poynt so prime a principle in Christian Diuinity so intrinsecall and essentiall to Christianity so fully effectually and frequently declared and vrged in Holy Scripture that the greatest enemyes of Gods grace Pelagius and his fellowes vvere forced to acknowledg it in vvords though dissemblingly XV. The same necessity of Grace is taught by the Protestant Church of England once so stiled in the 10. Article of the 39. in these vvords The condition of man after the fall of Adâ—m is such that he cannoâ— turne and prepare himselfe by his owne naturall strength and good works to Faith and calling vpon God wherfore we haue no power to dâ—e good works pleasant and acceptable to God without the Grace of Ged by Christ preuenting vs that we may haue a good will and working with vs when we haue that good will If anie say these Articles are now of small account and little less then disarticled I answer they haue this specious title Articles agreed vpon by the Archbishops and Bishops of both Prouinces and the whole Cleargie in the Conuocation holden at London in the yeare 1562. For auoiding diuersities of opinions and for the establishing of consent touching true Religion If now they carry so small authority their Title should haue bin directly contrary to what it is Articles agreed vpon for the establishing diuersityes of opinions and for the auoiding of consent touching true Religion As these Atticles are now despised so what soeuer shall euer be proposed or sett downe by any other will neuer be to any purpose for the establishing of consent in matters of Faith and Religion till England returne to the roote from which it hath diuided it selfe and seriously reflect into what precipices it is fallen by forsaking Rome and rejecting an jnfallible liuing judge of controversyes for who can giue any man of iudgment a satisfactory reason vvhy so many pretended Bishops vvere not of as good credit as others or wy others are not as much to be belieued as those Bishops I beseech euery one to whom the saluation of his soule is deare to ponder in good earnest this consideration and then to obey S. â—hons saying Apoc. 2.5 Be myndfull from whence thou art fallen and doe pennance SECTION II. The Necessity of Grace to Belieue XVI FAith being as the Apostle sayth Hebr. c. 11.1 the substance of things to be hoped for and foundation of our spirituall life if it proceede from our naturall forces or reason the vvhole edifice of our saluation must be ascribed to our selues vvhich vvere a most proude and luciferian conceypt and yet I reade in M. Chillingworth Pag. 375. n. 55. these words Neither do we follow any priuate meÌ„ but only the Scripture the word of God as our rule and REASON which is also the gist of God giuen to direct vs in all our actions in the vse of this rule And through his vvhole booke speaking of that Faith vvhich God requires of all men as their duty he teaches that it is only such as is proportionable to humane probable Inducements or a Conclusion by rationall discourse euidently deduced from such probable Premises Pa. 36. n. 9. He speakes of jnfusion as of a particular fauour aboue the ordinary measure of Faith And n. 8. God desires only that we belieue the conclusion as much as the Premises deserue And Pag. 212. n. 154. Neither God doth nor man may require of vs as our duty to giue a greater assent to the Conclusion then the Premises deserue to build an infallible Faith vpon Motiues that are only highly credible and not infallible And Pa. 381. n. 74. He speaking of our Catholique Faith vvhich he denyes not to be for substantiall fundamentall poynts true faith for he holds that true faith of some poynts may stand with damnable errours in other sayth I desire to know what sense there is in pretending that your persuasion is not in regard of the object only and cause of it but in nature or essence of it supernaturall vvhich demand vvere very impertinent if he did belieue that diuine supernaturall Grace vvere necessary for euery act of true Christian faith For if it be not supernaturall in essence how can the speciall motion and grace of God be necessarily required to it in all occasions though no particular temptatation or difficulty offer it selfe And he speakes very inconsequently in asking how vve know that our faith is not in regard of the object only and cause of it but in nature and essence of it supernaturall since it is cleare that if the cause be necessarily and vniuersally supernaturall the effect also must be such and therfore he is convinced to belieue indeed that neither the cause nor essence of faith is supernaturall I grant that Pa. 409. lin 3. ante finem he vvould perswade vs that he hath no cause to differ from Dr. Potter concerning the supernaturality of Faith which sayth he I know and belieue as well as you to be the gift of God and that flesh and bloud reueald it not vnto vs but our Father which is in Heauen But euen in this we can gather only that he admits the necessity of some grace consisting in externall Reuelation or Proposition of the objects or mysteryes of Christian faith vvhich Pelagius did admit but not the necessity of internall Grace or motion of the Holy Ghost for enabling our vnderstanding to belieue supernaturall Objects vvith an