Pag 221. in these words that the Roman Church I speake not for the present of the particular Diocese of Rome but of all Visible Churches dispersed through the whole world agreeing in Faith with the Chayre of Peter whether that Sea were supposed to be in the City of Rome or in any other place That I say The Church of Rome in this sense was the visible Catholique Church out of which Luther departed is proved by your owne confession who assigne for Notes of the Church the true Preaching of Gods word and true administration of Sacraments both which for the substance you cannot deny to the Roman Church since you confess that she wanted nothing Fundamentall or necessary to salvation and for that very cause you thinke to cleare yourselfe from Schisme whose property as Potter sayeth Pag 76. is to cut off from the Body of Christ and the hope of salvation the Church from which it separates Now that Luther and his fellowes were borne and baptized in the Roman Church and that she was the Church out of which they departed is notoriously knowne And therfore you cannot cut her off from the Body of Christ and hope of salvation vnless you will acknowledg your selfe to deserue the just imputation of Schisme Neither can you deny her to be truly Catholique by reason of pretended corruptions not Fundamentall For your selfe avouch and endeavour to proue that the true Catholique Church may erre in such Points Morover I hope you will not so much as goe about to proue that when Luther rose there was any other true Visible Church disagreeing from the Roman and agreeing with Protestants in their particular doctrines And you cannot deny but that England in those dayes agreed with Rome and other nations with England and therfore either Christ had no Visible Church vpon Earth or els you must grant that it was the Church of Rome A truth so manifest that
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
the Church haue no Charity and therfore that it is manifestly vntrue that if Charity be wanting the vnity of the Church is disturbed her vnion dissolved seing men may be members of the Church though they want all Charity and consequently if Charity be wanting it is not necessary that the vnion of the Church must be dissolved Or if you grant to Potter that Charity is the cause that the vnity of the Church is not disturbed and Her vnion not dissolved what is this but to say with Charity Maintayned That All the members of the visible Church are by Charity vnited in one mysticall Body Why is Her vnion dissolved if Charity be wanting but because by Charity it is conserved You say Pag 273. N. 56. That if we suppose a visible Church extant before and when Luther arose conformable to him in all Points of Doctrine necessary and profitable then Luther separated not from this Church but adjoined himselfe to it Not indeed in place which was not necessary not in externall Communion which was impossible but by the vnion of Faith and Charity If one should aske how do you know that Luther had Charity or whether he might not haue been a member of that imagined Church though he had been in deadly sin what would you answer sure I am whatsoever you answer for Potter ād yourselfe will confute your objection against Charity Maintayned and shew how familiar Contradictions are with you as in our present case you must either grant that Luther if he chanced to be in deadly sin could not vnite himselfe to that imaginary Church or els that Charity is not necessary to constitute one a member of a Church and consequently that one may be a member of the Church and free from the sin of Schisme though he want that Charity which is incompatible with deadly sin and inseparable from justifying Grace vpon condition that he be innocent of that vice against Charity which we call Schisme and puts a man so farr out of Charity with the Church or with his neighbour as a member of the Church as not to communicate with him in Sacraments Liturgy and publike Worship of God Neither is there any necessity that whosoever offends against a vertue for example Charity must offend in all Excesses or Defects or other offenses that may be committed against it To be a good Man a good Citizen a good Magistrate are considerations very different and separable one from another And therfore Charity Maintayned Chap 5. N. 3. told you that our neighbour may be considered either as one private person hath a single relation to an other or as all concurre to make one company or congregation which we call the Church And who sees not that a man who is in state of deadly sin and therfore loves not God aboue all things may loue his neighbour in such a degree as not to wish or procure his death as also one may want Charity to an other as a private person without separating from him as a member of one Church in which they agree ād communicate 99. Object 6. Pag 255. N. 5. You cite the words of Charity Maintayned as if he sayd All those which a Christian ought to esteeme neighbours do coucurre to make one company which is the Church And then you add these words Which is false For a Christian is to esteeme those his neighbours who are not members of the true Church 100. Answer It were strang if you did not know that in this particular we haue no common or vniversall Tenet neither can there be any difficulty in the thing it selfe but the Question must haue much only de nomine and Bellarm teaches Faith to be necessary that one may be sayd to be vnited by internall vnion to the Body of Christ which is the Church And though he holds that secret infidells belong to the Church yet he expressly declates that some other Catholique Writers are of a contrary opinion and Lib 3. de Eccles Cap 10. He saith We follow the manner of speaking of the greater number declaring therby this Question to be only de modo loquendi of the manner of speaking So farr is he from judging the contrary to be repugnant to our grounds as you intolerably overlash But suppose it were as you say Where I pray you doth Charity Maintayned say that the Catholike Church signifyes one company of Faithfull people faithfull I say by internall Faith and not only by the externall profession of it He saith no such thing as appeares by his words cited in the beginning of your Objection And therfore seing he doth not express whether they must be faithfull by true internall Faith or only by externall profession of the true Faith but his words being generall they are certainly true in all opinions to witt that Faith is required to make one a member of the Church not determining whether that Faith must be internall or whether an outward profession be sufficient to that effect Sure I am this is no faithfull dealing in you 101. Object 7. In this same Pag 255. N. 5. You alledge Charity Maintayned as if he sayd All those which a Christian ought to esteeme neighbours do concurre to make one company which is the Church And then you add these words which is false For a Christian is to esteeme those his neighbours who are not members of the true Church 102. Answer Charity Maintayned never said that all those which a Christian is to esteeme neighbours do make one company which is the Church But these be his words Part 1. Pag 152. N. 3. Our neighbour may be considered either as one private person hath a single relation to another or as all concurre to make one company or congregation which we call the Church Is not all this evidently true May not our neighbour be considered either as he is a private person or as a member of the Church concurring with other members to make one congregation De facto diverse persons concurre to make one Church and therfore they may be so considered But where doth Charity Maintayned say all those which a Christian is to esteeme his neighbours do concurre to make one Church This particle all and the words is to esteeme are your falsifications not the words of Charity Maintayned who spoke of Heresy and Schisme which can happen only amongst Christians And therfore allthough even Pagans and infidells ought to be esteemed our neighbours yet they cannot concurre to make one congregation which we call the Church which were the words of Charity Maintayned And so they could not enter into this consideration but we may say in this case what is it to me to judge of them that are without 1. Cor 5.12 103. Object 8. Charity Maintayned Part 1 Pag 154 N. 4. saith The Catholique Church signifyes one Congregation or Community of faithfull people and therfore implyes not only Faith to make them faithfull believers but also Communion or common vnion to make them
member whether we suppose that former Mysticall Body to be still existent or to haue perished which consideration of existing or not existing of the Community from which one departs is only materiall and accidentall to Schisme consisting formally in division from the Communion of the Church whether only preexistent or existent also for the present If it be sayd Genes 1. V. 5. Divisit Lucem a tenebris he divided the light from the darkness by taking away phisically or as I may say destroying one of the extremes seing light and darkness cannot stand together much more may we say that morally one may be divided from a Church and from himselfe though that Church cease to be or still remayne and he shall cease to be a member of it even by that Division though he cease nor to exist or be a man or himselfe 113. And now appeares that what Charity Maintayned Part 1. P 204. N. 39. sayd That a Protestant may be a Schismatike from himselfe because the selfsame Protestant to day is convicted in Conscience that his yesterdays opiniō was an errour with whō therfore a reconciliatiō according to Dr. Potters Ground Pag 20. is both impossible ād damnable is no strāg saying in itselfe though yet to make it appeare so you Pag 303. N. 103. do egregiously falsify his words which are From a mans selfe c. as much as is possible which words as much as is possible you leaue out And by the way I wonder with what conscience you can pretend to inferr out of the words of Cha Ma That they that hold errours must hold them fast and take speciall care of being convicted in conscience that they are in errour for feare of being Schismatiks For Ch Ma said only with whom therfore a reconciliation according to Potters grounds is impossible and dānable which is a cleare inference out of Potter to shew that a man may be irreconciliable with himselfe and divided frō himselfe in regard of his owne repugnant opinions ād consequently a Schismatike from himselfe if other conditions of Schisme do concurre as for Exāple that he leaue a revealed Doctrine by falling into Heresy or forsake the Communion of that true Church of which he was once a member and so morally divide himselfe from himselfe 114. Fourthly Your speculation is directly against the holy Fathers Charity Maintayned Part 1. Pag 153. N. 3. cites S. Hierome vpon these words ad Titum 3. A man that is an Heretike after the first and second admonition avoyde saying Schisme doth separate from the Church which you must say is not true because they who separate are Part of the Church and they separate not from themselves And N. 7. the alledges S. Austine de gest cum Emerit saying Out of the Catholique Church one may haue Faith orders and in summe all things except salvation This you will controle and tell S. Austine that none can be out of the Catholique Church because they themselves are Part of that Church and they cannot be divided from themselves And N. 11. the same Saint is alledged saying in Psalm 30. Conc 2. The Prophets spoke more obscurely of Christ than of the Church because as I thinke they did for see in spirit that men were to make partyes against the Church and that they were not to haue so great strife concerning Christ Therfore that was more plainly fortold and more openly prophecyed about which greater contentions were to rise that it might turne to the condemnation of them who haue seene it and yet gone forth If your Doctrine were true none can go forth of the Church because they cannot go from themselves S. Fulgentius cited N. 7. saith de Fid ad Pet Belieue this stedfastly without doubting that every Heretike or Schismatike baptized in the name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost if before the end of his life he be not reconciled to the Catholique Church what almes soever he giue yea though he should shed his bloud for the Name of Christ he cannot obtaine salvation But how can any be reconciled to the Catholique Church if he cannot be divided from her Because he neither was nor could be divided from himselfe And that you may be convinced by all kind of witnesses how could Calvin say Epist 141. we were forced to make a separation from the whole world since he could not separate from himselfe We must therfore say that whosoever divides himselfe from the Church by Schisme separates from the whole Church because by that separation he ceaseth to be a member of the Church and so the Church which before was a Whole of which he then was a Part remaines in Herselfe a Whole but he no Part by reason of his voluntary Division from Her which for the effect of his being or not being denominated a Part of the Church is all one with corporall death vnlesse you will covertly haue men belieue that there can be no such imaginable thing as Schisme from the whole or vniversall Church because the party separating himself from the Church is still a Part of Her in regard he is not divided from himselfe And no wonder if you make small account of Schisme or Division from the Church who think and speak so contemptibly of the Church as we haue heard you Pag 294. N. 93. speak even of the Catholique Church in these words What is it but a society of men wherof every particular and by consequence the whole company is or may be guilty of many sinnes daily committed against knowledg and conscience Now I would faine vnderstand why one errour in faith especially if not Fundamentall should not consist with the holyness of this Church as well as many and great sins committed against knowledg and conscience Which saying of yours hath bene confuted aboue 115. Object 11. Charity Maintayned Part 1. Pag 196. N. 31. saith Luther being but only one opposed himselfe to All as well subjects as superiours Against this Pag 291. N. 89. you object How can we say properly and without straining that he opposed himselfe to All vnless we could say also that All opposed themselves to him And how can we say so seing the world can witness that so many thousands nay millions followed his standard as soone as it was advanced 116. Answer This is no good dealing to impugne Charity Maintayned for that very thing concerning Luther for which Part. 1. Pag 161 N. 9. he cited Luther himselfe expressly saying in Praefat Operum suorum Primò solus eram At the first I was alone Now will you say to your Patriark Alone And yet so many thousands nay millions followed you But surely if so many millions followed him so very early they made much more hast than they could make good speed in a matter so vncouth strange incredible of so high concerment and so visibly repugnant to the doctrine and practise of the whole vniversall Church of God and therfore they must needs be lyable to that just
censure of Holy Scripture He who soone believes is light of heart that is they could haue no Act of Divine supernaturall faith which requires the particular assistance of the Holy Ghost and this cannot be given to produce or foster such fooleryes or imprudences In the same manner you take no notice of that which Cha Ma in the same Section cites out of Calvin Ep. 141. we haue been forced to make a separation from the whole world nor aske him how he could say so without strayning and how they made a separation from the whole world nor how they could say so seing so many millions followed them But I beseech you consider that even Luther himselfe for his owne opinions and apostasy proceeded by degrees so farr as that he pretended to submitt himselfe to the Pope And then how could so many follow him at the first instant when himselfe knew not what to follow And at that tyme was he not alone neither Catholike nor setled in any other doctrine And seing in those doubts and doctrines some tyme must passe before he himselfe was setled or could instill them to others it is manifest that he opposed himselfe to All Churches then extant and then we must by your owne Rule say that All opposed themselves to him that is they believed at that tyme those Articles and embraced those rites Liturgy and publike manner of worshipping God which he condemned which is true even of those who afterward were seduced by him and so it is most true that in the beginning he opposed himselfe to All and All opposed themselves to him as appeares by that which he further sayth Ep ad Argentinenses Anno 1525. Christum a nobis primò promulgatum audemus gloriari We dare glory that Christ was first diuulged by vs. Mark primo first and Conrad Schlusselburg in Theolog Calvinist L. 2. saith It is impudency to say that many learned men in Germany before Luther did hold the doctrine of the Gospell The like sayings of others concerning Luther may be seene in Ch Ma P. 1. P. 267. It is therfore true that he opposed himselfe to All and All to him 117. Object 12. Charity Maintayned Part 1. P. 202. N. 57. to proue it vniversally true that there can be no just cause to forsake the Communion of the visible Church of Christ alledges S. Austine saying Ep 48. It is not possible that any may haue just cause to separate their Communion from the communion of the whole world and call themselves the Church of Christ as if they had separated themselves from the Communion of all Nations vpon just cause Against this Argument you object thus Pag 302. N. 101. It is one thing to separate from the Communion of the whole world another to separate from all the Communions in the world One thing to divide from them who are vnited among themselves Another to divide from them who are divided among themselves Now the Donatists separatet from the whole world of Christians vnited in one Communion professing the same Faith serving God after the same manner which was a very great Argument that they could not haue just cause to leaue them according to that of Tertullian Variasse debuerat error Ecclesiarum quod autem apud multos vnum est non est erratum sed traditum But Luther and his followers did not so The world I meane of Christians and Catholikes was divided and subdivided long before he divided from it and by their divisions had much weakned their owne Authority and taken away from you this plea of S. Austine which stands vpō no other foundatiō but the vnity of the whole worlds Communiō 118. Answer Ex ore tuo te judico Your owne Answer overthrowes your owne doctrine Whosoever separates from the Communion of the whole world in that wherin the whole world agrees separates from the Communion of the world because to vse your owne words this is to divide from them who are vnited among themselves and is not to divide from them who are divided among themselves But Luther divided himselfe from the whole world in points wherin the whole world was vnited therfore he divided himselfe from the Communion of the whole world The Minor that Luther divided himselfe from the whole world in Points wherin the whole world was vnited that is as Protestants falsely affirme in errours and corruptions common to the whole then visible Church Charity Maintayned Pag P. 61. N. 9. and P. 167. N. 12. hath proved out of learned Protestants as also we haue seene even now by the confession of Luther Calvin and Schlusselb and the thing is cleare of itselfe and even bragged of by Luther and his followers Neither is there any speech more common among Protestants then that the whole visible Church was corrupted ād this is the reason which you ād other Protestāts yeild in excuse of your leaving the Communion of all Churches otherwise there could haue beene no pretence of a reformation If saith the Protestant Gregorius Milius in Argumentâ Confessione Art 7. de Ec There had beene right believers which went before Luther in his office there had then beene no need of a Lutheran Reformation Therfore the argument of ha Ma taken out of S. Austine holds good and strong no lesse against Luther who separated from all Churches in Points wherin they were not divided but vnited than it was of force against the Donatists Yea further it proves that those supposed errours which Luther pretend to reforme were indeed Orthodox truths even by the Rule which you alledg out of Tertullian variasse debuit error Ecclesiarum quod autem apud multos vnum est non est erratum sed traditum Seing then All Churches before Luther agreed in those doctrines which he vndertooke to reforme they cannot be errours being the same not only apud multos among many as Tertullian speakes but apud omnes among all Christian Churches in the world And this reason taken out of Tertullian growes stronger in our case even by your saying that The world of Christians and Catholiks was divided and subdivided long before Luther divided from it because when so many yea and all who otherwise are divided and subdivided yet agree vnanimously in some Points that very consent amongst men of so very different dispositions affections and opinions is more then a very great Argument that Luther and his followers could not haue just cause to leaue them as you argue against the Donatists From whence it also followes that you are in an errour of pernicious consequence while you say that Christians and Catholikes by then Divisions had much weakned their owne authority and taken away from vs Catholikes this plea of S. Austine which stands vpon no other foundation but the vnity of the whole worlds Communion seing this vnity yieldes a stronger argument in our present case by the Divisions and subdivisions of which you talke and therfore doth not takeaway but strengthen our plea out of S.
to proue your assertion and yet he L. 3. expresly speaks of a fals report venturos esse Paulum MachariuÌ„ two Embassadours sent into Africa by the pious Catholique Emperour Constans qui interessent Sacrificio vt cum Altaria solemniter aptarentur proferreat illâ— Imaginem of the Emperour quam primò in altari ponerent sic Sacrificium offerretur Do you not know the Doctrine of all Catholiques that Sacrisice is due only to God I beseech the Reader to reade Baronius Ann. 348. N. 33.34 I wonder how you durst at that tyme when you wrote and published your Booke write that setting pictures in Churches and vpon Altars may yield just cause to separate from a Church at that tyme I say when pictures began to appeare in English Protestant Churches even in the vniversityes and still I haue fresh occasions of wondering that ever your Booke could be approved Do not Lutherans to this day set vp Images in their Churches The wickleffists and Hussites and diverse learned Protestants allow of Images yea and some defend even the worshipping of them as may be seene in the Triple Cord Chapt 17. Sect 4. as also learned Protestants confesse that diverse Fathers defended the vse and worship of Images and that Xenaias was condemned for being the first that stirred vp warr against Images which is witnessed by the Protestant Writer Functius And Nicephorus Hist Eccles Lib 16. Cap 27. saith Xenaias iste primus ô audacem animam os impudens vocem illam evomuit Christi eorum qui illi placuere imagines venerandas non esse See of this whole matter Brierley Tract 1. Sect 3. Subdivis 12. Pag 124. And Tract 1. Sect 8. Subdivis 2. Pag 214. And Bellar Tom 2. de Reliq Sanct Lib 2. Cap 6. saith That Xenaias was a Persian and a barbarous fellow yea and a fugitiue 〈◊〉 and though he was not baptized yet faining himselfe a Christian he crept into a Bishoppricke And de notis Eccles Lib 4. Cap 9. demonstrates out of S. Epiphanius Lactantius S. Basil S. Greg Nyssen S. Paulinus S. Athanas and others That pictures were wont to be placed in Churches And S. Austine himselfe Lib 1. de consensu Evangelistar Cap 10. witnesseth that in his tyme in many places Christ was to be seene painted between the Apostles S. Peter and S. Paul And Lib 22. cont Faust Cap 73. he saith the same of the History of Abraham going about to sacrifice his Son Now I beseech you tell me whether vse of Images in Churches be a sufficient cause of a Division from the Church or no If it be then the Donatists might haue reason to depart from the Church seing pictures were set vp both in and before S. Austines tyme and while to vse your owne wordes the whole world of Christians was vnited in one Communion professing the same Faith serving God after the same manner If it were not why do you in this place object to vs the vse of Pictures and say that S. Austine to avoyd the objection of the Donatists that Catholikes set Pictures vpon the Altar answered only by denying that to be true which they objected as if they might haue beene excused from Schisme if indeed Pictures had beene set vpon the Altar And must Protestants depart from the Communion of all those their Brethren who at this day defend the lawfullness and practise the setting vp of Images in Churches In the meane time they who impugne the vse and worsh ip of Images may consider in Xenaias what Progenitors they haue And heere to shew how even by the light of naturall reason the respect or irreverence which is donne to the Image redounds to the Prototypon I cannot omit to set downe the words of Nazarius in panegir Constantini in detestation of the fact of Maxentius in defacing aÌ„d throwing downe the Images of Constantine Ecce enim proh dolor verba vix suppetunt venerandarum Imaginum acerba dejectio divini vultus litura deformis O manus impiae ô truces oculi ita non calligastis In quo lumen mundi obsucrabatis meritas ipsi poenas non imbibistis Nihil profecto gravius nihil miserius Roma doluisti What then shall we say of Iconoclasts or Image-breakers or Image-despisers not of mortall men as Constantine was then but of the Saviour of the world his Blessed Mother and Saints now glorious in Heauen O England reflect and repent 123. But not in this place only you are impudently bold with glorious S. Austine For Pag 259. N. 20. you say All that S. Austine saith is not true And I belieue heat of disputation against the Donatists and a desire to â—â—er-confute them transported him so farr is to vrge against them more than was necessary and perhaps more than was true But it is no wonder if notorious Schismatiks as you are willingly take occasion to defend such famous Schismatikes as the Donatists were and to do it covertly and ex obliquo when you are ashamed to vnmaske yourselfe and proclaime it directly and openly And this your desperate evasion declares sufficiently that S. Austine was clearly with vs in that place which Charity Maintayned Part 1. Pag 164. cited out of him as also in that other place which he cited Pag 165. wherof you say in your same Pag 259. N. 20. I cannot but wonder very much why he S. Austine should thinke it absurd for any man to say There are sheepe which he knowes not but God knowes and no less at you for obtruding this sentence vpon vs as pertinent proofe of the Churches Visibility And Pag 119. N. 163. you say To S. Austine in heat of disputation against the Donatists and ransacking all places for Arguments against them we oppose S. Austine out of this heate delivering the Doctrine of Christianity calmely and moderatly And Pag 168. N. 64. S. Austine when he was out of the heate of disputation confesses c. If any aske why Socinians are so averse from S. Austine I answer because in his workes he doth so often so zealously and so learnedly defend the Uisibility Perpetuity Amplitude Infallibility and Authority of Gods Church and with Arguments so direct against all our moderne Heretikes and Socinians in particular as it is impossible one can be a friend to that holy Doctour of Gods Church and an enemy to the Church of Rome A consideration of great comfort that we defend the same cause and suffer with a Person so holy and learned as Protestants when their owne cause is not touched are wont to preferr him before all other Ancient Fathers 124. Object 13. Charity Maintayned Part 1. Chap 3. N. 20. Pag 107. proves That seing Protestants grant that the Church cannot erre in Points necessary to salvation any wise man will inferr that it behooves all who haue care of their soules not to forsake her in any one Point First because though she were supposed to erre yet the errour could not be Fundamentall nor destructiue of Faith
this Objection which he makes to himselfe were clearly impertinent and foolish if he could haue dispatched all by saying we erre in essentiall points which had been an evident and more than a just cause to justify their separation which yet appeares further by his Answer to the sayd Objection That to depart from a particular Church and namely from the Church of Rome in some Doctrines and practises there might be just and necessary cause though the Church of Rome wanted nothing neâ—essary to salvation And afterward in the next P. 76. speaking of the Church of Rome he saith expressly Her Communion we forsake not no more than the Body of Christ wherof we acknowledg the Church of Rome to be a member though corrupted And this cleares vs from the imputation of Schisme whose property it is to cut of from the Body of Christ and the hope of salvation the Church from which it separates But if she did erre in any one Fundamentall point by that very errour she would cease to be a member of the Body of Christ and should be cut of from the hope of salvation therfore she doth not erre in any Fundamentall Point P. 83. we were never disioyned from her the Church of Rome in those maine essentiall truths which giue her the name and essence of a Church You must then say that she erres not in any Fundamentall Point For the essence of a Church cannot consist with any such errour And that it may appeare how desirous he is that it should be believed Catholiks and Protestants not to differ in the essence of Religion he adds these words immediatly after those which we haue last cited wherof if the Mistaker doubt he may be better informed by some late Roman Catholique Writers One of France who hath purposely in a large Treatise proved as be believes the Hugonots and Catholikes of that Kingdome to be all of the same Church and Religion because of the truths agreed vpon by both And another of our Country as it is sayd who hath lately published a large Catalogue of learned Authors both Papists and Protestants who are all of the same mynd Thus you see he ransacks all kind of proofes to shew that Catholikes and Protestants differ not in the substance and essence of Faith and to that end cites for Catholike Writers those two who can be no Catholiks as Charity Maintayned Part 1. Chap 3. Pag 104. shewes the former in particular to be a plaine Heretike or rather Atheist Lucian-like jeasting at all Religion Pag 78. he saith we hope and thinke very well of all those Holy and devout soules which in former Ages lived and dyed in the Church of Rome Nay our Charity reaches further to all those at this day who in simplicity of heart belieue the Roman Religion and professe it To these words of the Doctour if we subsume But it were impossble that any can be saved even by Ignorance or any simplicity of heart if he erre in a Fundamentall point because as by every such errour a Church ceases to be a Church so every particular person ceases to be a member of the true Churchs the Conclusion will be that we do not erre in any Fundamentall point Nay Pag 79. he saith further we belieue it the Roman Religion safe that is by Gods great Mercy not damnable to some such as belieue what they professe But we belieue it not safe but very dangerous if not certainly damnable to such as profess it when they belieue or if their hearts were vpright and not perversely obstinate might belieue the contrary Behold we are not only in a possibility to be saved we are even safe vpon condition we belieue that Faith to be true which we professe and for which we haue suffered so long so great and so many losses in all kinds which if we did vndergoe for extetnall profession of that Faith which we do not inwardly belieue to betrue we should deserue rather to be begged for fooles than persecuted for our Religion In the meane tyme every Catholike hath this comfort that he is safe even by the confession of an Adversary if he be not a foolish dissembler which would be cause of damnation in a Protestant or any other Even the profession of a truth believed to be false is a sin But I returne to say it were impossible for any Roman Catholike to be safe vpon what condition soever if we erre in any one Fundamentall Article of Faith Here I must briefly note that wheras Dr. Potter in the words now alledged saith It is not damnable to some and then to declare who those some are adds such as belieue what they profess Chillingworth Pag 404. N. 29. leaves out the distinction or comma placed betweene some and such and puts it after damnable Thus Not damnable to some such as beleue what they professe which words may signify that it is not safe to all such as belieue what they professe which may much alter the sense of Potters words as the Reader will perceiue by comparing them 149. Now Sir who will not wonder at your so often declaiming against Charity Maintayned for saying Dr Potter taught that the Roman Church doth not erre in Fundamentall Points But what if your selfe say the same It is cleare you do so For wheras Charity Maintayned Part 1. Pag 15. N. 13. saith Since Dr. Potter will be forced to grant that there can be assigned no visible true Church of Christ distinct from the Church of Rome and such Churches as greed with her when Luther first appeared I desire him to declare whether it do not follow that she hath not erred Fundamentally because every such errour destroyes the nature and being of a Church and so our Saviour Christ should haue had no visible Church on Earth To these words which you thought fit to set downe very imperfectly you answer Pag 16 N. 20. In this manner I say in our sense of the word Fundamentall it does follow For if it be true that there was then no Church distinct from the Roman then it must be either because there was no Church at all which we deny or because the Roman Church was the whole Church which we also deny Or because she was a part of the whole which we grant And if she were a true Part of the Church then she retained those truths which were simply necessary to salvation and held 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 In our sense therfore of the word Fuudamentall I hope she erred not Fundamentally But in your sense of the word I feare she did That is she held some thing to be Divine Revelation which was not some thing not to be which was You haue spoken so clearly and fully in favour of the Roman Church and not only affirmed but proved that she did not erre in any Fundamentall
our freeing you from damnable Heresy and yielding you salvation neither Dr. Potter nor any other Protestant is guilty of it Seing you say that By the confession of both sides we agree in much more than is simply and indispensably necessary to salvation If we belieue much more then is necessary to salvation by what Logicke will you deduce that we belieue not as much as is necessary 150. These so many and so cleare words of Dr. Potter and yourselfe may justly make any man wonder with what pretence of truth or modesty you could say Pag 280. N. 95. As for your pretence that your errours are confessed not to be Fundamentall it is an affected mistake as I haue often told you And Pag 308. 108. As for your obtruding vpon vs that we belieue the Points of difference not Fundamentall or necessary you haue been often told it is a calumny The oftner the worse it being a saying voyd of all truth and a shamefull calumny in you 151. To these testimonyes of Potter and Chillingworth many other might be allelged out of other Protestants as we haue seene diverse other alledged by Potter Dr. Lawd Pag 299 saith I do aknowledge a Possibility of salvation in the Roman Church But so as that which I grant to Romanists is not as they are Romanists but as they are Christians that is as they beleeve the Creed and hold the foundation Christ himselfe Behold not only a possibility of saluation but also the reason therof because we belieue the Creed c which is the very reason for which Protestants hold that they themselues may be saved though they differ in many Points from one another This I say is the reason of Dr. Lawd which other Protestants must approue though in true Divinity it be of no force at all for though one belieue the Creed and hold the foundation Christ himselfe that is that he is God and Saviour of the world yet if he deny any point evidently delivered in Scripture or otherwise sufficiently propounded as revealed by God he cannot be saved even according to Protestants who therfore doe in this as in many other things speake inconsequently and contradict themselves Pag 376. he sayth The Religion of the Protestants and the Romanists Religion is the same nor do the Church of Rome and the Protestants set vp a different Religion for the Christian ReligioÌ„ is the same to both but they differ in the same Religion Therfore say I we hold no Fundamentall errours wherin whosoever differ cannot be of the same but must be of a different Religion And Pag. 129. The Protestants haue not left the Church of Rome in her Essence not in the things which constitute a Church And P 282. he saith The possibility of salvation in the Roman Church I thinke cannot be denyed aÌ„d in proofe hereof P 281. he alledges Luther Field Jos Hall Geo Abbot Hooker Mornaeus Prideaux Calvin And Dr. Jer Taylor in his Liberty of Prophecying Pag 251. Sect â—0 teaches that we keepe the foundation and belieue many more truths than can be proved to be of simple and originall necessity to Salvation And therfore all the wisest Personages of the adverse party allowed to them possibility of Salvation whilst their errours are not faults of their will but weaknesses and deceptions of the vnderstanding which as I sayd may easily be believed of vs Catholikes who suffer so much for our Religion so that there is nothing in the foundation of Faith that can reasonably hinder them to be permitted The foundation of Faith stands secure enough for all their vaine and vnhandsome superstructures And in particular he shewes that Prayer for the dead and the Doctrine of transubstantiation are not Fundamentall errours and also saieth these two be in stead of the rest Yea he affirmes Pag 258. that there is implied as great difficulty in the Mystery of the B. Trinity as in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and shewes that we are not in any danger of sinning by idolatry in adoring the Sacrament For further satisfaction in this matter the Reader will find the words of learned Protestants in Brierley Tract 2. Sect 14. As That we are of the Church That we are of the family of Iesus Christ a part of the house of God That it was evill done of them who first vrged a separation That we are the Church of God That the Catholike and Reformed make not two but one same Religion agreeing in all principall points of Religion necessary for Salvation That Catholikes and Hugonots are of one Faith and Religion That they are Domestikâ— of Faith and branches of the same viâ—e And Tract 1. Sect 6. Subdiv 1. That Those who live and dy in the Church of Rome may notwithstanding be saved and they are charged by very learned Protestants of ignorance and absurdity who are of the contrary opinion 132. I hope now it appeares that even in the judgment of learned Protestants Catholikes do not erre in points Fundamentall or necessary to salvation and therfore that Luther could not be excused from Schisme in dividing himselfe from all Churches for matters which do not exclude vs from eternall happynesse especially seing they who forsooke vs maintayne errours at least not Fundamentall as Potter Pag 67. plainly confesses and appeares manifestly by the disagreement of Protestants amongst themselves and the agreement of diverse of them with vs even in diverse of those points in which Luther pretended the Church to be corrupted as appeares by what we haue demonstrated heretofore Yet to leaue nothing vntouched I will goe forward not so much because indeed there remaines any Objection of moment against vs as to take away all pretence of cavills as also to take occasion of delivering some Considerations of importance against our Adversaryes 153. Object 15. Although the errours of the Roman Church be not fundamentall in themselves yet they are against Gods Revelation and Command not to deny any least truth testifyed by that supreme Uerity and consequently such errours are damnable and for which the Roman Church might be forsaken 154. Answer First This Objection is not only against the whole Church of Christ which you pretend to haue been corrupted with such errours but also against the Reformers therof seing of Protestants holding contradictoryes some de facto must be in errour wherof Grotius Rivetiani Apologetici Discu P 15. saith Protestantium Confessiones in multis rebus ita dissident vt conciliari nullo modo possint Uidentur autem Genevenses cum Harmoniam Confessionum edidere ita credidisse Harmoniam esse dissidentes Confessiones in vnum Uolumen compingere The Confessions of Faith of Protestants do so disagree that it is impossible they can be reconciled It seemes that they of Geneua when they sett forth the Harmonie of Confessions were of opinion that the Harmonie or agreement of Confessions did consist only in bindeing vp in one Uolume disagreeing Confessions Nay Protestants do further teach that it cannot be otherwise
sins past with a firme Resolution to amend for tyme to come is a sufficient disposition for remission of sinnes whether it be perfect Contrition without Sacramentall absolution or attrition with it though it be also true that perfect Contrition must involue a purpose to receaue absolution in due tyme. 17. Your third Errour is delivered in many places of your Booke and consists in this That one who lives in a sinfull errour against faith may be saved by a generall Repentance of all his sins knowne and vnknowne though he do not forsake that culpable errour but liue and dy in it In your Answer to the preface of Charity Maintayned Pag 7. N. 3. you approue the saying of Potter that both sides by the confession of both sides agree in more Points than are simply and indispensably necessary to salvation and differ only in such as are not precisely necessary That it is very possible a man may dy in errour and yet dy with repentance as for all his sins of Ignorance so in that number for the errours in which he dyes with a repentance though not explicite and particular which is not simply required yet implicite and generall which is sufficient So that he cannot but hope considering the Goodness of God that the Truths retained on both sides especially those of the necessity of Repentance from dead workes and Faith in Iesus Christ if they be put in practise may be an andidote against the errours held on either side to such he meanes and sayes as beâ—ng diligent in seeking Truth and desirous to find it yet misse of it through humane frailty and dy in errour 18. About which words it is to be observed First that as I noted aboue you and Potter confess that Catholiks hold more Points of Faith than are necessary to salvation so that the Points in which we differ from Protestants which you call errours are not necessary and accordingly you teach Pag 9. N. 7. that men may be saved though they hold the doctrines of IndulgeÌ„ces Purgatory and the vse of Latine Service And therfore I may turne against you your owne words Pag 220. N. 52. May it please you therfore now at last to take notice that by Fundamentall we meane all and only that which is necessary and then I hope you will grant that we may safely expect salvation in a Church which hath all things Fundamentall to salvation Vnless you will say that more is necessary than that which is necessary These words I say proue that we may even safely for that is your word expect salvation in a Church which by confession of all sides believes more Points than are necessary vnless you will say that more is necessary than that which is necessary or that we belieue not as many Points as are necessary though we belieue more than are necessary Secondly That as I noted before you contradict yourselves in saying That by the goodness of God the Truths retained on both sides may be an antidote against the errours of such as being diligent in seeking Truth and desirous to find it yet misse of it by humane frailty and dy in errour For the errours of men so qualifyed as you describe them must needs be invincible if invincible no sins if no sins how can any truth be an antidote against them Or how can the doctrine of necessity of Repentance from dead works concerne works which are not dead that is no sinnes nor can be the Object of Repentance or capable of pardon I beseech you remember your owne express words Pag 16. N. 21. The very saying they were pardonable implies they needed pardon and therfore in themselves were damnable How then do you say that inculpable errours may be pardoned by a generall Repentance Or how do you in particular agree either with Catholiks or Protestants about the necessity of Repentance of dead workes seing you disagree from both of them in declaring what Repentance is necessary Thirdly Pag 8. N. 3. you say the Doctour gives them only hope of pardon of errours who are desirous and according to the proportion of their opportunityes and abilityes industrious to find the Truth or at least truly repentant that they haue not bene so In which words you distinguish those who are desirous and industrious to find the truth froÌ„ those who are repentant that they haue not been so The former sort of which men are not capable of Repentance because they committed no sin And if the second be truly repentant as you suppose they are that they haue not been desirous and industrious to find the Truth you suppose they know that they haue not been so To whom then shall belong that Repentance which you call generall and implicite of all errours knowne and vnknowne Fourthly Howsoever you endeavour to answer these contradictions it seemes you are constant that a sinfull errour may be pardoned though one liue and dy in it And then Fiftly The difficulty which I spoke of aboue comes to vrge you How such a man can attaine your kind of Repentance at the houre of his death when it is impossible But let vs goe forward 19. Pag 21. you say If any Protestant or Papist be betrayed into or kept in any errour by any sin of his will as it is to be feard many millious are such Errour is as the cause of it sinfull and damnable yet not exclusiue of all hope of salvation but pardonable if discovered vpon a particular explicite Repentance if not discovered vpon a generall and implicite Repentance for all sins knowne and vnknowne in which number all sinfull Errours must of necessity be contayned Pag 168. N. 52. speaking of errour proceeding from some Voluntary and avoidable fault and in its owne nature damnable You say If the party so erring dy with Contrition for all his sins knowne and vnknowne as his Errour can be no impediment but he may his Errour though in itselfe damnable to him according to your Doctrine Charity Maintayned disclaimes from any such false and implicatory Doctrine as this it will not proue so As the most malignant poyson will not poyson him that receives with it a more powerfull Antidote In these and other passages of your Booke you teach that a sinfull and damnable Errour for of such we must speake when we speake of Repentance to object wherof his sin may be forgiven while one remaines in such an Errour or without relinquishing it which is a most pernicious errour and destructiue of itselfe For if his errour be sinfull it is not because he sees it to be an errour and yet persists in it which is impossible seing that to judge a particular errour to be an errour is to forsake it and embrace the contrary truth because an errour discovered is destroyed neither is it an errour but a true judgment to judge that an Errour is an Errour according to the saying of S. Austine Lib. 15. de Trinit Cap 10. Nemo falsa novit nisi cum falsa