infallible diuine Faith yea it is euident that he requires no such internall grace seing he expresly requires no stronger assent by faith then evidently followes from probable Arguments of credibility that is only a probable beliefe or perswasion vvheras if beside the proposition of the object he did require a supernaturall motion of grace eleuating our vnderstaÌ„ding aboue its naturall forces and measure of humane discourse it vvere very inconsequent to limit the assent of faith to the probability of jnducements or ArgumeÌ„ts of Credibility And yet he restraines our assent to such probability expresly because in rationall and naturall discourse the conclusion cannot exceede the premisses and therfor must be only probable vvhen the Premisses are such XVII For which cause when he speakes of particular Grace given to some aboue the ordinary course he confesses that it gives them a certainty of adherence beyond their certainty of evidence as he expresly delivers pag. 37. n. 9. Which certainty in good consequence he could not denie to every Act of divine faith if he did believe that every such Act doth of it selfe necessarily require particular internall Grace of God aboue the forces of nature and beside the externall proposition of the objects or Mysteries of Christian belief Neither can it be denyed but that an Object of it selfe supernaturall may be belieued by the naturall forces of our Understanding with some probable naturall assent for Arguments euidently proposed as Miracles comparing of Historyes and the lïke reasons for which men belieue other matters of tradition since therfor he teacheth that
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
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
errour and the same Heaven cannot containe them both wherby your Question why should any errour exclude any from the Churches Communion which will not depriue him of eternall salvation Is clearly inverted and retorted by saying Why should not any errour exclude any man from the Churches communion which will depriue him of eternall salvation The Arguments which you bring in this Number and N. 41.42.43 to proue that every one of the foure Gospells containes all points necessary to be believed haue been confuted at large hertofore 19. To your N. 44. and 45. I answer that Dr. Vshers words are as vniversall as can be whÌ„ he speakes of Propositions which without all controversie are vniversally receaved in the whole Christian world And if you will needs haue his other words the sevrrall professions of Christianity that hath any large spread in any part of the world to be a Limitation of those other which you haue now cited I am content vpon condition that you confesse it to be also a contradiction to those former words of his As for the thing itselfe Cha Ma names places of large extent in which the Antitrinitarians are rife and I feare he might haue added too many in England Holland and other places wher Heresy raignes and even Dr. Porter cites Hooker and Morton teaching that the deniall of our Saviours Divinity is not a Fundamentall heresy destructiue of a true Church neither doth the Doctor disproue them Paulus Ueridicus I grant names the B. Trinity among coinopista not as if Dr. Vsher had affirmed it to be such but as in Truth it is necessary for all or rather indeed he affirmes nothing but only as they say exempligratia by way of supposition which abstracts from the Truth of the thing itselfe For thus you cite his words To consider your coinopista or communiter credenda Articles as you call them vniversally believed by these severall professions of Christianity which haue any large spread in the world These Articles for example may be the vnity of the Godhead the Trinity of Persons the Immortality of the soule c Where you see he speakes only exempli gratia or by a may be according to the Doctrine of Catholiks without regarding whether or no in the opinion of Dr. Vsher the denyall of the Trinity exclude salvation But it is both ridiculous and vnjust in you to call this the greatest objection of Charity Maintayned which he touched only by the way and in order to Dr. Vâ—shers words For concerning the thing itselfe Protestants who deny the infallibility of Gods Church will not I feare hold the denyall of the Trinity to be a fuÌ„dameÌ„tall errour seing so many old heretiques haue denied the Truth of that Article and you with your Socinian brethren doe the same at this day and pretend many texts â—f Scripture for your Heresy If 〈◊〉 had at hand Paulus Ueridiâ—us perhaps I could discover somewhâ—t more against you For I remember he shewes how according to Dr. Vshers discourse and grounds divers Articles of Christian Faith may be cassiered and cast out of the Church and he finds so much matter against the Doctor as it is no wonder if he in his short examination tooke no notice of the contradiction which Charity Maintayned touches as he Charity Maintayned takes not notice of all the advantages or other contradictions which perhaps he might haue found and which Paulus Ueridicus observes but that was not the ayme of Ch Ma in his answer to Potter 20. In your N. 46. you say There is no contradiction that the same man at the same time should belieue contradictions