may be saved not by a generall but by a particular contrition not of sins vnknowne but knowne not remaining a formall Protestant but being a reall Catholike having retracted the former malice of his sin and believing in desire all that the Catholike Church believes and so he is a Protestant neither in act seing he doubts of the Protestant Religion nor in voto or desire which is to be a professed member of the true Church and to imbrace the truth and forsake all Errour as in this present Question we expressly speake of the errours of Protestants and enquire whether they can be saved with such errours as likewise our supposition for the present is that the Roman is the true Church and so the Uotum or desire of such a penitent is to forsake the Doctrine of Protestants and to embrace the Religion of the Roman Church But then if such a one survine and come to haue tyme sufficient for seeking and finding out the truth and neglect to doe it he waxeth recidivous and falls into a new sin and his eâ—â—ours grow againe to be sinfull by reason of their new sinfull cause 23. Your example that poyson will not poyson him that receives with it a more powerfull Antidote is either de subjecto non supponente as if the poyson of sin could stand with the Antidote of Contrition or implyes a manifest falshood and contradiction if you suppose that contrition can destroy that sin which one is committing Naturall or corporall poyson may stand with an Antidote but sin the poyson of the soule cannot stand with Contrition and so caÌ„ helpe no more thaÌ„ an Antidote not receyved can hinder the operation of poyson aÌ„d contrition cannot be receyved in his soule who continues the act or affection to a deadly sin And so your example turnes against yourself and this Answer proves to be a more powerfull Antidote than the poyson of your objection which therfore I hope will not poyson any that receives with it the Antidote 23. Thirdly I answer by denying absolutely the case which was proposed that he who hath sinfull errours at the houre of his death can haue true Contrition without actuall direliction of them My reason is because Contrition being a most singular Gift of the Holy Ghost as I proved in the Introduction and including the perfect loue of God is an infallible Disposition to Justifying Grace as therfore God in his holy Providence hath decreed that after baptisme in the ordinary course or de lege ordinaria none shall be saved out of his Uisible Church so he gives not his effectuall Grace to exercise an Act of Contrition in the Will before he endue him with true Faith in the vnderstanding that as his errours were repugnant to Faith so his Repentance and retractation may rectify them by the contrary Truths of Faith For this cause the Apostle after he had sayd God will haue all men saved which words signify the End adds and to come to the knowledge of truth as the Meanes to such an End And this being the ordinary course in vaine is it to dispute what God may doe de potentia absoluta by his absolute Omnipotency or whether there be any physicall or Metaphysicall repugnance between Contrition and Errours per se loquendo damnable since those matters wholy depend on Gods free will and holy pleasure which we cannot know by Logicall humane demonstrations but only by Revelation wherby God hath declared in generall that for Christians there is no salvation without professing the Faith of his Uisible Church and for vs to put exceptions to that generall Rule can haue no other effect than to make men negligent in seeking the Truth in tyme vpon hope that they may be saved with Errours against Faith at the houre of their death when indeed it will proue too late Neither can it be objected that at the houre of death it is not possible to examine particular Controversyes and none can be obliged to an impossible thing For the answer is easily given out of what we haue already sayd First that this ought not so seeme strang to you whose kind of Repentance is impossible at that houre of death as I haue often sayd and so we may apply against you your owne words Pag 390. N. 7. They that confess their sins and forsake them shall find mercy though they confesse them to God only and not to men They that confess them both to God and men if they do not effectually and in tyme forsake them shall not find mercy Now by your doctrine men cannot forsake their sins in tyme who haue not tyme for rooting out all vicious habits and therfore shall not find mercy But by the way what evidenct Scripture haue you that they shall find it who confess their sins only to God seing some Lutherans and other Protestants hold and other confess that it was the Doctrine of ancient holy Fathers that private confession of sins is commanded by God and we haue heard Kemnitius teaching that even Contrition without absolution is not sufficient for pardon of sins either in act or in desire and your resolute speech to the contrary is an affirmation without any proofe Neither can Contrition be sufficient vnless it imply a firme purpose to performe all that God hath commanded wherof Confession of deadly sins is one Secondly I answer that as God is supposed at that tyme to infuse perfect contrition and change the will so also you should suppose that he rectifyes the vnderstanding and the same meanes which he vseth for the one he may vse for the other whether he doe it immediatly by himselfe or by the ministery and helpe of some second cause as a catechist or instructour or good bookes to stirre vp the species and then God may giue his grace to belieue and it would be incomparably more strang that God should giue Repentance to Christians remayning out of his Visible Church for matter of Faith than to cleare their Errours supposing he will giue them Repentance though indeed in our case there can be no true Repentance vnless all sinfull errours be rectifyed 24. That which you alledge out of the Prophet David aboccultis meis munda me cannot signify that sin can be committed without some knowledge as even Socinians confess but only that sins committed by culpable ignorance are not wont to moue vs so much to detestation and sorrow as those which are committed with full knowledg and therfore those hidden sins require a more particular light and Grace of God to present them to our soules so clearly and effectually as we may be perfectly sorrowfull for them in particular and not be deceyved with such a generall ineffectuall sorrow as you obtrude without dereliction of the sins of which men pretend to repent 25. And now I hope it appeares vpon examination of your particular errours concerning Repentance that you make it either insufficient by your pretended necessity of extirpating all vicious habits
grace who desires that all men should be saved and come to the knowledg of truth Where you see Ch Ma saith it is in our power with Gods grace to find that saving Truth which is but one and is to be found only in the true visible Church of Christ and so it must 〈◊〉 our fault if we misse therof and consequently that our errours will be sinfull and that we cannot effectually repent of them without passing to the Truth that is without destroying those culpable sinfull errours which by Gods grace is in our power to destroy by embracing the contrary truths And afterward Ch Ma saith that the search of this truth will not proue so hard and intricate as men imagine because God hath endued his visible Church with so conspicuous markes of vnity and agreement in Doctrine Vniversality for tyme and place a never interrupted Succession of Pastours a perpetuall visibility from the Apostles to vs c. far beyond any probable pretence that can be made by any other congregations that whosoever doth seriously and vnpartially weigh these notes may easily discerne to what Church they belong Thus Ch Ma to shew how culpable and inexcusable they are who do not actually embrace Catholique Religion and forsake all other Congregations and errours And yet to take away all possibility for you to deceiue the world with this vnjust calumnie Ch Ma hath these very words Let not men flatter and deceiue themselves that ignorance will excuse them For there are so many and so easy and yet withall so powerfull meanes to find the true Church that it is a most dangerous ād pernicious errour to rely vpon the excuse of invincible ignorance What could he haue sayd more than to stile the Hope of Salvation by meanes of ignorance a pernicious errour Yet more and more to confute your calumnie and declare his owne sense he adds I wish them to consider that he can least hope for reliefe by ignorance who once confides therin because his very alledging of ignorance shewes that God hath put some thoughts into his mynd of seeking the safest way which if he relying on Gods Grace do carefully and constantly endeavour to examine discusse and perfitt he shall not faile to find what he seekes and to obtaine what he askes Now if Ch Ma teach so effectually that none must hope to be saved by ignorance with what truth or justice can you say that in his opinion Protestants may be saved without actually retracting their sinfull errours Nay I am sure Ch Ma believes that if God will in his Goodness bring a man to Salvation he will be sure by his Wisdome to apply those Meanes which in the ordinary course of his holy providence he hath appointed for that end which is to embrace the true Faith and to be a true member of the true visible Church 3. You pretend to beleeue that de facto God will bring none to heaven without Faith in Christ and beliefe of Christian Religion If then one should aske whether a Pagan or Jew or Turke could be saved with an vniversall sorrow for all his errours and sins knowne and vnknowne what would you answer If you say they might be saved you contradict yourselfe and grant that Salvation may be had without faith in Christ If you say they could not be saved because God de facto hath appointed Faith in Christ as a necessary condition or meanes for Salvation The same I answer in our case that God hath decreed to saue none without true Faith which is only in the true Uisible Church yea to be a true Christian and to be a Catholike is all one there being not any other true Christian Faith than that which is taught by the Catholique Church nor is there any true Church of Christ but One and therfore as you pretend to hold Christian Faith to be necessary for Salvation you should also hold the same of the Catholique Faith and consequently that none can be saved with any sinfull errour contrary to that Faith nor that it can be true Repentance which doth not exclude any such errour And all that you can Object against this truth may be objected in behalfe of Jewes or Turks against your pretended beliefe that Faith in Christ is necessary to Salvation They might I say demand of you why they may not haue true Contrition and pardon of their sins by a generall repentance of all their offences knowne and vnknowne and among the rest of their errours against or ignorance of Christian Religion and what you answer to them will serve for a confutation of your Arguments against vs. For this cause Charity Maintayned Part 1. Pag 28 N. 3. saith that we hope and pray for the conversion of Protestants and surely our meaning is not that they be converted to vs by remaining in their former beliefe contrary to vs. But Ch M. need not wonder that you falsify him seing you are not ashamed to say Pag 34. N. 6. that according to the grounds of our Catholike Religion Protestants may dy in their supposed errours either with excusable ignorance or with contrition and if they do so may be saved But I beseech you out of what Ground or Principle of Catholique Religion can you dreame to collect that Protestants can be saved by ignorance or with Contrition remayning formall Protestants And it is a comfort for Ch Ma to be calumniated by you in that very thing wherin you calumniate the whole Church of God In the meane tyme by what I haue sayd innumerable places I may say the chiefest part of your Booke are answered which goe vpon this false ground that men may be saved without relinquishing their sinfull and damnable errours which you perpetually affirme without any proofe And what reason can be given why a man cannot be saved without relinquishing other deadly sins for example Hatred Perjury Theft c. and yet that it is not necessary to forsake errours confessed to be sinfull and damnable But it is no wonder that Heretikes are willing to sooth their Heresyes with false priviledges denyed to all other deadly sins 4. To your numbers 1.2.3.4.5.6 I haue answered already You say Pag 33. N. 4. the truth is the corruption of the Church and the destruction of it is not all one For if a particular man or Church may as you confesse they may hold some particular errours and yet be a member of the Church vniversall why may not the Church hold some vniversall errour and yet be still the Church Especially seing you 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 itselfe Why do you stopp here and not goe forward to declare what lyes involued in your discourse thus In the tyme of the Apostles if a particular man or Church might haue held some errour and yet remained a member of the Church
impossible one And that he and other Protestants do but cosin the world and speake contradictions or non-sense when they talke of a perpetuall visible Church which cannot erre in Fundamentall Points and whose Communion we are to embrace and yet tell vs that such a visible Church cannot be designed in particular where and which she is For this is all one as to make her invisible and vncognoscible and of no vse at all and therfore they being forced by manifest Scripture to assert and belieue a perpetuall visible Church we must without asking them leaue necessarily inferr that this Church by their owne necessary confession must be designable and cognoscible in particular You say By all societyes of the world it is not impossible nor very improbable he might meane all that are or haue beene in the world and so include even the Primitiue Church But this is no better then ridiculous For he saith What remaineth but diligently to search out which among all societyes in the world is that Church of the liuing God which is the Pillar and Ground of Truth that so they may imbrace her Communion c You see he speakes of that society of men which is the Church and which is the Pillar of Truth and would haue men search it out wheras the Primitiue Church neither is but hath beene nor was it for but directly against the Doctours purpose to advise men to search out the Primitiue Church and her Doctrine which had required tyme and leasure and strength of vnderstanding which he saith few men haue and therfore he must vnderstand a Church to be found in these tymes whose Directions they should follow and rest in her judgment To say as you doe that we embrace her Communion if we belieue the Scripture endeavour to find the true sense of it and liue according to it is very fond as if the Doctour spoke of Scripture when he named the Church and in saying we are to embrace the Communion of the Church he meant we should embrace the Communion of Scripture which had beene a strang kind of phrase and in advising vs to seeke out that society of men and that Company of Holy Ones he vnderstood not men but the writings of men Do not your selfe say that the subject he wrote of was the Church and that if he strayned too high in commendation of it what is that to vs Therfore it is cleare he spoke not of the Scripture in commendation wherof you will not say he strayned too high but of the Church and of the Church of our tymes and so saith the Controversyes of Religion in our tymes are growne c But why do I loose tyme in confuting such toyes as these It being sufficient to say in a word that Protestants in this capitall Article of the invisibility and infallibility of the Church are forced to vtter some mayne Truthes in favour of Catholikes though with contradiction to themselves 20. In your N. 87. You do but trifle Charity Maintayned N. 18. said That the true interpretation of Scripture ought to be receâ—ved from the Church is proved c To this you answer That the true interpretation of the Scripture ought to be reveaved from the Church you need not proue for it is very easily granted by them who professe themselves ready to receaue all Truthes much more the true sense of Scripture not only from the Church but any society of men nay from any man whatsoever But who sees not that this is but a cavill and that Charity Maintayned to the Question which was in hand from whence the interpretation of Scripture was to be received answered it is to be received from the Church And I pray if one should say the knowledge or truth of Philosophy is to be received from Philosophers would you say this need not be proved nor even affirmed to them who profess themselves ready to receiue all Truths not only from Philosophers but from any man whatsoever 21. You labour N. 90.91.92 to proue that Protestants receiue not the Scripture vpon the Authority of our Church but in vaine For what true Church of Christ was there when Luther appeared except the Roman and such as agreed with her even in those Points wherin Protestants disagree from vs and for which they pretend to haue forsaken our Communion Doth not Luther in his Booke against Anabaptists confess that you haue the Scripture from vs And Doue in his persw sion to English Recusants c Pag 13. sayth Wee hold the Creed of the Apostles of Athanasius of Nyce of Ephesus of Constantinople and the same Byble which we receyved from them And Whitaker Lib de Eccles c Pag 369. confesseth that Papists hâ—ue Scripture and Baptisme c and that they came from them to Protestants That you receiue some Bookes and reject others which the vniversall Church before Luther received argues only that you are formall Heretikes that is voluntary choosers and that not believing the infallibility of the Church you haue no certainty of any Booke or parcell or period of Scripture And wheras you say N. 90. that we hold now those Bookes to be Canonicall which formerly we rejected from the Canon and instance in the Booke of Machabees and the Epistle to the Hebrewes and add that the first of these we held not to be Canonicall in S. Gregoryes tyme or els he was no member of our Church for it is apparent He held otherwise and that the second we rejected from the Canon in S. Hieromes tyme as it is evâ—dent out of many places in his workes I answer that it is impossible the Church should now hold those Bookes to be Canonicall which formerly she rejected from the Canon and if there were any doubt concerning these Bookes of Scripture they were not doubted of by any Definition of the Church but by some particular persons which doubt the Church did cleare in due tyme as I haue declared heretofore and answered your Objection out of S. Gregory about the Machabees as also Charity Maintayned Part 2. Pag 195. which you ought not to haue dissembled did answer the same Objection made by Potter Concerning the Epistle to the Hebrewes I beseech the Reader to see what Baronius anno Christi 60. N. 42. seqq writes excellently of this matter and demonstrates that the Latine Church never rejected that Epistle as he proves out of Authors who wrote both before and after S. Hierome and that S. Hierome relyed vpon Eusebius and therfore your absolute Assertion that this Epistle was rejected in tyme of S. Hierome is no lesse vntrue than bold Neither ought you to haue concealed the answer of Char Maintayn Part 2. Chap 7. Pag 197. where he saith thus Wonder not if S. Hierome speake not always in the same manner of the Canon of the Old Testament since vpon experience examination and knowledge of the sense of the Church he might alter his opinion as once he sayd ad Paulinum of the
Epistle to the Hebrews that it was put out of the number by the greatest part of men and yet elswere he receives it as the Epistle of S. Paul And if you will haue a generall explication of S. Herome concerning his rejecting of Bookes not admitted by the Hebrewes heare it in his owne words advers Ruff Apolog 2. wheras I haue reported what the Hebrewes vsed to object against the History of Susanna and the Hymne of the Three Children and the Story of the Dragon Bel which are not in the Hebrew I haue not declared what I thought but what the Jewes were wont to say against vs and he calls Russinus a foolish Sycophant for charging him with the opinion of the Hebrewes about these parts of Daniel And S. Hierome explaining himselse in this manner is acknowledged by Covell Answ to Bourges Pag 87. and Bankcroft Confer before his Majesty How then will you excuse your Church which in her sixt Article saith in generall of all the Bookes which you esteeme Apocryphall among which are the History of Susanna the Hymne of the three Children and that of the Dragon The other Bookes as S. Hierome saith the Church doth reade for example of life and instruction of manners but yet it doth not apply them to establish any Doctrine How can she I say be excused since S. Hierome even according to the Confession of your owne Brethren doth explaine himselfe that he vttered only what the Jewes were wont to say against vs and cals Ruffinus a foolish Sycophant for saying the contrary So as insteed of S. Hierome and the Church of God you put on the person of Ruffinus against S. Hierome and of the Synagogue against the Church of Christ our Lord And so your whole Canon of the Old Testament relyes vpon the Authority of the Jewes Thus far Charit Maint Which you did not well to conceale And while you will not receaue the Canon from the vniversall Church before Luther you send men to the Jewes Now that S. Hierome received the Epistle to the Hebrewes for Canonicall appeares out of his Epistle ad Dardanum where he saith of this Epistle of S. Paul and the Apocalyps of S. John Nos vtraque suscipimus we receaue them both though we haue heard him say before ad Paulinum that the Epistle to the Hebrewes was put out of the number by the greatest part of men But howsoever this were particular Opinyons do nothing concerne the Definitions of the Church as I saied 22. You say N. 92. How can we receiue the Scripture vpon the authority of the Roman Church which hath delivered at severall tymes Scriptures in many places different and repugnant for authenticall and Canonicall Which is most evident out of the place of Malachy which is so quoted for the sacrifice of the Masse that either all the ancâ—ent Fathers had false Bibles or yours is false Most evident likewise from the comparing of the story of Iacob in Genesis with that which is cited out of it in the Epistle to the Hebrewes accordig to the vulgar Edition but aboue all to any one who shall compare the Bibles of Sixtuâ— and Clement so evident that the wit of man cannot disguise it 23. Answer It is intolerable in you to presume that your word must be taken without so much as offering any least proofe for what you say wheras you could not be ignorant but that all difficultyes which either Protestants or any other Heretikes could object against vs haue beene considered and confuted by learned Catholikes And why did you not cite those different and repugnant Texts which you mention in Malachie Yet the Reader at aventure may read Bellarmine De Missa L. 1. C. 10. and Corn à Lapide vpon Malach 1.11 where they learnedly proue the holy Sacrifice of the Masse out of that place and solidly answer all the objections to the contrary For that which you mention of the Story of Jacob in Genesis compared with the Epâ—â—â—â—e to the Hebrewes I wish you had so declared your objection that I might haue applyed a particular and determinate answer therto Now I can only conjecture what you meane and desire the Reader if he desire satisfaction in this matter to peruse what Corn a Lapide writes vpon Heb 11.21 where he learnedly answers the difficulty which may seeme to be in this place compared with the 47. Chap V. 31. of Genesis see also the annotation of the Rhemes testament vpon the said place of S. Paul and the annotation of the Doway translation vpon Gen 47.31 who declare this very well and the former she wes that in your Translation you clearly falsify the Text of Scripture I wonder you do not blush to talke of the Bible of Sixtus and Clement having seene the full Answer which Ch Ma giveth to that objection made also by Potter which is a signe you could not indeed confute what Ch Ma said therin Part 2. Chap 6. N. 3. 24. Your N. 93.94.95.96.67 haue bene sufficiently answered already yet I will touch some Points You say N. 93. If it were true that God had promised to assist you for the delivering of true Scripture would this oblige him or would it follow from hence that he had obliged himselfe to teach you not only sufficiently but effectually and irresistibly the true sense of Scripture 25. Answer You will needs be still confounding effectually and irresistibly wherof I spoke enough hertofore For the present I say that God hath obliged himselfe so to teach the Church effectually the true interpretation of Scripture that we are infallibly certaine she is free from all errour in Faith which is a priviledge absolutely necessary as those things are not which you specify N. 96. That he should not only guard them from all errours but guide them to all profitable Truths such as the true senses of all Scripture would be and that he should de end them irresislibly from all vices and infuse into them irresistibly all vertues These things I say are not necessary as true Faith is necessary for constituting one a member of the Church which hath beene proved hertofore even out of Protestants Who will not wonder at these words of yours to Ch Mat If you say he cannot do this without taking away their free will in living I say neither can he necessitate men to belieue aright without taking away their free will in believing and in prefessing their beliefe For who sees not but that by this meanes you take away the infallibility of the Apostles yea of our Saviour himselfe whom you belieue not to be God Or els you must grant that men may be infallible by the Assistance of the Holy Ghost without taking away their free will and so you must either contradict yourselfe or blaspheme against the infallibility of the Apostles and certaine truth of Christian Religion 26. The Answer which you giue N. 97. to the place which Ch Ma N. 18. cited out of S. Austine I would not belieue the
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
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.
were present and to which they gaue consent namely the Councell of Lateran vnder Innoc 3. Anno 1215. The Councell of Lyons vnder Gregory the 10. Anno 1273. The Councell of Florence Anno 1438. And you must consider that the Grecians hold Generall Councells to be Rules of Faith Of this matter Brierly Tract 1. Sect 7. Subdiv 2. Marg 11. Pag 202. speakes very well and shewes even out of Protestant Writers the beginning of the Errours of the Grecians and their defections from the Roman Church and in particular saith that twelue tymes or therabout hath the Greeke Church reconciled itselfe to Rome and afterwards fallen from thence being the rupon now at last wholly oppressed with barbarous Turcisme And here I may well alledge the saying of S. Antonin Part 4. Tit 11. Cap 7. that since the Grecians divided themselves from vs they do daily more and more faile in Wisdome in temporall power in good life neither hath any of them wrought miracles And yet notwithstanding all this even the Schismaticall Grecians do agree with Catholikes almost in all the Points in which the Protestants disagree from vs as Brierly in the same place demonstrates out of Protestant Authors And the same is set downe in Charity Maintayned Part 1. Chap 5. N. 48. citing in particular Potter who Pag 225. denyes not but they belieâ—e Transubstantiation By all which it appeares that of the Greeke Schismaticall Church you say to vs against truth all that there is not one Note of your Church which agrees not to her as well as to your owne Seing by the novelty of Her Errours her Alterations Contradictions and Heresy she must want Antiquity Unity Perpetuity Vniversality for tyme and place as is obvious to every one to Judge by what we haue sayd 79. You say N. 165. Neither is it so easy to be determined as you pretend that Luther and other Protestants opposed the whole Church in matter of Faith 80. Answer we haue lately heard you say N. 152. Perhaps you may be in a dreame and perhaps you and all the men in the world haue beene so when they thought they were awake and then only awake when they thought they dreamed Which it seemes proves to be your owne case who pretend to be awake and yet dreame of men in the Moone agreeing with Luther when he first arose which either is a dreame or all those learned Protestants who are cited by Charity Maintayned Part 1. Chap 5. N. 9. and N. 12. were in a dreame As he who sayd It is impudency to say that many learned men in Germany before Luther did hold the doctrine of the Gospell And I may say that far greater impudency it were to affirme that Germany did not agree with the rest of Europe and other Cristian Catholique natious and consequently that it is the greatest impudency to deny that he departed from the Communion of the visible Catholique Church spredd over the whole world As he who affirmeth it to be ridiculous to thinke that in the tyme before Luther any had the purity of Doctrine as he who sayd if there had beene right bâ—lâ—evers which went before Luther in his office there had then beene no need of a Lutheran Reformation as he who sayth The Truth was vnknowne at that tyme and vnheard of when Martin Luther and Vldericke Zuinglius first came vnto the knowledg and preaching of the Gospell As he who saith We say that before the dayes of Luther for the space of many hundred yeares an vniversall Apostasy overspredâ— the whole face of the earth As he who teacheth that from the yeare of Christ three hundred and sixteene the AntiChristian aÌ„d Papisticall Raigne had begun raigning vniversally and without any debateable contradiction one thousand two hundred sixty yeares that is till Luthers tyme As he who affirmes thâ— it the true Church was interrupted by apostasy from the true Faith As Calvin who saith of Protestants in generall we haue beene forced to make a separation from the whole world As Luther who saith At the first I was alone The particular names and places of these Protestants may be seene in the now cited place of Charity maintayned with more other speaking to the same purpose With what modesty then caÌ„ you say that it is not easy to be determined that Luther and other Protestants opposed the whole Visible Church in matters of Faith If any will interpret your words so as that you do not deny but that Luther opposed the whole Visible Church it being evident that he did so but that the things wherin he opposed Her were not matters of Faith this interpretation will serue only to make good that Luther was inexcusable in dividing himselfe from the whole Church for matters not belonging to Faith CHAP XII THE ANSWER TO HIS THIRD CHAPTER ABOVT FVNDAMENTALL AND NOT FVNDAMENTALL POINTS 1. WHosoever peruses the Third Chapter of Ch Ma and considers vnpartially with what clearnesse and methode it is written and compares with it your Answer cannot but judge that you proceed with much confusion snatching at words or periods and amusing men with fond vnlearned subtiltyes and by Points as if your chiefe care had beene to divert or as I may say hood winke the Reader for the maine Controversy by petty diversions In proofe of what I say I beseech the Reader to run over the first fiue numbers or Sections of Ch. ma. and he will find I doe you no wrong 2. I wonder you will always be taking pleasure in toyes and vntruthes First N. 4. you affirme that if we say we agree in matters of Faith it is ridiculous and that we define matters of Faith to be those wherin we agree So that to say you agree in matters of Faith is to say you agree in those things wherin you do agree And then N. 5. That we are all agreed that only those things wherin we do agree are matters of faith which you put in a distinct letter as out Doctrine and then add these words of your owne And Protestants if they were wise Could do so toâ— wheras you know it to be both ridiculous and vntrue that we haue any such saying and that we define matters of Faith to be all those Objects which are sufficiently proposed by the Church as revealed by God without dependance of any mans agreeing or disagreeing in them though it be true that by consequence whosoever agrees in such truths must agree among themselves for those truthes as proportionably Quae sunt eadem vni tertio sunteadem interse And our deduction is this Whosoever agree in the beliefe of all things revealed by God agree in all matters of Faith Catholikes agree in the beliefe of all things revealed by God Therfore they agree in all matters of Faith But we are not so foolish as to say that if a Catholike should inculpably deny a thing revealed by God and so disagree from other Catholikes that therfore our Faith were changed because all do not agree
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
Churches Foundaâ—ions Now such they could not be without freedome from etrour in all those things which they delivered constantly is certaine revealed truths And to proue that the Apostles are the Foundation of the Church you alledge N. 30 S. Paul saying Built vpon the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Fphes 2.20 43. I reply First The Church must be led into such an all as is necessary to judge of controversyes which yourself Pag 35. N. 7. confess to require an vniversall infallibility Secondly seing Scripture containes not all points necessary to be believed the Church must be indued with infallibility for such points Otherwise we could haue no certainty concerning them And if once you grant her infallible for Points not evideÌ„t in Scripture you cannot deny her an Infallibility derived not from evidence of Scripture but from the assistance of the Holy Ghost And as you say the Apostles were vniversally infallible because the Church was builded on them so every Christian is builded vpon the Church and for that cause she must be vniversally infallible Thirdly We are not saied to be builded vpon the writings of the Apostles or Scripture but vpon the Apostles who were the Foundation of the Church before they wrote any thing by their preaching and verbum traditum Tradition So that indeed this Text Ephes 2.20 makes for vs and proves that we are builded on the vnwritten word and might haue beene so though no Scripture had bene written Fourthly you still mistake the Question and seeke diversions but never goe about to proue by some evident Text of Scripture that the infallibility of the Apostles may not be limited to Fundamentall Points as your restraine to such Points the generall Promises of infallibility made to the Church in holy Scripture and limit the word Foundation to the writings of the Apostles which I haue shewed to be a manifestly vntrue limitation S. Paul 1. Tim 3. avouches the Church to be the Pillar and Ground of Truth and yet you deny Her to be vniversally infallible How then can you proue by the word Foundation which cansignify no more than the pillar and Ground of Truth that the Apostles cannot erre in any Point but the Church may Yea even to make this place Ephes 2.20 cleare and convincing in favour of the Apostles the authority of the Church is necessary and the letter alone will not suffice if you will regard the doctrine or authority of some learned prime Protestant And therfore Fiftly you haue cause to reslect on what Cornelius a Lapide vpon this place saieth That Beza and not he alone interprets vpon the Foundation of the Apostles to signify Christ who is the Foundation of the Apostles Prophets and the whole Church and he Beza saieth that it is Antichristian to put an other foundation For no man can put an other Foundation beside that which is put Iesus Christ. If this exposition be admitted the saied Text Ephes 2.20 will not proue that the Apostles but only that our Saviour the Foundation of the Apostles and of the Church was infallible nor will the stability of a Foundation expressed in this place of Scripture belong to the Apostles And albeit indeed this interpretation be not true yet to you it ought not to seeme evidently false being the Opinion of so great a Rabby as also because it is very agreable to the manner which Potestants hold in impugning Catholik Doctrine when for example they argue The Scripture saieth We haue an Advocate Jesus Christ Therfore Saynts cannot be our Advocates though in an infinitly lower degree than our Saviour is Especially if we reflect that it is saied of our Saviour with a Negatiue or exclusiue particle No man can put an other Foundation wheras in those words we haue an Advocate there is only an affirmation that Christ is our Advocate but no negation that any other is Other examples might be given in this kind if this were a place for it We do therfore grant that the Apostles were Foundations of the Church and that they received Revelations immediately from our Saviour and the Church from them so that as I saied she depends on them not they on Her and you wrong vs while N. 30. in your first Sillogisme you speak in such manner as the Reader will conceiue that we make the infallibility of the Church equall in all respects to that of the Apostles the contrary wherof all Catholikes belieue and proue I omit to obserue that you take occasion to descant vpon these words as well which are not found in Charity Maintayned though for the thing itselfe he might haue vsed them Your N. 31. and 32. haue beene already confuted at large and the words of Dr. Stapleton considered and defended with small credit to Dr. Potter and you 44 You say N. 34. he teaches the promises of Infallibility made to the Apostles to be verifyed in the Church but not in so absolute a manner Now what is opposed to absolute but limited or restrained 45. Answer first our Question is not what Dr. Potter saied but what he did or could proue and in particular I say it cannot be proved by any evident Text of Scripture that the words which he confesses to be verifyed in the Church are limited to fundamentall points in respect of her and not as they are referred to the Apostles Secondly wheras you say what is opposed to absolute but limited or restrained I reply absolute may be taken in diverse senses according to the matter argument or subject to which it is applied and therfore though some tyme it may be opposed to limited yet not alwayes Do not you N. 33. oppose to absolute a conditionall moderate secondary sense which being epithetons much different one from an other giue vs to vnderstand that you are too resolute in asking what is opposed to but limited seing more things than one may be opposed to it What Logician will not tell you that in Logick not Limited but Relatiue is opposed to absolute And we may also say that the infallibility of the Apostles was absolute that is independent and the infallibility of the Church dependent as the Effect depends on the Cause and so is not absolute in that sense but hath a Relation of dependance to the infallibility of the Apostles as to its Cause which particular Relation the Apostles haue not to the Church 46. You say also N. 34. that though it were supposed that God had obliged himself by promise to giue his Apostles infallibility only in things necessary to salvation nevertheless it is vtterly inconsequent that he gaue them no more or that we can haue no assurance of any farther assistance that he gaue them Especially when he himself both by his word and by his works hath assured vs that he did assist them farther 47. Answer I know not to what purpose or vpon what occasion you vtter these words Only I am sure that they containe both a manifest falshood and contradiction to
be sure that they attaine the true sense of Scripture vnless they first know what points in particular be Fundamentall because in other they may erte as they say the Church may Besides it hath bene shewed that in the Principles of Protestants it cannot be convinced that Scripture is infallible except only in fundamentall Points and so men cannot rely on Scripture vnless first they be sure what points be Fundamentall Neither is there the same reason for vnderstanding not the bare words but the sense of Scripture intended by the Holy Ghost as there is for vnderstanding som plain place in Aristotle or conceyving some evident naturall truths which are connaturall to humane reason and are not capable of different senses as the words of Scripture are Which may be proved even by the Examples which you bring as evident as I haue shewed hertofore that they are not so Neither can any Protestants learne them from Scripture alone with such certainty as is necessary to an Act of Faith which according to all good Christians must be infallible and therfore you say only Protestants may be certain enough of the Truth and certainty of one of the places which you alledg as evident but your enough is not enough for the absolute certainty of Divine Faith And therfore Charity Maintayned did you no wrong at all and much less a palpable injury as you speak in saying you cannot with certainty learne of Scripture fundamentall Points of Faith which is manifest by the examples which you say are Truths Fundamentall because they are necessary parts of the Gospell and yet it is evident that Protestents cannot agree about their meaning as I haue demonstrated about these sentences God is and is a rewarder of them that seek him that there is no salvation but by Faith in Christ That by Repentance and Faith in Christ Remission of sinnes may be obtained That there shall be a Resurrection of the Body Which are the Instances which here you giue as Truths both Fundamentall and evident 63. Your N. 51. hath bene answered in severall occasions And all that you say N. 52. is directly nothing to the purpose but passes from objects considered in themselves wherof Protestants confess some to be Fundamentall others not to accidentall circumstances as if Protestants did differ not in Fundamentall points or in assigning a particular Catalogue of them but only in accidentall circumstances of ignorance repentance and the like But of this I haue spoken hertofore as also I haue confuted your similitude about a medicine of twenty ingredients c which therfore I think needless to repeete 64. Your N. 53. I haue answered in diverse places Your N. 54. is nothing but a long digression to which the particular Answer would require a whole Booke or volume directly against the scope of this Work which is only to treate in generall of the Church and Scripture and you know very well that Catholik Writers haue fully answered all your Demands as also you know how many doubts might be proposed to Protestants abovt Scripture which to them is the only rule of Faith if I had a mynd to digrees Your N. 55.56.57.58.59.60.61.62.63.64.65 haue bene answered at large 95. I desire the Reader to peruse the N. 21. of Charity Maintayned and he will finde that you make an argument as his which is nothing like his discourse He saieth not as you N. 66. cited him in these words We may not depart from the Church absolutely and in all things Therfore we may not depart fram it in any thing which you call an Argument à dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid The Argument of Ch. Ma. is Dr. Potter teacheth Pag 75. That there neither was nor can be any just cause to depart from the Church of Christ no more than from Christ himself But if the Church could erre in any points of Faith they may and must forsake her in those and if such errours should fall out to be concerning the Churches Lyturgie Sacraments c. they must leaue her externall Communion which being essentiall to the Church they must divide themselves from her in that which isessentiall to make one a member of the same Church which I hope is more than to argue ad dictum secundum quid For what greater separation can there be from the Church than in that which is essentiall to make one be vnited to her Your saying that a man may leaue the vice of his friend or brother and yet not leaue his friend or brother is impertinent seing vices are not essentiall to men as externall Communion is to make one a member of the Church 66. You object what Dr. Potter saieth of the Catholique Church P. 75. he extends presently after to euery true though never so corrupted part of it And why do you not conclude from hence that no particular Church according to his judgement can fall into any ertour and call this a demonstration too 67. Answer If the Doctour will not contradict himself according to his judgment the Catholique Church cannot fall into errour against any Truth necessary to salvation as a particular Church may and therefore this may but that can never be forsaken or if he will affirme that no particular Church can be forsaken he must say that no such Church can erre in any point necessary to salvation For if she did so erre her Communion must be forsaken and I haue shewed externall Communion to be essentiall to the members of the Church Whereby is answered your N. 67. where you grant that we may not cease to be of the Church nor forsake it absolutely and totally no more than Christ himselfe Since therefore they absolutely forsake the Church who disagree from Her in profession of Faith and divide themselves from her externall Communion you must grant that they can no more doe so than they can divide themselves from Christ I know not to what purpose or vpon what occasion you say to Ch Ma In other places you confes his doctrine to be that even the Catholique Church may erre in Points not fundamentall which you do not pretend that he ever imputed to Christ himself 68. Your manner of alledging the words of Charity Maintayned in your N. 68. gives me still occasion to wish you had alledged them as you found them You make Charity Maintayned speak thus Dr. Potter either contradicts himself or els must grant the Church infallible because he saies if we did not differ from the Roman we could not agree with the Catholique which saying supposes the Catholique Church cannot erre And then you say with your vsuall modesty This Argument to giue it the right name is an obscure and intriate nothing I confess that reading the words which you impute to Charity Maintayned I found difficulty to penetrate the force of his Argument But the words of Charity Main are these If saith Dr. Potter we did not dissent in some opinions from the present Roman Church we could
not agree with the Church truly Catholique These words cannot be true vnless he presupposes that the Church truly Catholique cānot erre in Points not fundamētall For if she may erre in such points the Roman Church which he affirmes to erre only in points not fundamētall may agree with the Church truly Catholique if she likewise may erre in points not fundamētall This is the Argumēt of Ch Ma and is it not cleare that if the Church Catholique can erre for example in the Doctrines of Purgatory Invocations of Saynts reall presence and the like as de facto Luther and his followers pretend she did erre and that they were reformers of such errours seing the Roman Church may and doth hold the same Doctrines the Church vniversall and the Roman Church shall agree in the same pretended errours and so Potter saied not truly that if we agree with the Roman Church for example about Purgatory Praiers to saynts c we cannot agree with the Church Catholique Will you deny the Axiom Quae sunt eadem vni tertio sunt eadem inter se If then the vniversall and the Roman Church agree in the belief of errours as you falsly terme them do they not agree one with an other And so contrary to Potters affirmation it must be saied If we did dissent from these opinions of the present Roman Church we could not agree with the Church Catholique if once it be supposed that the Church holds those or the like vnfundamentall errours as you grant she may And further it would follow that seing Protestants dissent from the Roman Church they cannot agree with the Catholique Church But let vs heare how you make good your censure 69. You say let vs suppose either that the Catholique Church may erre but doth not but that the Roman actually doth or that the Catholique Church may erre in some few things but that the Roman errs in many more And is it not apparent in both these cases which yet both suppose the Churches infallibility a man may truly saie vnless I dissent in some opinions from the Roman Church I cannot agree with the Catholique Either therfore you must retract your imputation laied vpon Dr. Potter or doe that which you condemne in him and be driven to say that the same man may held some errours with the Church of Rome and at the same tyme with the Catholique Church not hold but condemne them For otherwise in neither of these cases it is possible for the same man at the same tyme to agree with the Roman and the Catholique 70. Answer Your conscience cannot but witness that the Doctor when he saied If we did not dissent in some opinions from the present Roman Church we could not agree with the Church truly Cathelique did not speak of accidentall cases or voluntary suppositions such as you put but meant and spoke absolutely that if we did not dissent from the Present Roman Church we could not agree with the Church truly Catholique For if he meant only of contingent cases without regard to any particular advantage or prerogatiue of the Church vniversall he might haue made suppositions directly contrary to yours that the Roman Church may erre but doth not but the vniversall actually doth or that the Roman Church doth erre in some few things but the Catholique errs in many more For if once it be granted the Catholique Church to erre to say she may erre in many or few is a voluntary vngrounded conjecture or divination and nothing to any purpose Nay seing if once the Catholik Church be supposed to erre she may multiply errours without end and so to day agree with to morrow disagree from the Roman Church and it must follow that according to your explication the Doctours words may be in a perpetuall alteration to day fals to morrow true which either was farre from his meaning or his meaning was not only impertinent but against his owne scope and Intention which was to make the vniversall Church as it were the Modell or Rule to judge of the necessity which Protestants had to forsake the Roman Church by reason of her dissenting from the Church Catholiques which had bene no good reason if the vniversall Church may erre and erre as much and more than the Roman or any other partioular Church Which appeares also by these words of the Doctor in the same Pag 97. The Catholique Church is carefull to ground all her declarations vpon the divine Authority of Gods written word And therfore whosoever wilfully opposed a judgement so well grounded is justly esteemed an Heretique And P 132. he saieth For vs the mistaker nor his he Masters will never prove that we oppose either any declaration of the Catholique Church or any Fundamentall or other truth of Scripture and therefore he doth vnjustly charge vs with Schisme or Herisie Do not these sayings attribute more to the vniversall than to particular Churches and more than a meerely casualty that either she doth not actually erre or els erres in fewer things than the present Roman Church And vpon the whole matter is not that true which Charity Maintayned N. 22. saied That D. Potter must either grant that the Catholique Church cannot erre in Points not Fundamentall or confess a plain contradiction to himself in the saied words If we did not dissent in some opinions from the present Roman Church we could not agree with the Church truly Catholique Would not Protestants take it in ill parte if one should say If we did not dissent in some opinions from Protestants we could not agree with the Church truly Catholique And yet according to your explication and suppositions it could not be ill taken because either the Church might be supposed not to erre actually or in some few things but that the Protestants erre in many more it being manifest that some of them erre By the way when Potter saieth For vs the Mistaker will never proue that we oppose any Declaration of the Catholique Church or any truth of Scripture I would know whom he vnderstand by vs Seing it is evident that of Protestants holding so many contrary Doctrines some must of necessity oppose some Declaration of the Church or truth of Scripture and since they haue no certaine Rule to know which of them be in the wrong and oppose some Declaration of the Church or Scripture we must conclude that no man desirous of his salvation can commit his soule to any of them all Your Conclusion Either therefore you must retract your imputation laid vpon Dr Potter or doe that c. is obscure but I am sure it is answered seing it goes vpon your fals explication of the Doctors words 71. Your proceding N. 69. puts me vpon a necessity of intreating the Reader to peruse the N. 23. of Charity Maintayned which evidently demonstrates that it was wholy impertinent for you to answer the places which He saieth are wont to be all edged out of Scripture for the infallibility of Gods