Which N. 47. you declare or temper in this manner Indeed that men should not assent to contradictions and that it is vnreasonable to doe soe I willingly grant But to say it is impossible to be done is against every mans experience and almost as vnreasonable as to doe the thing which is saied to be impossible For though perhaps it may be very difficult for a man in his right wits to belieue a contradiction expressed in termes especially if he belieue it to be a contradiction yet for men being cowed and awed by superstition to perswade themselves vpon slight and triviall grounds that these or these though they seeme contradictions yet indeed are not so and so to belieue them or if the plaine repugnance of them be veiled and disguised a little with some empty vnintelligible non-sense distinction or if it be not exprest but implyed not direct but by consequence so that the parties to whose Faith the propositions are offered are either innocently or perhaps affectedly ignorant of the contrariety of them for men in such cases easily to swallow and digest contradictions he that denies it possible must be a meer stranger in the world Thus you after your fashion involuing things in obscurity that one cannot penetrate what you would say but that you may haue an evasion against whatsoever may be obsected As for the thing it selfe There is no doubt but that men may belieue things which in themselves are contradictions wherof we need no other proofe then to shew that it happeneth so to yourselfe if you belieue what you affirme even in this matter wherin I shall demonstrate to be implied plaine contradiction But when men say with one voyce that we cannot assent to contradictions it is to be vnderstood if they be apprehended as such and therfore it might seeme needlesse to spend many words in confutation of this heresie as I may call it against the first principle of Reason Yet because your reasons may perhaps seeme to some to proue more since even in your explication or modification you saie only perhaps and may be of that which all the world holds for certaine and for the ground of all certainty in humane Reason and because if they be well considered they strike at the sublime mysteries of Christian Religion and in regard this is an age of Academiks and Sceptiks who willingly put all things to dispute wherby vnder pretence of freedome in Reason they take liberty against Religion as also to shew how little reason you had to take this vaine occasion of a fond flourish to shew a Socinian wit and lastly because by this occasion I may examine some other points I will both confute your reasons and shew that you contradict yourselfe 21. Only I cannot for beare to reflect how he who resolves Faith into Reason so much extold by him that he relyes theron as Catholiks doe vpon the infallibility of Gods Church or Calvinists vpon the private spirit or on the Grace of God which both Catholiks and Protestants against Pelagius belieue to be necessary for every Act of Divine Faith how I say this man doth now so extenvate Reason that if it indeed were so miserable and foolish as he makes it we might better belieue our dreames than our reason wherby he destroies all that himselfe builds vpon Reason and consequently Faith it selfe which in
INFIDELITY VNMASKED OR THE CONFVTATION OF A BOOKE PVBLISHED BY Mr. WILLIAM CHILLINGWORTH VNDER THIS TITLE THE RELIGION OF PROTESTANTS A SAFE WAY TO SALUATION I would thou wert colde or hote but because thou art luke-warme I will begin to vomitt the out of my mouth Apocal C 3. V. 15. 16. Printed in GANT By MAXIMILIAN GRAET A o. D ni M. DC LII Permissu superiorum TO THE READER 1. THe first thing that I am to request of thee good Reader is to reade this Preface before thou adress thyself to peruse the Booke And then not to reade irregularly beginning with the end or at the middle or with what shall be offered by meere chance but to take the following Introduction and Chapters as they come in order that so the former may be a preparation to the latter and the latter may receyue light and strength from the former For the matters being connected of themselves will growe to be either vnintelligible or obscure or confused if their right Consequences and orderly sequeles be neglected or inverted and will certainly come by that meanes to be perverted and mistaken 2. I cannot doubt but that an Answer to Mr Chillingworths Booke hath bene expected long since But they who are acquainted with the many and long and great and insuperable obstacles of voyages to remote countreyes long frequent and great sicknesses and vnavoidable imployments imposed by Authority which I ought not to resist though some can witness that even in that I strayned obedience more than I should haue adventured to doe vpon any other occasion which haue crossed my earnest and constant desires will not so much marvell that this Work hath bene long in doeing as that finally it is donne This one thing is evident That not any difficulty to answer could haue bene cause of so long delay since whosoever can answer now could haue donne it much sooner if extrinsecall impediments had bene removed 3. As for that vnfortunate man whom I confute Truth obliges me to declare that beside his most contemning