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
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
answer with Ch. Ma. that the Apostles set downe those Points Fundamentall and not Fundamentall which the Holy Ghost inspired them to deliver as you say they were inspired to set downe Credenda and not Agenda though these be of no lesse importance and necessity then those and you still begg the Question N. 75. that the end which the Apostles proposed was to set downe all necessary points of Faith The reasons which you giue N. 76. why some mysteries were omitted and others set downe can only be congruences of that which is done de facto and not arguments convincing that they could not haue done otherwise thē they did ād if they had set downe others and not these there could not haue wanted reasons for their so doing That the three Sages who came to adore our Saviour were also Kings is no new invention of Ch. Ma. but the judgment of the Ancient as may be seene in Cornelius a Lapide in Matth. Chap. 2. citing by name the Saints Ciprian Basil Chrisostom Hierom Hilary and Tertullian Isidore Beda Idacius The words which you cited out of Gordonius Huntlaeus Contr 2. Cap. 10. N. 10. that the Apostles were not so forgetfull after the receiving of the holy Ghost as to leaue out any prime ād Principall Foundation of Faith make nothing for your purpos seing we dispute not whether any prime or principall foundation of Faith be left out for we acknowledge that the Creed expresses the Creator of all things and Redeemer of mankinde as also the Blessed Trinity Resurrection Catholique Church Remission of sinnes and life everlasting which of themselves are prime and principall foundations of our Faith if they be vnderstood according to the interpretation and tradition of the Church but whether any necessary though not prime and principall be left out and that may well be necessary which is not prime and principall as many parts are necessary to make a house which are not the prime and principall parts therof Yet indeed Gordonius in that 10. Chapter assignes the properties of the foundation of Faith that is of that Authority vpon which our Faith relies which he proves Chap. 11. not to be Scripture alone and C. 12. not to be the private spirit but Chap 13. to be the Church and he saieth the Apostles could not leaue out of their Creed in quo continentur omnia prima fundamenta Fidei this primum praencipuum Fidei fundamentum Where you see he speakes of the First foundations of Faith and more things may be necessary than the First foundations Besides we deny not but all necessary points are contained in the Creed in some of those senses which I haue declared hertofore which being well cōsidered particularly that Article of the Catholick Church will demonstrate that the Creed togeather with those means which are affoarded vs by tradition c for the true vnderstanding therof and vndoubted supplying of what is not contained in it is of no lesse vse and profit then if all points had been exprest which indeed had been to little purpos yea would haue proved noxious by the malice of men without the declaration of the Church for the Orthodox sense and meaning of them 62. You doe not well in saying that Charity Maintayned denyes this consequence of Dr. Potter That as well nay better they might haue given no Article but that of the Church and sent vs to the Church for all the rest For in setting downe others besides that and not all they make vs belieue we haue all when we haue not all and neither gives reason against it nor satisfies his reason for it For Charity Maintayned performes both those things neither of which you say he performes as every one may see who reads his N. 29. to say nothing that in good Logick the defendent is not obliged to giue a reason why he denyes a consequence it being reason sufficiēt that the opponent or disputant proves it not though yet indeed Charity Maintayned doth shew the insufficiency of the Doctors inference by giving the like consequences which confessedly cannot be good and yourselfe endeavour to answer the reasons of Charity Maintayned which he brought against the sayd inference of Potter You say If our doctrine were true this short Creed I belieue the Roman Church to be infallible would haue been better that is more effectuall to keepe the believers of it from heresie and in the true Faith then this Creed which now we haue a proposition so evident that I cannot see how either you or any of your religion or indeed any sensible man can from his hart deny it Yet because you make shew of doing so or else which I rather hope doe not rightly aprehende the force of the Reason I will endeavour briefly to add some light and strength to it by comparing the effects of those sever all supposed Creeds 63. Answer perhaps I shall say in the beginning that which will make your endeavour proue vaine You say If our doctrine were true this short Creed I belieue the Roman Church to be infallible would haue been botter that is more effectuall to keepe the believes of it from heresie and in the true Faith then this Creed which now we haue But this ground of yours is evidently false For the effect or Fruit or Goodnesse or Betternesse so to speake of the Creed is not sufficiently explicated by being more effectuall to keepe men from heresy and in the true Faith but it implies also som particular articles which are to be believed in the beliefe of which that we may not erre the infallibility of the Church directs ād secures vs which office she might and would haue performed although this Article I belieue the Catholick Church directs ād secures vs had not beene exprest in the Creed yea that article ād the whole Creed supposes the infallibility of the Church to haue been proved ād believed antecedēter to thē that so we may be assured all the contēts therof to be infallibly true Now by the precise beliefe of that Creed which you propose taken alone we could not belieue any particular article of Faith because this precise act I belieue the Church to be infallible terminates in that one object of the infallibility of the Church from which I grant the beliefe of other particular objects may be derived when the Church shall propose thē but thē ipso facto we should begin to beleeue other particular objects and so haue an other Creed and not that little one of which you speake and besides which we are obliged to belieue other particular revealed Truths and therfor we must still haue some other Creed or Catechisme or what you would haue it called besides that one article of the Catholick Church as Charity Maintayned observes Pag 144. and consequently though that article of the Church haue that great and necessary effect of keeping vs from heresy and in the true Faith yet it wants that other property of a Creed
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
this one article of the Church is too short for a Creed or abridgment of Faith and must haue been enlarged by some Creed Cathecisme c. And as Potter and you limited the promise of our Saviour to the Church that the gates of Hell shall not prevaile against it to fundamentall points or to a sufficient but not a certainly effectuall assistance or some other way the same would you haue done though he had specified the Roman Church 78. Your last N. 84. containes nothing in effect besides what you and Potter haue saied and hath been confuted already We deny not but that the Creed containes all fundamentall points in the sense which I haue declared more then once aÌ„d which Catholick Writers intend when they say it containes all fuch articles and the Reader will receaue further satisfaction by perusing the N. 26. of Ch Ma. as it is delivered by himselfe as also he will finde that you haue omitted some points of importance which Ch. Ma. hath set downe N. 27. as in particular That the very councell of Nice which sayth Whitgâ—ft in his defense Pag. 3â—0 is of all wise and learned men reverenced esteemed and imbraced next vnto the Scriptures themselves decreed that to those that were chosen to the ministery vnmarried it was not lawfull to take any wife afterward is affirmed by Protestants Lastly in answer to the direction N. 33. you vndoe all that Dr. Potter and you haue done in labouring to proue that the Creed containes all necessary articles of simple Belief For thus you speak The granting of this principle that all things necessary to sâ—lvation are evidently contained in Scripture plainly renders the whole disppute touching the Creed vnnecessary For if all necessary things of all sorts whether of simple belief or practice be confessed to be cleerly contained in Scripture what imports it whether those of one sort be contained in the Creed CHAP XIV THE ANSWER TO HIS FIFTH CHAPTER ABOVT SCHISME 1. OMitting to say any thing by way of preface and introduction your N. 1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9 haue been answered particularly and at large in my Chapter 7. The cavills which N. 10.11.12 you vse in avoyding the Authorities of some Fathers which Ch Ma alledged N. 8. to proue that it can never be Lawfull to separate from the Church doe proue more and more the impossibility of deciding controversies by Scripture or any one writing Whosoever considers the place cited by Ch. Ma. out of S. Austin Cont Parmen L. 2. C. 11. Ther is no just necessity to divide vnity will finde that those words must be vniversall and serue for the Major Proposition to proue that the Donatists could haue no necessity to divide theÌ„selves from the Church of which division he saieth that it appeares non esse quicquaÌ„ gravius Sacrilegio Schismatis And if S. Austins proposition be not vniversall his argument had been but Petitio princicipij taking for granted that which was in controversie namely whether the Donatists had just cause to depart from the Church So that indeed those words of S. Austin There is no just necessity to divide vnity must suppsose that the Church cannot erre nor that men can receaue any spirituall hurt by her doctrine and that she can neither doe nor approue ill All which hath been declared hertofore both for the matter itselfe and for the meaning of S. Austin in divers other sayings of his But it seemes you wanted better matter when you tell vs of want of diligence in quoting the 62. Ch. of that booke of S. Austine which hath but 23. in it And when you say that the words which are indeed in the 11. Chapter are not inferred out of any such promises as Ch. Ma. pretends For as lately you did persecute the printer for that which Ch. Ma. had put amongst the Errata so here you note that which Ch. Ma. himselfe cited right N. 21. as every one may see Neither is it any better then ridiculous for you to say that the words of S. Austin are not inferred out of any such premisses as Ch. Ma. pretends seing he neither pretends nor mentions any other premisses besides that which he in the immediatly precedent Number had sayd out of the Holy Fathers that Schisme was a grievous sinne and I beseech you from whence can S. Austin inferr that ther can be no just necessity to divide vnity except from a supposition that Schisme is a grievous sinne or as he speakes here non esse quicquaÌ„ gravius Sacrilegio Schismatis But it is a signe you are sinking when you are glad to take hold of any thing be it never so weake 2. The same answer serves for your evasion to the words of S. Irenaeus cont heraet Lib. 4. Cap. 6â— They cannot make any so important reformaâ—ion as the â—ll of the Schisme is pernâ—â—ous which must suppose that the Church cannot erre in matters of faith whether they be great or little in their owne nature and therfor he sayth expresly God will judge all those who are out of truth that is who are out of the Church Iudicabit omnes eos quisunt extra veritatem id est qui sunt extra Ecclesiam And therfore much more will he judge men if for small matters they should part from the Church And you see he supposes all to be out of the Truth who are out of the Church which were not true if the Church could deliver fals Doctrine For so one might be in the Church and not in the Truth The example of the Quartodecimani who by the ancient Fathers are reckoned among Hereticks makes directly against yourselfe Neither doth it import that the controversie about keeping Easter may seeme to be only concerning a circumstance of time and not immediatly and expresly of a revealed Truth For indeed to say it was necessary to keepe Easter as the Jewes did for the circumstance of time was a formall pernicious heresy no lesse then to bring in a necessity of observing othr rites of the Jewish Law and so the words which you alleadge out of Petavius make nothing for you against vs. For this cause the observation of Easter at a certaine time might be tolerated as some rites of the Jewes were till they were affirmed to be necessary after which time they were to be reputed not only dead but deadly and so would that custome of keeping Easter haue been after it was pretended to be kept as necessary Of which point and of the excommunication inflicted by holy Pope Uictor Ch. Ma. hath spoken sufficiently in his 2. part 3. Your answer to the words of S. Denis of Alexandria is evidently a meere shift For to say as he doth apud Eusebium Hist Eccles L. 6. Cap. 25. All things should rather be endured then to consent to the division of the Church of God must necessarily suppose that it can never be lawfull to part from the Church and if it were lawfull to doe soe it could not vniversally be a
vertue rather to endure all torments and death itselfe then consent to it Who can deny but that in common speach to say we ought rather to dy then doe such a thing signifies the absolute vnlawfulnes therof Which in our case appeares more by his comparing the dividing of the Church to the offering sacrifice to Idolls Those Martyrs saith he being no lesse glorious that expose themselves to hinder the dismembring of the Church then those that suffer rather then they will offer Sacrifice to Idolls In your N. 13. you vainly distinguish betweene the deficiency of the visible Church and of the Churches visibility seing visibility is essentiall to the Church and I hope you will grant that nothing can exist without that which is essentiall to it 4. Your N. 15.16.17.18.19 make no lesse against S Austin D. Potter and the most learned Protestants then against Ch Ma. All your objections are answered by considering that we doe not affirme the Church to be at all tymes a like conspicuous glorious and as I may say prosperous but only That she shall be alwayes so knowne that men desirous of their salvation may be able to distinguish her from all other congregations and haue recourse to her for matters belonging to Religion seing in the ordinary course for we speake not of extraordiry cases or Miracles we must learne of her Fides ex auditu And your selfe Pag. 149. N. 38. say I must learne of the Church or some part of the Church or I cannot know that there was such a man as Christ that he taught such Doctrine that he and his Apostles did such miracles in confirmation of it that the Scripture is Gods word vnles I be taught it So then the Church is though not a certain Foundation and proofe of my Faith yet a necessary introduction to it How then doe you N. 17. aske this Question If some one Christian lived alone among Pagans in some country remote from Christendom shall we conceaue it impossible for this man to be saved because he cannot haue recourse to any cong regation for the affaires of his soule Seing yourselfe tell vs that you must learne of the Church or some part of it or you cannot know that there was such a man as Christ and consequently you suppose a Christian living among Pagans to haue learned of the Church the Christian Religion wherein being once instructed he may afterward be saved by an act of contrition when he cannot actually receaue any Sacramēt and so he is not saved without dependance on the Church of which he first learned the Doctrine of Christ Neither doe I say that every part of the vniversall Church must alwayes be visible to the whole but that every part must be visible to some and so the whole collection of Churches will come to be visible in all places and knowne to the whole world Yea every particular Church is of it selfe visible to the whole that is from all parts of the Church it may receaue writings letters messages and messengers though it be not needfull that actually it doe so ād so be actually visible to the whole as I sayd That the true Church cannot be without the preaching of the word and right administration of Sacraments is the common Doctrine of Protestants who say they are essentiall notes of the Church as hath been declared hertofore And though it were granted that per accidens these things could not be actually performed in some particular case which yet indeed cannot happen because even the profession of Faith is a reall preaching that makes nothing to proue that the vniversall true Church can be invisible which in the greatest persecutions was visible both to friends and foes and became more conspicuous even by persecution it selfe Glorious S. Austin brings so many and so cleare texts of Scripture for the Amplitude and Perpetuity of the Church against the Donatists that you may blush to speake so contemptibly of his Doctrine in this behalfe as you doe N. 16. or to say as you doe N. 20. that it appeares not by his words that he denyed not only the actuall perishing of the Church but the possibility of it seing he vrges the promises of God and predictions of the Prophets for the stability and perpetuity of Gods Church 5. You say N. 20. All that S. Austine saies is not true and that you belieue heate of disputation against the Donatists transported him so farr as to vrge against them more than was necessary and perhaps more than was true As concerning the last speach of S. Austine I cannot but wonder very much why he should think it absurd for any man to say There are sheepe which he knowes not but God knowes and no less at you for obtruding this sentence vpon vs as pertinent proofe of the Churches visibility Answer The words cited by Ch. Ma. out of S. Augustine De ovibus Cap. 1. are these Peradventure some one may saie there are other sheepe I know not where with which I am not acquainted yet God hath care of them But he is too absurd in humane sense that can imagine such things Which words of S. Austine are evidently true For is he not too absurd in humane sense that can imagine one to be a member of the Church to which visibility is essentiall and yet not be visible to men but knowen to God alone 6. Ch. Ma. Pag 165. N. 11. sayth These men doe not consider that while they deny the perpetuity of a visible Church they destroy their owne present Church according to the Argument which S. Austin Lib. 3. de Baptismo cont Donat. cap. 2. vrged against the Donatists in these words If the Church were lost in Cyprians we may say Gregories time from whence did Donatus Luther appeare From what earth did he spring From what sea is he come From what heaven did he drop And in another place How can they vaunt to haue any Church if she haue ceased ever since those times Lib. 3. cont Parm. 7. To this authority of S. Austin you answer N. 21. Neither doe I see how the trath of any present Church depends vpon the perpetuall visioility nay nor vpon the perpetuity of that which is past or future For what sense is there that it should not be in the power of God Almighty to restore to a flourishing estate a Church which oppression hath made in visible To repaire that which is ruined to reforme that which was corrupted or to reviue that which was dead Nay what reason is there but that by ordiuary meanes this may be done so long as the Scriptures by Divine providence are preserved in their integrity and Authority as the commonwealth though never so farr collapsed and overrunne with disorders is yet in possibility of being reduced vnto its Originall state so long as the Ancient Laws and Fundamentall Constitutions are extant and remaine inviolate from whence men may be directed how to make such a reformation 8. Answer The