disdaining proud bitter and even bloudy waie of answering by seeking to make odious both the Religion and persons of Catholiques as will appeare by what I note in due place I must insist vpon this that in reality his Book is no Confutation of Charity Maintayned who answered Dr Potter according to the grounds of Protestants not of Socinians or any other new Sect. And therefore Mr Chillingworth flying to new Principles hath abandoned Dr Potter and all the elder kind of Protestants and left his Adversary in possession of being vnanswered agreably to his ingenuous acknowledgment when time was that Charity Maintayned could not be defeated by any forces of Protestants and that he had a way to confute him (a) See the Iudgment of an vniversity-man Pag 68 Sect 16. Miserable Protestancy That could find no Advocate except an Enemy to it and all Christianity who tooke this occasion only to vent new Heresies no less repugnant to Protestants than to Catholiques Did not Protestants foretell and in fâ—ct prophecie their owne ruine in preferring this vnhappy man before all England to be Defender of their Faith Who can wonder to behold that Nation swimming in desolation and bloud which indures to behold a Book published approved applauded which purposely and directly teaches Christian Faith not to be infallibly true and consequently that whatsoever Christians haue hitherto believed of Scripture of Christ of all Christian verityes may for ought they can certainly know to the contrary proue fabulous false or no better than dreames If he who omitted to enact any Law or decree any punishment for Paricides gaue the reason thereof by asking whether there could possibly be any such Crime Much more Charity Maintayned had no reason to fetch from Hell this Antichristian doctrine never imagining that any Christian would profess to maintayne so wicked a Tenet the contrary whereof even Dr Potter delivers not as a thing disputable or which needed any proofe but as a first Principle to be supposed among Christians 4. Presently vpon the publication of Mr Chillingworths Book he was by diverse printed Treatises charged with this and other vnchristian Doctrines and expresly conjured to cleare himselfe vnder paine of being esteemed guilty if he were silent as by the Church Conquerant over humane wit The totall summe The judgment of an vniversity-man Christianity Maintayned but never could be induced to answer for himself in any one particular which silence in a matter of this nature could procede only from guiltiness as he was expresly forwarned in the Direction to N. N. Chap 3. 5. If any vndertake a Confutation of my Book he will doe himself manifest wrong vnless he doe me so much right as not to pretend an Answer to mee if he abandon Mr Chillingworth and forsake his grounds and so oppose me by new Principles as Mr Chillingworth injuriously delt with Charity Maintayned Or if he will profess not to defend the particular Tenets or debates of Mr Chillingworth I must exact of him that by declaring so much the world may know that Mr Chillingworth hath bene confuted whom whosoever forsakes he cannot be judged to answer my Book but to commence a new suite or begin a new Work of which I shall not esteame myself obliged to take any notice For as Charity Maintayned confuted Protestants not Socinians so I confute Mr Chillingworths Book and not the Principles of other Men or Sects disagreeing from him 6. It is also desired that he follow not Mr Chillingworth in seeking to draw his Adversary to handle particular Points nothing pertinent to our present generall Controversy That he cite the places of those Authors whose Authorityes he alledges which Mr Chillingworth frequently omitts to doe That he propose my Arguments without fraude disguise or disadvantage as I haue bene so very carefull and even scrupulous to relate with all sincerity Mr Chillingworths Opinions Reasons and Words that not seldome I had recourse to the Errata noted in the end of his Book holding it an vnjust thing to charge him with any over sight of the Print though hee hath not delt so fairely with Charity Maintayned whom he impugnes even in things placed among the Errata of the Printer and corrected 7. I profess with all sincerity and seriousness that I haue not wittingly omitted to answer any one Point in my Adversaries whole Book either particularly and explicitely or els in Principles which involue an Answer to all particulars when they shall be proposed I am necessitated to repeete the same things either to answer my Adversarie in his repetitions or for the connection of the matters which require it or because it is to be feared that not every Reader will remember or know how to apply what is past I am not ignorant that in answering Mr Chillingworth I confute an Academy of Socinians to whom he owes the matter and substance of his Book though it appeare vnder his name only But Truth is
his fourth Chapter Pag 788. Chap 14. The answer to his fifth Chapter about Schisme Pag 846. Chap 15. The answer to his sixth Chapter about Heresy Pag 884. Chap 16. The answer to his seaventh Chapter that Protestants are not bound by the Charity which they owe to themselves to reunite themselves to the Roman Church Pag 932. Touching the necessity of diuine Grace for all vvorkes of Christian Piety I. THe necessity I find of premisinge this Introduction giues me iust cause to begin with those sad passages of the Prophet Ieremy c. 9.1 VVho will giue water to my head and to myne eyes a fountayne of teares and v. 18. Let our eyes shed teares and our eye liddes runne downe with waters And c. 13. v. 17. My soule shall weepe because of the pride a S. Aug. l. 2. de peccatorum meritis remiss cap. 18. saieth Ipsa ratio quemlibet nostrum quaetentem vehementer angustat ne â—ic defendamus gratiam vt liberum arbitrium auferre videamur rurlus ne liberum sic asseramus arbittium vt SVPERBA IMPIETATE ingrati Dei gratiae indicemur O England what greater pride then to make humane reason the measure of Christian faith and to beleeue Faith to be only a probable assent because Reason cannot with euidency comprehend how it should be infallibly true O soules deny not the satisfaction of Christ our Lord for our sinnes and his Merit of supernaturall Grace to enable our nature towards workes of Piety Be not eleuated Jerem 13.16.17 but Giue you glory to our Lord your God before it wax darke and before your feet stumble at the darke mountaynes Otherwise you shall looke for light and he will turne it into the shaddow of death and into darknes But if you will not heare this in secret my soule shall weepe because of the pride b S. Anselmus ad illud 1. Cor. 4. Quid habes quod non accepisti sayth Fecit Deus vt esses tu fecisti vt bonus esses absit Si enim Deus dedit vt esses alius tibi dare potuit ut bonus esses melior est ille qui dedit ut bònus esses quam ille qui dedit ut esses Sed nullus Deo melior igÃtur à Deo accepisti esse bonum esse Thus sayth our Lord let not the wise man glory in his wisdome but he that gloryeth let him glory in this because I am the Lord that doe mercy For it is not Rom. 9.16 of the willer nor of the runner but of God that sheweth Mercy by freely offeringe Pardon Grace and Glory Let vs not ô let vs not make vaine the Life Sufferings Death Satisfaction and Merit of God incarnate by setting vp an idol of reason but let vs say with the Apostole Galat. 2.21 I cast not away the Grace of God For if iustice by the Lawe of Mòyses if Faith by reason then Christ dyed in vaine II. But heere some will not faile to aske the reason why I should treate this seeming farre fetchd matter in this occasion The Answer to this demand cannot be so fitly and fully deliuered by me in this place as it will of it selfe appeare in severall occasions through this whole worke For the present I say that the necessity of supernaturall grace being once established the most substantiall parts of M. Chillingworths booke will remaine confuted For jf Divine faith be the Gift of God infused into our soules and that we cannot exercise any one Act therof without the particular grace and motion of the Holy Ghost it followes immediatly and clearly against his fundamentall and capitall heresie that Christian Faith must be infallible and exempt from all possibility of errour or falshood It being an evident and certaine truth that the supreme and Prime Ueritie cannot by his speciall supernaturall motion inspire a falshood S. Iohns aduise 1. Ioan 4.1 is Beleeue not euery spirit but proue the spirits if they be of God But if we find our spirit to be of God and yet maintayne that it may be stayned with errour what further triall can we make must we raise vp the spirit of man and rely on the strength of reason to trye and so perhaps to check and reject the spirit of God though knowne and acknowledged to be his spirit We reade in holy Scripture Deuter c. 18.21.22 If in secret cogitation thou answer How shall I vnderstand the word that our Lord spake not This signe thou shalt haue That which the same Prophet foretelleth in the name of the Lord and cometh not to passe that our Lord hath not spoken but by the arrogancy of his mynd the Prophet hath forged it Which yet were no good or infallible signe if the spirit of God who spoke by the Prophets could inspire a falshood III. This truth is granted even by sectaryes themselues who will not deny to be true what Caluin Jnstit l. 1. c. 7. saith Testimonium spiritus omni ratione praestantius esse respondeo I answer that the testimony of the spirit is to be preferred before all reason And even Chillingworth Pag. 145 n. 33. saieth that Potter ascribes to the Apostles the Spirits guidance and consequently infallibility in a more high and absolute manner then any since them Where we see he proportionates infallibility to the guidance of the Spirit IV. Besides if the Theologicall vertues of Hope and Charity be the Gifts of God and their Acts require supernaturall assistance Faith also by which they are directed must be supernaturall and require Gods particular Grace which excludes all falshood Jf Faith Hope and Charity be Gifts infused by God not acquired by Acts proceeding from our naturall forces and for that reason we can not be assured of their presence by sensible experience as we may be of acquired naturall Habits Jf they be Powers to enable not meere Habits to facilitate vs in order to Actions of Piety we must inferre that they are not to be increas'd or diminishd lost conserved or acquired or