with in and without If she be with Novatianus she was not with Cornelius But if she were with Cornelius who succeedes Fabianus by Lawfull ordination Novatianus is not in the Church If then the milder Protestants will pretend to be in the true Church they cannot be with those other who by teaching an heresy against the Article of the Church in our Creed put themselves out of the Church otherwise those milder Protestants should come to be both within and without the Church You tell vs that the saying of S. Cypriā hath no more to doe with our present businesse of proving it vnlawfull to communicate with these men who hold the Church was not alwayes visible then In nova fert animus But I am sure In nova fert animus agrees as fitly to your frequent changes of Religion as it is impertinently applyed against Ch Ma. Your last words That S. Cyprians words are by neither of the parts litigants esteemed any rule of Faith and therfor the vrging of them and such like authorityes serves only to make bookes great and Controversies endles shew what esteeme you haue of Antiquity and the holy Fathers how diffident you are of your cause if their authority might prevaile and how vnjustly you proceed in alledging against vs the authority of Fathers of whom you make so small and so ill account as to say the vrging of them serves only to make bookes great and which is worse controversies endles 13. For answer to your N. 45. I must still entreate the Reader to peruse N. 17. of Ch. Ma. and withall to remember what I haue proved heretofore that it is impossible to leaue the externall communion of the Church and not to leaue the Church externall communion being of the essence of the Church And therfor your example that a man may leaue any fashion or custome of a Colledge and yet still remaine a member of the College is not to the purpose seing a fashion or custome of the Colledge may be meerely accidentall to the constituting one a member therof or if you suppose any custome to be of the essence and a Signum distinctivum of that Colledge from all other communities then the example makes against you for in that case to leaue that fashion or custome were to leaue the Colledge 14. Vpon this errour that externall communion in profession of Faith Liturgie Sacraments c is not essentiall to the Church is grounded all that you haue N. 47. Neither is C. Ma. deceaved in not distinguishing betweene a local ād morall forsaking any thing But he sayth and hath proved that externall communion being essentiall to the Church it is impossible that they can be of one Church who are divided in that communion but doe forsake one another morally and locally also refusing to be present at their publik worship of God nor doth he C. Ma. vse any pretty Sophisme and very fit to perswade men that it is impossible for them to forsake any errour they hold or any vice they are subject to Because forsooth they cannot forfake themselves and vices and errours are things inherent in themselves For to turne your owne Instance against your selfe if vices and errours were essentiall to a man it were impossible to forsake them and not forsake ones selfe so vnion in externall communion being essentiall to the true Church which is one it is impossible to forsake her externall communion and not forsake her as it is impossible to forsake the company of Dr. Potter and keepe company with the Provost of Queens colledge which is the example of Ch. Ma. otherwise he should be with and not be with himselfe according to the forsayd words of S. Ciprian the Church being one cannot be within and without It is not therfor Charity Maintayned who distinguishes not between a locall and morall forsaking any thing but it is you who doe not distinguish between a reall physicall and a morall forsaking of a mans selfe as if one could not cease to be a member of the Church by heresy or Schisme because he cannot cease to be physically himselfe Thus your N. 48. is answered and as you are pleased to repeate here againe In nova fert animus so I not to be too bold with the Reader by a vaine repeating of the selfe same words may well add as fitly agreeing to you the witty saying of Tertullian adver valent Cap 12. Ovidivs metamorphoseis suas delevisset si hodie majorem cognovisset Certaine it is that your changes of religion ought in reason to be esteemed more strange and I am sure more vnreasonable then all the metamorphosies in Ovid. 15. Your N. 49.50.51.52.53.54.55.56 giue no occasion of matter to be particularly confuted Only to say to your N. 50. that it is certainly true that no two men or Churches divided in externall communion can be both true parts of the Catholik Church if indeed their division be culpable and Schismaticall For in that case the innocent part only remaines a true member of the Catholick Church because if both remained vnited to the Catholike Church they should also be vnited among themselves Quae sunt vnita vni tertio sunt vnita interse And Potter Pag 76. saith Whosoever professeth himselfe to forsake the communion of any one member of the Body of Christ must confesse himselfe consequētly to forsake the whole How then doe you say it is certainly false that no two men or Churches divided in externall communion can be both true parts of the Catholick Church Seing to be divided Schismatically from any one member of the Church induces necessarily a division from the whole as the Doctour confesses As for your N. 55. wherin you say to Charity Maintayned the reason of this consequence which you say is so cleare truly I cannot possibly discerne But the consequence which Ch. Ma. makes N. 17. Pag 172. of which you speake seemes so cleare that I belieue every Body will see it if his words be set downe as they are delivered by him and not abbreviated and obscured by you Thus he sayth I obserue that according to Dr. Potter the selfe same Church which is the vniversall Church remaining the vniversall true Church of Christ may fall into errours and corruptions from whence it clearly followes that it is impossible to leaue the externall communion of the Church so corrupted and retaine externall communion with the Catholick Church since the Church Catholick and the Church so corrupted is the selfe same one Church What consequence can ther be more clear The Church Catholick and the Church corrupted is the same Church therfor it is impossible to forsake the externall communion of the Church corrupted and not forsake but retaine externall communion with the Church Catholick 16. To your N. 56 I will only say That you conceale the words of Ch. Ma. so to impugne them more freely His words are When Luther appeared ther were not two distinct visible true Catholick Churches holding contrary Doctrine and
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
be in errour All that Ch. Ma. sayes is That if you erre in judging you cannot be saved in the Roman Church by reason of her errours you must rectify your conscience by judging the errours not to be fundamentall or damnable and therfor not excluding salvation Is this good dealing in you And why doe you say N. 106. A fifth falshood it is that we daily doe this favour for Protestants you must meane if you speake consequently to judge they haue no errours because we judge they haue none damnable Seing Ch Ma sayd most expresly that you doe the favour to other Protestants whome you cannot deny to be in some errours not to judge it damnable to liue in their communion because you hold their errours not to be fundamentall Once againe I must aske whether this be conscionable dealing 46. You are too resolute in this N. 106. to impugne the saying of Ch Ma That according to the Doctrine of all Divines ther is great difference betwixt a speculatiue perswasion and a practicall dictamen of conscience And I feare you doe not well vnderstand this true Doctrine when you say These are but divers words signifying the same thing neither is such a perswasion wholy speculatiue but tending to practise nor such a dictamen wholy practicall but grounded vpon speculation For you should say the contrary that a perswasion purely speculatiue is so far from tending to practice that oftentimes it is joyned with this judgment I cannot frame my practice according to this speculation and consequently my practice can not be grounded vpon such a speculation as Catholike Divines doe learnedly explicate particularly in the matter and forme of Sacraments But this is not a place to handle this matter at large it being sufficient to haue sayd that a speculation taken alone and abstracting from all other considerations of all sides oftentimes would proue pernicious if it were applyed to practice You falsify Ch Ma as if he did affirme that Protestants did only conceaue in speculation that the Church of Rome erred in some Doctrines and had not also a practicall dictamen that it was damnable for them to continue in the profession of these errours For Ch Ma sayth not that Protestants did only conceaue in speculation c. And had not also a practicall dictamen c. but his words are Although they had in speculation conceaved the vissble Church to erre in some Doctrines of themselves not damnable yet with that speculatiue judgment they might and ought to haue entertained this practicall dictamen that for points not suhstantiall to Faith they neither were bound nor lawfully could breake the bond of Charity by breaking vnity in Gods Church You see Ch Ma declares not what dictamen Protestants had but what they might and ought to haue had which are as different things as to say one is an honest man and might and ought to be such an one Ch Ma sayes not that Dr. Potter teaches in express words that Luther was obliged to forsake the Church for an vnnecessary light but that it followes vpon his assertion that he was bound to forsake her externall communion for poinrs not necessary to salvation 47. In your N. 107. your example that Euclide was not infallible yet was he certaine enough that twice two are foure is not to the purpos because such truths are evident by the light of nature as the mysteries of Christian Faith are not Otherwise how were it possible for you to disagree so irreconciliably as the world sees you doe 48. Ch Ma sayth N. 41. Since in cases of vncertaintyes we are not to leaue our Superiour nor cast of his obedience or publickly oppose his decrees your Reformers might easily haue found a safe way to satisfy their zealous conscience without a publick breach especially if with their vncertainty we call to minde the peaceable possession and prescription which by the confession of your owne brethren the Church and Pope of Rome did for many ages enjoy To this you answer by abbreviating the words of Ch Ma thus Your Church was in peaceable possession you must meane of her Doctrine and the Professors of it and enjoyed prescription for many ages and then you add Doctrine is not a thing that may be possessed and the Professors of it were the Church it selfe and in nature of Possessours if we may speake improperly rather then the thing possessed with whome no man hath Reason to be offended if they thinke fit to quit their owne possession But by what commission or warrant doe you say to Ch Ma you must meane of her Doctrine and the Professors of it as if his words must needs be so restrained Wheras the Church of Rome was in possession of Right not to bee opposed in her Doctrine by private persons she was in possession of the good Name and Estimation of being a true Church for which she is commended by S. Paul The Pope was in possession of power and jurisdiction over all Christians of making lawes Accepting appeales gathering Councells c. And both the Pope and Church were in possession of the Professors of her Doctrine that is Christians were their subjects who could not be seduced by fraude Schisme Heresy or violence without offence to God and man as you will not deny all lawfull Communities to haue Right that their subjects should not withdraw and divide themselves from such a mysticall Body Neither is it pertinent whether in this place we take possession as it is defined Detentio rei corporalis corporis animâ—jurisque adminiculo it being sufficient for our present purpose that it be that which is called quasi possessio the having any thing as we are sayd to haue hands feete life c. You say the Professors of the Doctrine were in nature of Possessors if we may speake improperly rather then the thing possessed with whome no man hath Reason to be offended if they thinke fit to quit their owne possession Answer It is strange that no man hath reason to be offended if men quit the possession or forsake the true Doctrine the grace of God or vertue or honesty because he is supposed to possesse them or for a man to depriue himselfe of some member of his body or even of life it selfe Your last words That the possession which the Gouvernours of our Church had for some ages of the party gouverned was not peaceable but got by fraude and held by violence are most injurious to Truth to Gods Church and to God himselfe as if our Saviours promise of a stable Church should be verified only by fraude and violence seing as I haue often sayd ther was no visible Church vpon earth except the Roman and those who agreed with her against the Doctrines which Luther did broach as Ch Ma shewes here Pag 173. and you doe not deny Pag 274. N. 56. where I obserue by the way that you say I know not who they be that say Luther reformed the whole Church wheras Ch
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
In your N. 21. you endeavour to answer some Fathers alledged by Ch. Ma. N. 18. to proue that separation from the visible Church is a mark of Heresie namely Uincentius Lirinensis saying Lib. Advers Her Chap. 34. who ever began heresies who did not first separate himself from the Vniversality Antiquity and Consent of the Catholique Church And S. Prosper Dimid Temp. Chap. 5. A Christian communicating with the Catholique Church is a Catholique and he who is divided froâ—â— her is an Heretique and Antichrist S. Cyprian Lib. de Vnit. Eccles. Not we departed from them but they from vs and since Heresies and Schismes are bred afterwards while they make themselves divers conventicles they haue forsaken the head and Origen of truth 20. To these Authorityes you answer That the first and last are meerely impertinent neither of them affirming or intimating that separation from the present visible Church is a mark of Heresy and the former speaking plainly of separation from vniversality Consent and Antiquity And lastly the latter part of Prospers words cannot be generally true according to your owne grounds For you say a man may be divided from the Church vpon mâ—ere Schisme without any mixture of Heresy And a man may be justly excommunicated for many other sufficient causes besides Heresy Lastly a man may be divided by an vnjust excommunication and be both before and after a very good Catholique and therefore you cannot maintain it vniversally true That he who is divided from the Church is an Heretique and Antichrist 21. Answer I haue often put you in minde and the thing is evident of it self and still to be repeated that Luther separated not only from the Roman Church but from all true Churches of the whole world who all agreed with the Roman as also from all true Churches of many precedent Ages which if you once suppose to haue erred against the Word of God the Rule of those Fathers That separation from the Church is a mark of Heresy had bene plainly impertinent and of no vse at all For still the Question would haue remayned whether the Church of all Ages had erred as well as the present Church since we cannot know what the Ancient Church taught except vpon the credit and Tradition of middle ages till our tyme which passage if it be stopt and bridge broken we must liue in ignorance and not be able irregularly and per saltum to reach immediatly from the last to the first Besides you hold all Churches of all Ages to be fallible and not to deliver vniversally any other point except that Scripture is the Word of God and therefore it is a meere evasion in you to make a difference for matters of doctrine betweene the whole present visible Church and the Churches of all Ages and if separation from these be a mark of Heresy separation from that must also be such Yea S. Cyprian speakes expressly of the then present Church Not we departed from them but they from vs and since Heresies and Schismes are bred aftherwards while they make themselves divers Conventicles they haue forsaken the head and origen of Truth As for S. Prosper you do not defend but impugne him But I wonder you will offer your Reader such toyes as you produce for good Arguments against the words of that Saint which are both evidently true and coherent with themselves For as whosoever communicates with the vniversall Church in Faith and externall communion is a Catholique which was the first part of S. Prospers sentence so it is vniversally true that whosoever is divided from the Church in Faith and externall communion is an Heretique as S. Prosper affirmes in the latter parte of his speach and which you know is the thing which Charity Maintayned intends to proue and which makes your talking of meere Schisme without any mixture of Heresy to be wholy impertinent seing we treate of division both in Faith and externall communion though it be also true that Schisme is wont to end in Heresy as Cha. Ma. Part. 1. Chap. 5. N 3. declares out of S. Hierom and others No less impertinent is your objection taken from persons divided from the Church by the Censure of Excommunication which is a kind of Division in many respects far different from separation by Schisme or Heresy as hath bene declared heretofore at large and which is not incurred at all in the sight of God if the Excommunication be vnjust Agreable to this doctrine of these Fathers is that excellent document of S. Optatus Lib. 1. contra Parm. how to judg who be Schismatiques and Heretiques Uidendum est quis in radice cum toto orbe manserit quis foras exierit quis cathedram sederit alteram quaeante non fuerit quis altare contra altare erexerit quis ordinationem fecerit salvoaltero ordinato were there not Protestant Bishops set vp in the place of Catholique Bishops yet living in England quis jaceat sub sententia Joannis Apostoli qui dixit multos Antichristos foras exituros quia non erant inquit nostri nam si nostri essent mansissent nobiscum If you examine the proceeding of your first Protestants by the Rule of this holy and ancient Father you cannot but condemne them of Schisme and Heresy 22. Your N 22. being but a passage to the next Section I neede only saie that there is great difference between Catholiques and Protestants in order to the admitting or rejecting some doctrine of some particular Fathers seing we for interpreting Scripture and all Points of Faith acknowledg an infallible guide to whom even the Fathers themselves humbly submit but when you forsake the Fathers be they never so many the comparison runnes not betwene them and Gods Church but betwene them and every single Protestant and who will not sooner belieue the Holy Fathers for the interpretation of Scripture than such men as can neither agree amongst themselves nor with the whole Church of God And if you will but heare what your owne knowledg and conscience tells you you will confess that you acknowledged the ancient Fathers to stand for vs. 23. Your N. 23. is employed in answering some Authorityes alledged by Ch. Ma. out of S. Hierom wherein you shew the litle reckon you make of the holy Fathers since you do covertly or rather expressly tax this blessed Saint of writing over-truths and you know what it is to write beyond truth which in true Philosophy consist in indivisibili and what is beyond it must be against it The words of S. Hierom Ep 57. ad Damas. are these I am in the Communion of the Chaire of Peter I know the Church is built vpon that Rock Whosoever shall eate the Lambe out of this house he is profane If any shall not be in the Arke of Noe he shall perish in the time of the deluge Whosoever doth not gather with thee doth scatter that is he that is not of Christ is of Antichrist And Lib. 1. Apolog. which doth
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
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
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
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
Protestants vpon one of these two accounts or titles are in state of damnation and is not this to contradict the title of your Book The Protestant Religion a safe way to salvation But I could not but wonder how you could induce yourself to say so absolutely To proue Protestants in state of sinne while they remaine separate from the Roman Church there is not one word or syllable in that N. 12. seing if they forsake those opinions eo ipso they come to agree therein with the Roman Church and if they persist in their errours and for that cause be forsaken by their Brethren these forsakers in that respect come to agree with the Roman Church and divide themselves from those other Protestants Besides if once it be granted that Protestants are obliged to forsake one an other no man to whom the salvation of his soule is deare will not spedily returne to that Church from which all of them departed whatsoever you may speculate or fancy to the contrary As for your instance that Catholiques differ about the Doctrine of Perdetermination or absolute Election it is not to the purpose seing all Catholiques profess to hold them no otherwise than as they may consist with freewill which those Protestants of whom Ch. Ma. speakes deny and therefore his Inferences are of force against Protestants not against Catholiques There is no doubt but that the consequences of mens opinions may and will be imputed to them when they might see them if it were not for some fault of their owne as even yourself grant in this place 4. To your N. 5. so it should be but is omitted It is vanity in you to say It was needless to proue that due order is to be obserued in any thing much more in Charity seing all Divines treating of Charity propose this Question and in particular S. Thomas 2.2 Q. 26. Art 1. asks expresly Vtrum in charitate sit ordo and for proofe thereof he alledges the same Text Cant 1. which Ch Ma alledges Ordinavit in me Charitatem and yet you with your wonted confidence say It if stood in need of proofe I feare this place of the Canticles would be no enforcing demonstration of it But Cornelius à Lapide from this place proves literally and learnedly that in Charity there is an order to be kept 5. 2. You say to Ch Ma The reason alleaged by you why we ought to loue one object more then an other because one thing participates the Divine Goodness more then an other is phantasticall and repugnant to what you say presently after For by this Rule no man should loue himself more then all the world Vnless he were first vainely perswaded that he doth more participate the Divine Goodness then all the world But the true reason why one thing ought to be loved more then an other is because one thing is better then another or because it is better to vs or because God Commands vs to doe so or because God himself does so and we are to conforme our affections to the will of God 6. Answer It can be nothing but excess of pride in you to call the reason of Ch Ma phantasticall it being nothing different from that which S. Thomas in the place alledged assignes and all his Commentators follow and which is strang you yourself giue the same as we shall see instantly Your errour arises from ignorance of a double Order in Charity Physicall and morall The first is taken from the perfection of the object in itself the second is considered in order to the obligation which God hath imposed vpon vs to loue things in that manner and order as he hath appointed and therfore although we cannot loue ourselves more than all the world by the Physicall order of which we spoke as if we did conceiue ourselves to be of our owne nature more perfect than all Creatures yet we are obliged by the morall order or obligation which God hath imposed to prefer the spirituall good of our owne soule before the whole world and so your objection appeares very vaine and must be answered by yourself who giue for a reason because one thing is better than an other and I beseech you is it not all one to say One thing is better than an other and one thing participates of God more than an other And then as I sayd you must answer your owne Objection that by this rule no man should loue himself more than all the world vnles he were first vainely perswaded that he doth more participate the Divine Goodness then all the world In your other reason because one thing is better to vs then an other you forget that we speake of Charity not of Hope which respects a thing as good to vs and therefore in this reason you pass from one vertue to an other and giue a reason nothing to our present purpose In your last reason because God himself does so and we are to conforme our affections to the will of God you either speak non-sense or els you say the same which Ch Ma saied and which you were pleased to call a phantasticall reason For God loves things as they are in themselves or as one thing is better then an other which was your other reason though indeed not distinct from this which yet you pretend to be different or as one thing doth more participate of the Divine Goodness or perfection which though you call phantasticall yet it is the same with your owne first reason and with this last and therefore to conforme our affections to the will of God is no other reason than that which you call phantasticall To these absurdities your pride brings you 7. 3. You say It is not true that all Objects which we belieue doe equally participate the Divine Testimony or Revelation But you ought to be ashamed to conceale the immediatly following words of Ch Ma which declare the matter most evidently For sayth he For Divine Testimony or Revelation we belieue a like all things propounded for such For it is as impossible for God to speak an vntruth in a small as in a great matter Is not this true Is not the contrary plaine blasphemy 8. In your N. 6. you say 1. It is not true that we are to wish or desire to God a nature infinite independent immense for it is impossible I should desire to any person that which he hath already if I know he hath it 9. Answer Ch Ma speakes in the phrase of the holy Scripture and spirituall men who to shew the ardent loue they beare to God and deepe complacence they take in the Perfections and Attributes which they know he enjoyes declare their affection by wishing them to him as hee in the Panegyrick could say to his Emperour etiam praesens desideraris Desire in our soule is like to hunger and thrist in our body and yet we reade Eccl. 24.29 Qui edunt me adhuc esurient qui bibunt me adhuc sitient S.