measured according to the rate of naturall Habits Which truth being once granted his doctrine that Repentance consists in the rooting out of all vicious habits That Charity may consist with deadly sinne and Faith with heresy and the like Tenets instantly fall to the ground their whole foundation being an imaginary paritie or rather identity of infused and naturall Habits or Gifts as will appeare when such particular points shall offer themselues to be examined V. Heere I cannot forbeare to reflect in what manner they who haue once withdrawne their beleife and obedience from Gods Church and an jnfallible living judge in matters belonging to Faith do runne into extremes Some of them to maintayne the necessity of Grace denie freewill others in direct opposition to these giue all to free-will and denie the necessity of Grace Some reject inherent Justice though infused by God yea they teach that the guilt of sinne still remaining doth stayne all our actions
which I am bound to belieue the belief of both is necessary the one for it selfe the other for that other which is supposed to be necessary of it self as you say the belief of scripture is only for the belief of the contents Secondly if the reason for which I belieue a thing be not only true but also by the nature therof necessarily obliges me to belieue that thing which it proves in that event whersoever I find that reason I shall remaine obliged to belieue that Object which it proves This is our case For no Christian yea no man indued with reason can deny but that if I belieue an Object as testifyed by God I am obliged to belieue all other Truths so testifyed Now I pray you tell vs the reason for which at this tyme you hold yourself obliged to belieue the contents of scripture You must answer because they are revealed by God testifying the truth of them by many and great miracles Then I aske for what reason do you belieue Scripture to be the word of God If you answer because God hath testifyed it to be such by those Miracles which the Apostles wrought to proue their words and writings to be infallible and inspired by the Holy Ghost then I inferr that as you are bound to belieue the contents of Scripture so you are also obliged to belieue Scripture it self seing you haue the same reason to belieue that God hath testifyed both the Scripture and the contents therof If you belieue Scripture to be the word of God not for the Divine Testimony for which you belieue the contents but for some other Reason then your saying There is not alwayes an equall necessity for the belief of those things for the belief wherof there is an equall Reason was impertinent because for the belief of Scripture there is not the same reason for which you belieue the verityes therin contained and your other saying Pag. 218. N. 49 must be false that no man at this tyme can haue reason to belieue in Christ but he must haue the same to belieue the Scripture if it be true that you belieue not scripture for the same reason for which you belieue Christ and other mysteryes contained in it But let vs know indeed for what reasoÌ„ you belieue Scripture to be the word of God It seemes one may answer for you out of your Answer to your Third Motiue where you teach that the Bible hath bene confirmed with those supernaturall and Divine Miracles which were wrought by our Saviour Christ and the Apostles And Pag. 379. N. 69. you say following the Scripture I shall belieue that which vniversall never-failing Tradition assures me that it was by the admirable supernaturall worke of God confirmed to be the word of God If this be true how are not men obliged to belieue that which hath bene so confirmed Or for what other reason do you belieue the Truths contayned in Scripture as our Saviour His Incarnation Life Death Resurrection and other Mysteryes of Christian Faith but because they were confirmed by the admirable supernaturall workes of God wherby you expressly grant Scripture to haue bene confirmed to be the word of God You must therfor either grant that there is a necessity to belieue Scripture to be the word of God or deny that there is a necessity to belieue the contents therof And then further for our present Question you must either grant that Scripture is a materiall Object of Faith or deny that the verityes therin contayned are such an Object vnless you will confess yourself to be a very strang and vnreasonable man to belieue the matter of the bookes of Scripture and not the Authority of the bookes and therfor since you profess not to be obliged to belieue these may not one haue reason to vse your owne words to feare that you do not thinke yourself obliged to belieue that Nay is it not apparent still I vse your owne words that you at this tyme cannot without hypocrisy pretend an obligation to belieue in Christ but of necessity you must acknowledg an obligation to belieue the Bookes of scripture seing you can haue no reason to thinke you are obliged to belieue in Christ but must haue the same to belieue the scripture and if your belief of the contents of scripture or of obligation to belieue them be vnreasonable it cannot proceed from the particular motion of the Holy Ghost nor be an Act of divine Faith And I beseech you reflect that here there is