and say to you if nothing were revealed nothing could be necessary to be believed would you not say he did but cavill The rest of this Number tasts of nothing but gall and bitterness and is such as if you were now aliue you would haue wished vnwritten Seing our salvation is either endangered or secured according to the proportion that we are in danger of sinne or secured from it with what consequence can you so hypocrytically talk of taking alwaies the absolutely safest way for avoiding all sinne and yet teach that men are not alwaies obliged to take the safest meanes for salvation especially since you also teach that to avoide sinne to the vttermost of our power is a necessary meanes of salvation Neither do you consider that while you pretend to teach that for avoiding sinne it is not sufficient to follow a truly probable and prudent opinion you do much more confirme the chiefe Purpose and Intent of Cha Ma which was to proue that in things absolutely and indispensably necessary to salvation men are obliged to seek and embrace the safer patte and in the meane tyme I pray you see if by your Divinity you can perswade all litigants to parte with theyr goods though they prudently and probably Judge they maintayne a just cause because forsooth it is safer to yeald than overcome seing it is not impossible but the Adversarie may be in the right And though heere you talk magnificently of the necessity men haue to avoide sinne to the vttermost of their power as a necessary meanes of salvation yet Pag 19. N. 26. you were content to say I am verily perswaded that God will not impute errours to them as sinnes who vse such a measure of industry in finding truth as humane prudence and ordinary discretion their abilities and oportunities their distractions and hinderances and all other things considered shall advise them in a matter of such consequence Lastly who will not wonder to see you so much depress Probability in morall cases seing you teach that even Christian Faith vpon which salvation depends doth not excede Probability 17. Your N. 9.10.11.12.13.14.15 are answered out of grounds laied heretofore And in particular that Cha Ma N. 5. saied very truly that seing all Protestants pretend the like certainty and goe vpon the same grounds and haue the same Rules for interpreting Scripture and yet cannot agree it is a signe that their very Rules and grounds are vncertaine and insufficient to settle an Act of Faith as I declared aboue and if this could truly be saied of Protestants and Papists of all Christians of all Religions of all Reason it is cleare that they could not truly pretend to any certainty But God be ever blessed for it we Catholiques haue Rules and an infallible Authority the Church most able to erect a certaine infallible belief With what conscience can you say that Arcudius acknowledges that the Eucharist was in Cyprians time given to infants and esteemed necessary or at least profitable for them For this disjunctiue necessary or at least profitable may signifie that Arcudius doubts whether it were not esteemed necessary which never came to his thoughts Yea he proves expresly and largelie that it is not necessary We grant that it might be profitable to infants by producing Grace in their soules but it being not necessary the Church for just causes may think fitt not to administer it to them Your talking of an humane Law obliging men to confess their secret sinnes and even sinfull thoughts will I belieue rather cause laughter than any belief that such a Law could oblige and therfore seing you do not denie but that the Protestant Centurie Writers alledged by Cha Ma N. 5. acknowledg that in the tymes of Cyprian and Tertullian priuate confession even of Thought was vsed and commanded and thought necessary we must infer that it was held necessary as commanded by God yea seing you say it might be then commanded and being commanded be thought necessary shewes that you dare not deny but that private or auricular Confession was vsed as a thing commanded even in those primitiue Ages You know the story of the Protestants in Germanie who finding by experience the huge inconveniences that accompanied the want of Confession supplicated the Emperour that he would command it by some Law but were deservedly rejected with scorne as if men would think themselves obliged to obey his Law who had rejected the Law of God in that matter To all which if we add that you belieue not that true Priests haue power to absolue from sinne and if they had yet Protestants not being true Priests what Law of man can be of force to oblige men to confess even their thoughts 18. Your N. 16.17.18 touch only vpon what hath bene handled in other places and need no Answer heere How litle hope of salvation Protestants can conceyue from the Doctrine of Cha Ma and how impossible it is for them to repent and not relinquish their errours hath bene shewed at large heretofore 19. Though your N. 19.20.21.22.23.24.25.26.27.28.29 containe no new difficulty yet I answer them briefly by these considerations that S. Austine and other Catholiques never granted that the Donatists had true Divine Faith but only that they believing divers or most of the Truths which Catholiques believed had the same Faith or Belief materially as the Jewes belieue many Truths contayned in the Old Testament which Christians belieue and yet cannot be saied to haue true supernaturall saving Faith that you are very ignorant of Catholique Divinity if you conceiue as by your words it seems you do that we hold an Hereticall or Schismaticall Bishop not to administer validè though illicitè such Sacraments as depend only vpon Potestas Ordinis and therefore you say vainely to Char Ma Which Doctrine if you can reconcile with the present Doctrine of the Roman Church Eris mihi magnus Apollo That Dr Potter citing the doctrine or saying of the Donatists in a different letter ought not to haue saied more than the words of S. Austine in the margent vpon which the Doctor grounds himself did express which was only Baptisme not salvation whatsoever otherwise the Donatists held against the salvation of Catholiques That Dr Potters words that Protestants cut vs not of from the hope of salvation and therefore are excused from Schisme haue beene considered heretofore and your defense of them confuted That whosoever reads the N. 8. and 9. of Cha Ma will finde that your answer is in no wise satisfactorie consisting meerely of Points which you know we deny our Argument being grounded vpon the Confession of the most and best learned Protestants who deny not salvation to vs which we cannot yeald to them and so in the judgement of both parts we are safe but you are not That the Act of Rebaptization was sacrilegious and the error that it was lawfull an Heresie after the matter was declared by the Church And concerning S. Cyprian see
private persons and as representing the Church musâ— be differently vnderstood c. 12. n. 80. p. 767. and seq Their authority must be believed before we can belieue what they spake or wrote c. 3. n. 22. p. 294. n. 31. p. 300. passim Apostles for the essentiall are and alwayes must be in the Church c. 12. n. 99. p. 782. All the Apostles commanded to preach none to write c. 2. n. 25. p. 131. The Apostles being the salt of the earth atheistically explicated by I hil c. 12. n. 91. p. 777. Apprehension taken for the first operation of the vnderstanding agrees not to Faith which is an assent or judgment taken in generall as knowledge often is it agrees to Faith as knowledge doth c. 15. n. 4. p. 886 887. How argumeÌ„ts of credibility may be elevated to produce certainty and in what sense they are the word aÌ„d voyce of God c. 1. n. 79.80 p. 95.96 Attrition without absolution insufficient for salvation VVhat conditions it must haue to obtaine absolution c. 8. n. 3. p. 597. seq S. Austin rejected and alleadged by I hil for the selfe same poynt and shewed to be adversary to I hil c. 2. n. 193. p. 265. and seq His advise for the vnderstanding of Scripture n. 201. p. 269. his sense of Tradition and of the practice of the Church n. 209. p. 274. c. 11. n. 26. p. 667. and seq VVhy he is an eyesoare to the Socinians c. 7. n. 123. p. 544. He is defended against I hil his forgery c. 12. n. 57. p. 749. and seq c. 2. n. 207. p. 273. alibi saepius B. Baptisme acknowledged by Protestants neâ—essary and as required by Scripture and Antiquity c. 4. n. 60. p. 389. and seq It is to be given to children by the authority and practice of the Church ibidem p. 389. and seq The difference and absurdityes amongst Protestants concerning Baptisme c. 2. n. 39. p. 146. seq It is validly administred by Iewe or Gentill if they intend to doe what Christians doe c. 4. n. 42. p. 377. 378. Baptisme in tho Doctrine of divers Protestants pardons all sinnes past present and to come c. 2. n. 85. p. 187. Beatificall vision if Faith be naturall and only probable is also naturall and may be a meere fiction c. 1. n. 113. p. 118. 119. To belieue only that Iesus is the sonne of God is acknowledged even by heretiques insufficient for salvation c. 2. n. 169. p. 245. 246. VVho believes not one poynt sufficiently propounded can haue no supernaturall Faith about any other c. 11. n. 13. p. 658. c. 15. n. 43. p. 922. and seq This proved by Heretiques and Catholiques ibidem Not to belieue any revealed truth sufficiently propounded is a mortall sinne n. 49. p. 927. I believe not the speaker wheÌ„ I only asseÌ„t for the reason he gives or for some other authority cited by him c. 12. n. 49. p. 744. alibi Bellarmine viudicated from I hil his cavills c. 2. n. 98. p. 201. and seq VVhat Byshop or Episcopus signifyes cannot evidently be knowne by Scripture alone c. 2. n. 11. p. 126. That Byshops in the Church are not juris divini is an heresy c. 5. n. 4. p. 429. seq Doctor Andreweâ— his contradictioÌ„ in this poynt ibidem Bishops haue no succession in England ibidem Bookes published to forwarne I hil to cleare himselfe of his vnchristiaÌ„ doctrines which he would never be induced to doe pr. n. 4. p. 2. C Caiphas in Chillingworthes doctrine spoke truth when he wickedly sayd that our Saviour blasphemed c. 11. n. 38. p. 675. Canon of Scripture cleered from Chill his malicious imputation c. 11. n. 22. it should be 21. p. 663. seq The Canonicalness of the bookes of Scripture is to be taken from the declaration of the Church c. 11. n. 6. 7 p. 653. falsly put 953 passim alibi every Canonicall writer wrote all that was necessary for the end inspired him by the holy Ghost not all that was necessary for salvation or for the Church to belieue c. 2. n. 136 p. 223 seq ac alibi Causabons miserable end c. 6 n. 9 p. 444 Catholiques by the confession of Protestants may be saved c. 2 n. 83 p. 185 c. 7 n. 145 p. 563 seq ac alibi No visible Church but the Catholique Romane out of which Luther departed c. 7 n. â—1 p. 522 Reasons why the Catholique Church is not to be forsaken n. 124 p. 545. 546 If she could erre her errours were rather to be professed then her Communion forsaken n. 132 p. 551 deinceps Catholiques judge charitably that Protestancy vnrepented destroyes salvation aÌ„d PiotestaÌ„ts if they hold their Religion true should judge the like of Catholiques c. 9 n. 2 p 624 Catholiques guided by the infallibility of the Church cannot be prejudiced by translations of Scripture nor feare corruptions c. 11 n. 16 p. 659 The Catholique Church an easy way to find Christs doctrine c. 3 n. 89 p. 348 She is infallible or all Christianity a fiction c. 4 n. 1 p. 352 Not Catholiques but LutheraÌ„s exposed to idolatry c. 4 n. 65 p. 393. Catholiques freed by Protestants from that imputation Ib. p 395 Catholiques prooue their Faith without a circle Toto c. 5 but Sectaryes cannot Ibid And particularly n. 14 15 p. 437 438 Also c. 2 n. 55 p. 158 Catholiques falsly charged by Chill that they hold Faith to haue no degrees of perfection c. 1 n. 43 44 p. 68 69 Catholique writers falsly cited by Potter as holding that Catholiques and Protestants doe not differ in the essence of Religion c. 7 n. 148 p. 567 Catholiques though falsly suposed to err their errour must be invincible c. 7 n. 158 p. 578 seq Causes by divine power may be elevated to produce effects nobler then themselves as also by concauses c. 1 n. 79 p. 94 Certainty in the vnderâ—â—anding forces not the will c. 1 n. 62 p. 80 seq Ceremonies vide Rites Charity Maintayned alledged and impugned by I hil either with falsification or ommitting his arguments or with some other fraud is often shewed through this whole Booke His Booke is not answeared by I hil but new heresies broached and old fetched from Hell to overthrow all Christianity Pr n. 3 p. 1. 2 Charity highly broaken by Protestants in judginge Catholiques vncharitable c. 9 n. 7 p. 628 It is ordered either according to the Phisic all perfection of the things loved or the morall obligation of loving imposed by God c. 16 n. 6 p. 935 936 Chillingworths Tenets and consequences He holds that Faith is only a probable rationall assent I. n. 16 p. 11 seq and c. 10 n. 13 p. 640 641 That to hold Christian faith infallible is presumptuous vncharitable erroneous doctrine of dangerous and pernicious consequence c. 1 n. 1 p. 37 And that it excludes all progress in charity n. 71 p. 86 That Faith may stand with Heresie I. n. 51 p. 35 He rejects grace
c. 15 n. 24 p. 903 Luthers Tenet that to hold an obligation of keeping the commandements is to deny Christ and abolim Faith J. n. 25 p. 19 That lawes and good workes are more to be shunned then sinnes Jbid His desperate remorse for leaving the church c. 7. n. 14. p. 468. and c. 14. n. 50. p. 882. His division from the whose church proved out of Protestants c. 7. n. 116. p. 537. His shamless falsification of Rom 3.28 and I hill conscienceless endeavour to make it good c. 11. n. 16. p. 6â—9 M Maximinianus Patriarche of Constantinople his testimony for the Principality of the Romane Church c. 15. n. 33. p. 914. 915. Merit by good workes excludes not grace c. 15. n 17. p. 800. Milenaryes Doctrine never decreed nor delivered by the church c. 9. n. 5. p. 626. and c. 15. n 31. p. 911. c. I hill imposture vpon S. Justine Martyr concerning it confuted by testimonyes of Protestants Ibi. Miracles perpetually wrought by the church doe not only confirme some particular point but all her Doctrine and to say the contrary is injurious â—s God and makes the Doctrine of the Apostles and of all the church vnfitt to convert people c. 5. n. 7. p. 433. 434. Shewed by Scripture to be proofes of true Faith n. 9. p. 435. To deny theÌ„ is to oppose our Saviour and his Apostles and to vndermine all Christianity n. 8. p. 434. VVrought before Protestants were dreamt of in confirmation of particular points in which they disagree from Catholiques Ibid Yet they are not necessary for every point of christian doctrine c. 3. n. 33. p. 301. Acknowledged by Luther to haue been in the church through all ages for these 1500. yeares c 5. n. 4. p. 429. By them haue been converted Jewes and Gentles yet cannot move Protestants c. 3. n. 76. p. 338. Chill holds that true Miracles may be wrought to delude men n 76. p. 337 and c. 2 n. 186 p. 261. N Nature to conserue itselfe embraceth by instinct great naturall difficultyes as less evills then its owne destruction c. 1 n. 114. p. 119. To affirme that it is as easy to obey the Ghospell as to performe what the common instinct of nature commands is iniurious to our Saviours merits Ibid. As natuâ—â—â— instinct for its naturall conservatioÌ„ is cerâ—â—â—â—â— aÌ„d invariable so must the light of Faith be for supernaturall conservation Ibid. Divers vnderstandings of things Necessary to salvation c. 2. n. 1. p. 122. seq Notes of credibility authorize the writers before their writings c. 5. n. 1. p. 426. seq and n. 5. p. 431. 432. They authorize the church independently of Scripture and fall primarily vpon her not vpon Scripture Jbid. VVhat church they authorize is to be infallibly beleeved in all points n. 6. p. 433. God of his goodness could not permitt them be found as they are in the catholique Romane church if her Faith could be false n. 7. p. 433. and n. 10. 11. 12. p. 436. 437. These notes cannot be pretended by Protestantâ— and other Sectaryes n. 4. p. 429. 430. O Objects are not obsure evident certainâ— probable c. in theÌ„selves but only so denominated extrinsecally by the acts to which those affections are proper c. 15. n. 6. p. 888. 889. Observations to aÌ„swear many of Chil. objections about the creed c. 13. n. 8 p. 793. 794. Aprobable Opinion may be safely followed in things necessary for salvation only necessitate Praecepti but not in such as are necessitane Medij c. 16. n. 1. p. 933. and n. 16. p. 941. P In case of perplexity what is to be done c. 7. n. 132. p. 551 seq and c. 12. n 57. p. 751. and n 59. p 753. A speculatiue Perswasion differs much from a practicall c. 14. n. 46. p. 879. S. Peter and the Apostles vindicated from the errour imputed to them by Chill c. 3. n. 34. 35. p. 303. 304. S Peters Primacie over all the Apostles c. 14. n. 35 p. 871. seq He was not preseÌ„t wheÌ„ the Apostles contended who was the greater n. 36. p. 873. His name Peter is a title of great honour n. 39. p. 874. his power over all the church descended to his successors n. 41. p 875. seq Points necessary and principall rightly declared c. 2. n. 128 p. 218. 219. the most points of catholique Religion held by some Protestants or other n. 91. 92. p. 193 194. 195. alibi Those by which catholiques are made most odious to the vulgar held by chiefest Protestant Doctours n. 92. p. 195. The Pope held infallible by Potter if he hath but the assistance which the high Priest of the Jewes had c. 11. n. 36. p. 673. This saying of Potter falsly and foolishly interpred by Chill n. 39. 40. p. 675. many disparities betwixt the Church and the Synagogue n. 38. p. 674. seq The Primacie of the Church of Rome is de Jure Divino c. 14. n. 31. p. 868. It is acknowledged by Protestants to be accordinge to order wisely appointed and necessary to be retained yea that no common government can be hoped for without it c. 7. n. 13. p. 467. falsly put 167. aÌ„d n. 60. p. 496. Profession of an errour if it it be meerly exexternall is a less sinne then internall Heresie n. 133. falsly put 123. p. 554. By Prophesye is not only vnderstood the fortellinge of things but also the interpretation of Scripture and in both senses is found in the Church c. 12. n. 81. p. 769. 770. which hath alwayes had such Prophets n. 100. p. 783 An indefinite Proposition in matters of Faith is equivalent to an vniversall c. 12. n. 57. p. 749. Protestants were not first forced by excomunication to separate from the Church but their precedeÌ„t obstinat separation forced the Church to excommunicate them c. 7 n. 62. p. 497. seq For this separation they could haue no grownd n. 169. p. 584. the learned of them taxing of ignoâ—ance and absurdity those that deny salvation to Romane Catholiques n. 151. p. 573. Nor can they haue any evidence against Catholique Doctrine n. 52. p. 490. seq Whose objections were answeared longe before Protestants appeared in the world n. 59. p. 495. Their arguments to proue that by Scripture alone the Articles of Faith are to be knowne fully answeared c. 2. n. 57. p. 159. seq alibi Learned Protestants confesse that the Fathers agree with vs against them c. 2. n. 90. p. 192. They make their owne reason not Scripture as they pretend the Rule of Faith and judge of controversies c. 11. n. 61. p. 692. Whence they must needs haue a Chimericall Church patched vp of as many members repugnant in Faith as are their fancies concerning all sorts of Articles c. 13. n. 35. p. 815. seq Hence Grotius one of the learnedest of them despaired of their vnion except vnder the Pope c. 7. n. 13. p. 467. For once devided from the Roman Church they must
make endless divisions amongst themselves n. 15. p. 468. seq And they take more liberty to disagree in matters of Faith then Catholiques in Philosophicall questions c. 13. n. 41. p. 819. 820. Because having left the true Church their only Guide is their fancy Ib their Church being not so much as a foundation is for a house n. 43 p. 820. seq This causes them to destroy all Churches and say that none can be free from damnable errours against Divine Revelation and must needs make every man an Independent and be dayly changing his Tenets c. 7. n. 154. p. 574. seq For Protestants Faith hath no infallible generall grounds as that of Catholiques hath into which it is resolved c. 4. n 20. p. 364. Hence their many contradictions and disagreeings amongst themselves of which divers I note in particular occasions By their owne fault they haue brought vpon themselves an obligation to search all Scripture aÌ„d caÌ„ free themselves from it only by submitting to the Roman Church c. 2. n 62. p. 165. to which they prudently can only adhere c. 4. n. 21. p. 364. 365. By their Doctrine of all sinnes past present and to come pardoned in Baptisme and of their certaine predestinating Faith they take away all feare of sinning c. 2. n. 84. p 186. seq Shewed by divers considerations that they can giue no releefe to an afâ—icted Soule but only chalk out a way to desperation c. 13. n. 43. p. 823. seq If they vse the meanes they haue to finde true Faith and yet disagree the meanes must ueeds be insufficient if they doe not vse them they cannot be sure that they are in the truth c. 15. n. 40. p. 920 921. Prudence necessary for true Faith c. 1. n. 88. p. 100. and 101. VVhat and why c. 15. n. 7. p. 889. It requires not ability to giue reasons Jb and c. 1. n. 89. p 102 VVhat we seeme prudeÌ„tly to beleeue if indeed it be not so although we cannot discover our imprudence is not beleeved with an act of Divine Faith yet may facilitate for it Jb not all pruent acts are supernaturall but all supernaturall are prudent n. 92. p. 102 the 2. for it is put twice Q Quartadecimans heresie c. 9. n. 5. p. 626. R Reason not established by infallible Faith is continually subject to changes c. 1. n. 105. 106. p. 112. c. Vnable to wade through maine difficultyes in Scripture or to convince it selfe of the misteryes of our Faith which are so much aboue it c. 3. n. 75 76. p. 337 338. It requires an infallible living Guide Ib Its dutie concerning Faith c. 11. n 32. p. 671. seq It is quite destroyed by Chill c. 1 3. n. 21. p. 803. 804. Religion is convinced by the instinct of nature to be a worship of God certainly true c. 1. n. 100. p. 107. Of Repentance toto c 8. None true without grace I. n. 27.28 p. 21. 22. True repentance absolutly necessary for salvation c. 8. n. 3. p. 598. It instantly obtaines pardon n. 16. p. 612. seq And perfect repentance destroyes in the habits acquired by finfull acts the morall denomiration of sinfull but not the Physicall or reall being of it n. 11 p. 605.606 VVith which reall being both true repentance and grace may and doe commonly stand n. 12 p 607. seq Divers opinions of heretiques concerning repentance n. 2 p. 597. Chill generall repentance contradicts his owne grounds n. 5 p. 601. Drives to disperation Ib and n. 6 p. 602. It cannot stand with the Tenets of Protestants that only Faith justifyes and that the commandements cannot be kept Ib n. 7. It implyes that no sinner can be converted nor baptized in his blood by martirdome n. 8 It is shewed to be impossible by the nature of the habits which he requires to be rooted out and is alwayes full of perplexity n. 9. 10. p. 603 604 605. Reprodu ion or factum facere implyes not evident contradiction but factum infectum facere doth c. 11 n. 12 p. 657. Resolution of Catholique Faith without a circle toto c. 5. But Protestants and their pretended Bretheren runn in a circle Ib and particularly n. 13 14 15 p. 437 438. Rites or ceremonyes of themselves indifferent may be without sinne observed but if they be held as necessary the observance may be deadly c. 14 n. 2 p. 847. That it be certainly knowne that they are vsefull aÌ„d not hurtfull the infallible declaration of the church is required c. 11 n. 46 p. 678. 679. The Roman Church assisted aboue all other by the holy Ghost not to err c. 7 n. 58 p. 492. 493. By her is vnderstood not only that of the Diocesse of Rome but all that agree with her in which sense she is called the Catholique or vniversall Church n. 84 p. 515. seq In this sense she was the only visible on earth when Luther apostared who therefore was properly a Schismatique Ib She is acknowledged by Protestants to haue been pure for the first 500 yeares n. 18. p 492. 493. Impossible she should immediatly after that ty me fall into the corruptioÌ„s preteÌ„ded by theÌ„ aÌ„d none take notice of it Ib aÌ„d p 494 they also coÌ„fesse that she waÌ„ts nothing for salvation n. 147. 148. p. 564. seq ac alibi Proved to any judicious man that we are secure for salvation n. 158 p. 578. seq S Sacraments destroyed by Heretiques both for matter and forme c. 2 n. 40. p. 147. 148. Salvation depends not of chance c. 4 n. 45. 46. p. 378. 379. It requires obedience to the true Church c. 16 n. 12 p 939. And preparation of mind to beleeue all revealed points sufficiently proposed c. 12. n. 16 p. 717. seq The salvation of our owne soule is to be preferred before the good of the whole world c. 16. n. 11 p. 937. 938. Of Schisme all the 7. c. Schisme as distinct from heresie supposes agreement in Faith n. 75 p. 506. 507. It is a sinne against Charity which vnites the members of the Church n. 98 p. 526. 527. It is destructiue of the whole Church n. 133. falsly put 123. p. 554. It differs much from excommunication n. 64. p. 499. and n. â—04 p. 529. 530. and is not caused by it but is before it n 62 p. 407 seq No cause of Schisme can be given by the Church n. 5 p. 460. 461. and n. 23 p. 472. 473. falsly put 472 passim Pretence of reformation cannot excuse it n. 11 p. 465. To say that they from whom it separates are not cutt off from hope of salvation doth not excuse but rather makes the Schisme more greavous n. 10 p. 463. 464. Potters coÌ„tradictionÌ„ affirming that the RomaÌ„cehurch hath all that 's necessary for salvation and yet that her externall communion may be left without Schisme n. 8 p. 463. By his owne Tenets they are proved Schismatiques who separate from the communion of the Church of Rome
common Doctrine of Protestants and the supposition If you answer that though there were not the selfe same reason or necessity for the Churches infallibility as for the Apostles which is all that that reason proves and so is a Sophisme a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter as if you should say This Truth is not proved by this particular reason therefore there can be no reason for it yet we cannot doubt but that there is some reason and cause whatsoever it be and therfore you must be content that Scripture declare God Almightyes Will that the Gates of Hell shall not prevaile against the Church in which Promise seing there is no restraint to Fundamentall Points it becomes not you to divide the same sentence into different meanings as they are applyed to the Apostles and as they haue reference to the Church Beside if one would imitate you in determining concerning divine matters according to humane apprehension and discourse he might in your owne Grounds quickly dispatch all and say that seing the errours of the vniversall Church can be only not Fundamentall there is no necessity of having recourse to any for the discovering and correcting them and so you cannot inferr that the Apostles for reforming errours in the Church need be infallible in Points not Fundamentall no more than you say the Church herselfe is Thus Pag 35. N. 7 You say Christians haue and shall haue meanes sufficient to determine not all Controversyes but all necessary to be determined And what Rule will you in your Groundes giue to determine what Points are necessary to be determined except by saying that eo ipso that they are not Fundamentall or not necessary to salvation to be believed they are not necessary to be determined as you say in the same place If some Controversyes may for many Ages be vndetermined and yet in the meane while men may be saved why should or how can the Churches being furnished with effectuall meanes to determine all Controversyes in Religion be necessary to salvation the end itselfe to which these meanes are ordained being as Experience shewes not necessary If then may we say the beliefe of vnfundamentall Points be not necessary to salvation which is the end of our Faith the meanes to beget such a Faith in the Church which you say must be the vniversall infallibility of the Apostles cannot be necessary Which is confirmed by what you say in your Answer to the Direction N. 32. It is not absolutely necessary that God should assist his Church any farther than to bring her to salvation How then can it be necessary in your ground that the Church be assisted for Points not Fundamentall Thus while by your humane discourses you will establish the vniversall infallibility of the Apostles you destroy it as not being necessary for discovering or correcting either Fundamentall errours from which the Church is free or vnfundamentall which are not necessary to be corrected or discovered Morover this very reason of yours proves a necessity of the Churches being vniversally infallible supposing the truth which we proved Chap 2. that Scripture alone containes not evidently and particularly all Points necessary to be believed and that even for those which it containes a Living Judge and Interpreter is necessary For this truth supposed I apply your Argument thus If any fall into errour by a false interpretation of Scripture it may be discovered and corrected by the Church But if the Church may erre to whom shall we haue recourse for correcting her errour And heere incidently I put you in minde of the Argument which you prize so much as to glory that you never could finde any Catholik who was able to answer it that if a particular man or Church may fall into errour and yet remaine a member of the Church vniversall why may not the Church vniversall erre and yet remaine a true Church The Answer I say is easy almost out of your owne words that there is not the same reason for every particular mans or Churches infallibility or security from error as for that of the Catholik Church For if private persons or Churches fall into errour it may be reformed by comparing it with the Decrees and Definitions of the vniversall Church But if the Church may erre to whom shall we haue recourse to correct her error As S. Hierom saieth Lib 1. Comment in Cap 5. Matth Si doctor erraverit à quo alio doctore emendabitur But of this I haue saied enough heretofore Lastly giue me leaue to tell you that in this and other Reasons which we shall examine you do extremely forget yourself and the state of our present Question which is not now whether there be the same reason or necessity for the Churches absolute infallibility as for the Apostles and Scriptures But whether we can proue the vniversall infallibility of the Apostles and not of the Church by the same Text of Scripture which speakes of both in the same manner But let vs heare your other reasons of disparity betweene the Apostles and the Church in Point of infallibility 34. You say in the same N. 30. There is not so much strength required in the Edifice as in the Foundation And if but wise men haue the ordering of the building they will make it much a surer thing that the Foundation shall not faile the building then that the building shall not fall from the Foundation Now the Apostles and Prophets and Canonicall Writers are the Foundation of the Church according to that of S. Paul built vpon the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets therfore their stability in reason ought to be greater than the Churches which is built vpon them 35. Answer Your conclusion therfore their stability in reason ought c shewes that you ground yourselfe on reason not on revelation and on a reason which is not so much as probable For you will not deny but that God might haue communicated absolute infallibility both to the Apostles and to the Church yet to the Church dependently of the preaching of the Apostles and then what would you haue sayd to your owne ground In reason more strength is required in the Foundation than in the Edifice seing in that case both the Foundation and Edifice should haue had an immoveable and firme strength and stability Your reason if you will haue it proue any thing against vs must goe vpon this principle that nothing which depends or which is builded vpon another for its certainty can be absolutely certaine which is a ground evidently false The Conclusion in a demonstratiue Argument is abfolutly certaine and yet depends on Premises The Church is infallible in Fundamentalls and yet in that infallibility is builded vpon the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets The absolute infallibility of the Apostles was builded vpon our B. Saviours Words and even his infallibility as man was builded vpon the infallibility of his God head and yet I hope you will not say that
Chapter Moreover how do these things agree with your saying heere N. 78. If we grant that the Apostle calls the Catholique Church the pillar and ground of Truth and that not only because it should but because it alwayes shall and will be so yet after all this you haue done nothing vnless you can shew that by Truth heere is certainly ment not only all necessary to salvation but all that is profitable absolutely and simply All. How I say doth this agree with your saying now cited out of your Pag 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 seing you say also that although it were granted that S. Paule affirmed that the Church shall and will be the Pillar of all necessary truth yet it doth not follow that she is so in all Truth And now how many clustars as I may say of Contradictions may be gathered from your owne words related by me in this small compass 76. First The Church is an infallible Teacher in Fundamentalls and yet is not an infallible guide or if you grant her to be an infallible Guide then Secondly you say 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 and yet you say the Church is an infallible Teacher or guide in all Fundamentalls and deny her to be infallible in all things which she proposes and requires to be believed Thirdly How can you make a distinction between the Churches being infallible in Fundamentalls and an infallible Guide in Fundamentalls seing you teach that she is both infallible in Fundamentalls and a Teacher of them Fourthly How doe you say That to be a Teacher of all necessary truth is the Essence of the Church and that any company of men were no more a Church without it then any thing can be a man and not be reasonable And yet in this Chapter N. 39. to proue that there is a wide difference betweene being infallible in Fundamentalls and an infallible Guide in Fundamentalls you say A man that were destitute of all meanes of communicating his thoughts to others might yet in 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 repaire to it for direction could not be an infallible Guide and yet he might be in himself infallible For these examples if they be to any purpose declare that to be a Guide or Teacher is accidentall and not the Essence of the Church and for that purpose you bring them and yet I never imagined that the Essence of any thing is separable from it as you say it is impossible a thing can be a man and not be reasonable Fiftly If it be essentiall to the Church to be an infallible Teacher or Guide in Funmentalls which you say she cannot be without an vniversall infallibility in all Points seing every errour destroyes that vniversall infallibility which is essentiall to such a Teacher as the Church how can you say that every errour doth not destroy the Church but that she may erre and yet the gates of hell not prevaile against her To what purpose then do you talk of eyes and hands which are not essentiall or necessary parts of a man or of biles and botches which are accidentall to his body and not necessaryly destructiue thereof as you must suppose wheras infallibility is essentiall to the Church of Christ and is destroyed by errour which cannot possibly consist with infallibility that is with certainty never to erre Into how may inextricable difficulties and contradictions do you cast yourself vpon a resolution not to acknowledg the infallibility of Gods Church the only meanes to cleare all these perplexityes And how inconsequently and perniciously and you compare botches and biles to errour against Faith which you confess to be damnable sinnes and without repentance absolutely inconsistent with salvation 77. But to returne to the maine point If the Church were not vniversally infallible Christian Faith could not be infallible as I proved hertofore and so the gates of Hell should prevaile against Christianity which by that meanes should come to want a thing absolutely necessary to salvation necessitate medij to witt divine infallible Faith Your Parity betweene a particular man or congregation and the vniversall Church hath bene answered hertofore and is confuted by what we haue saied heere that infallibility is essentiall to the vniversall Church and nothing can exist without that which is essentiall to it but no such Priviledge of infallibility is necessary or is promised to particular men or Churches Finally seing that according to Potter and other Protestants the Promise of our Saviour that the gates of Hell shall not prevaile against the Church must be vnderstood of the whole Church as well Primitiue as of consequent Ages by what evident Text of Scripture can you proue that the same words must haue different significations in order to the Primitiue Church which was infallible in all Points of Faith and the vniversall Church of following Ages As in a like occasion I saied hertofore Yourself N. 72. speak to Charity Maintayned thus vnless you will say which is most ridiculous that when our Saviour saied He will teach you c and he will shew you c He meant one you in the former clause and an other you in the latter If it be most ridiculous that one word should be referred to different Persons I may say ad hominem why ought it not to seeme most ridiculous that in the same sentence the same words the gates of Hell shall not privaile must signify two differēt kinds of not prevailing one against fundamētall ād an other against vnfundamentall errours in order to one and the same word Church 78. In your N. 71. you pretend to answer the Text which Ch Ma saieth may be alledged for the infallibility of the Church out S. Jo 14. V. 16.17 I will ask the Father and he will give you another Paraclete that he may abide with you for ever the spirit of truth And Jo 16.13 but when he the Spirit of truth commeth he shall teach you all truth You answer first that one may fall into error if this all truth be not simply all but all of some kind Secondly that one may fall into some error even contrary to the truth which is taught him if it be taught him only sufficiently and not irresistibly so that be may learne it if he will not so that he must and shall whether be will or no. Now who can assertaine me that the Spirits teaching is not of this nature Or how can you possibly reconcile it with your Doctrine of free will in believing Thirdly you say N. 72. that these promises were made to the Apostles only 79. Answer These places were alledged by Dr.
Nonne Deo subjecta erit anima mea which entire submission and subjection is evidently more necessary in Faith than in Charity against which some sinnes may be veniall whereas every errour against any truth sufficiently propounded as revealed by God is a deadly sinne nor can be excused ob parvitatem materiae 50. You conclude and say to Ch. Ma. Your Corollaries drawen from it the Doctrine of S. Thomas That every errour against Faith involves opposition against Gods testimony That Protestants haue no Faith no certainty and that you haue all Faith must together with it fall to the ground Which words are either non-sense or evidently false For who ever denied not your self excepted that every errour against Faith involves an opposition against Gods testimony which is the very essence of errour against Faith that is of Heresy 51. Your N. 50.51.52 haue bene answered heretofore and are answered by this one consideration That your Faith is not raised aboue the probable motives or Arguments of Credibility which being evident your kind of Faith must be evident but our Catholique Faith is an assent aboue the saied motives and is certaine though not evident as I haue declared els where and by this meanes your imitation of the Argument of Ch Ma to proue that the pretended faith of Protestants implied not obscurity falls to the ground because we belieue with a greater certainty than is derived from the sole motives of credibility so that your Faith must haue evidence but cannot haue certainty The Faith of Protestants who pretended to be assured what Bookes be Canonicall by the private spirit must be certaine and evident and consequently not obscure and therefor Calvin Lib Institut Cap 7. Sect 2. saieth that by the spirit men may discerne true Scripture as we discerne lucem à tenebris album à nigro suaue ab amaro light from darkness white from black sweete from sower And so the Faith of Catholiques only remaines both certaine and obscure as Christian Faith ought to be 52. Your N. 53.54.55 haue bene either answered already or els containe meere sayings without any proofe That the Jewes before our Saviours tyme conserved the Scripture is no wonder since at that tyme they were the true Church and afterward it was not in their power to corrupt it at their pleasure in regard the Apostles and other converted to Christian Religion could manifestly haue convinced them as shameless falsaries But what hath this to doe with that Church which was the vniversall Church of Christ before Luther and if it be fallible and so could haue bene permitted to corrupt Scripture you can at this tyme haue no certainty of the Bible That Luther opposed the Roman Church appeares by what I sayd heretofore and is demonstrated by Ch Ma Part 1. Chap 5. N. 29. and yourself N. 73. describe the man in such manner as makes the matter credible of it self 53. You tell vs N. 56. that the Bible only is the Religion of Protestants Of this we haue saied enough heretofore Now I will only put you in minde First that this cannot agree with your Doctrine that Scripture is not a materiall object of Faith nor which men are obliged to belieue For if it only be the Religion and Faith of Protestants and yet be not a point or object of Faith which you are bound to belieue it followes that Protestants haue no Religion or Point of Faith at all Secondly We haue heard you say Pag 287. N. 82. that some Protestants tooke for the model or Idaea of their Reformation not Scripture only but also the Decrees of Councells and the Writings of the Fathers of the first fiue Ages Thirdly you say Whatsoever els they Protestants belieue besides Scripture and the plain irrefragable indubitable consequences of it well may they hold it as a matter of Opinion but as matter of Faith and Religion neither can they with coherence to their owne grounds belieue it themselves nor require the belief of it of others without most high and most Schismaticall presumption It is strang that the Approbators of your Book and other Protestants did not see a thing verie evident That in these words you declare Protestant pretended Bishops and the Church of England to haue bene guilty of most high and most Schismaticall presumption for requiring the belief of the 39. Articles some of which you belieue neither to be contained in Scripture nor to be the plain irrefragable indubitable consequences of it but to be fals and repugnant to it So that we haue reason more and more to be even amazed that such a Book could at such a tyme be published 54. Your N. 57 and the rest till your N. 72. inclusiuè haue bene answered in different occasions respectiuè Vnfortunate man Who will not compassionate your disorder of minde and pen when N. 66. you are not ashamed to say of Catholiques It is too too apparent that your Church hath got and still maintaines her authority over mens consciences by counterfeiting false stories by obtruding on the world supposititious writings by corrupting the monuments of former times and defacing out of them all which any way makes against you by warres by perfecutions by Massacres by Treasons by Rebellions in short by all manner of carnall meanes whether violent or fraudulent If Luther found the Roman Church and such as were vnited with her that is all Orthodox Christian Churches in such a state as you describe what a scandall must it needs haue bene to Jewes Turks Pagans and all the enemies of Christian Religion 55. Whosoever reads your N 73. will find that you abandon Luther and that you grant very much in favour of the Roman Church as will appeare by reading Ch Ma heere N. 32. and I obserue that you confess with Luther that in the Papacy are many good things that haue come from them to vs and then why do you alwaies deny that you receiue Scripture from vs which is one of those many good things that haue come from vs to you as Luther expressly confesses 56. In your N. 74. you involue and make things seeme obscure which are very cleare You cite Ch. Ma. as if he saied in generall certainty and prudence are certaine grounds of supernaturality which is evidently fals it being manifest that some naturall knowledg may be certaine and prudent You say also that Ch Ma makes perswasion and opinion all one And why because he saieth the Faith of Protestants is but an human perswasion or opinion as if you should haue saied when you say this or that we make this and that all one or in saying such a one studied in Oxford or Cambridg we make Oxford or Cambridg all one The truth is Ch. Ma. neither intended to make them all one or different it being sufficient for his purpose that the Faith of Protestants was not a certaine divine assent call it otherwise what you please You ask how we can assure you that our Faith is not our
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