not only the same reason for the truth of things in themselves but also for our obligation to belieue them namely the divine Testimony which Point if you obserue you cannot but see how impertinent your example was about believing there was such a man as King Henry which you say one is not bound to belieue and that Iesus Christ suffered vnder Pontius Pilate which is a Truth set downe in a writing confirmed by Miracles to be the word of God and consequently to deny the Mysteryes contained in that booke were to reject a thing confessed to be witnessed by God And is not a man obliged to belieue whatsoever he knowes to be witnessed by God I sayd your example is impertinent but I must add that it is also false vnchristian and blasphemous to say as you doe We haue I belieue as great reason to belieue there was such a man as Henry the eight King of England as that Iesus Christ suffered vnder Pontius Pilate Haue you as great reason to belieue the Chronicles of England and the Testimony of men as to belieue the word of God 10. Morover though it import nothing to our present Question whether or no you speake true in saying there is not alwayes an equall necessity for the belief of those things for the belief wherof there is an equall reason yet perhaps you will not easily make it good if there be perfectly and entirely the same reason and of the same kind for both of them For if I conceaue the same reason for both if I belieue the one I may belieue the other nay I haue a necessity to belieue it so far as I cannot belieue the contrary as it is impossible from the same premises belieued to be the same to inferr contrary or contradictory conclusions If perhaps you answer that when one believes a thing for a reason which he sees to be the self same for another he cannot dissent from that other yet he may suspend his vnderstanding from any positiue assent to it which he cannot doe when there is a command to belieue it This answer will not serue your turne but first it is against your self who Pag. 195. N. 11. say to Cha Ma your distinction between Points necessary to be believed and necessary not to be disbelieved is a distinction without a difference there being no point to any man at any tyme in any circumstances necessary not to be dâ—sbelieved but it is to the same man at
the holy Ghost as we may be most certainly assured that she will either neuer permit such corruptions to happen or will never make vse of them As we were assured the Apostles could never approue any corruption in scripture though in their tymes it could not be avoyded but that Errours might be committed by the diversity of transcribers so many centuryes of yeares before Printing was in vse And in vaine do you Pag. 62. N. 24. alledg that Divine providence will never suffer the way to Heaven to be blocked vp or made invisible which no man denyes but seing his holy Providence cannot be contrary to itself and disposes of all things sweetly by Meanes proportionable to his Ends we must even from hence gather that he hath left Meanes to beget a true divine supernaturall Faith more firme than we yield to humane storyes which cannot be done by scripture alone if we neither be certaine that it is not corrupted nor haue any other infallible Guide to rely on besides the bare written word and so this your Assertion proves that which you seeke most to avoyd that scripture alone even though it were falsly supposed to contayne all things necessary to be believed cannot be sufficient to erect an Act of Faith for want of strength of an infallible authority because still we remayne vncertaine and vnsatisfyed whether perhaps it be not corrupted in that part vpon which we build our assent 54. Your sift Errour not vnlike to this I touched aboue out of your Pag. 116. N. 159. where you say We haue I belieue as great reason to belieue there was such a man as Henry the eight King of England as that Iesus Christ suffered Vnder Pontius Pilate You should haue sayd we haue farr greater reason to belieue that there was such a man as Henry the eight or Alexander Caesar Pompey c if your false Assertion were true that Christian Faith rihes no higser than humane Tradition and story can raise it For we haue a more full and vniversall Tradition and Consent of all sorts of Persons that there were such men as Caesar c and that they fought such battailes obtained such victoryes and the like than that there was one called Jesus Christ that he had Disciples c And what Christian can heare this without detestation Your saying that we haue as great reason to belieue there was such a man as Henry the eight as that Jesus Christ suffered c seemes to signify that we haue as great reason to belieue what is delivered by humane History or Tradition as that which is testifyed or revealed by God since you pretend to belieue that scripture which gives witness to Christ Jesus is the word of God and yet affirme that we haue as great reason to belieue there was such a man as Henry the eight which we know only by humane tradition as that Jesus Christ suffered Vnder Pontius Pilate which we learne from scripture If you grant this as it seemes you expressly doe I suppose your ground must be that which you express Pag 36. N. 8. that the Conclusion alwayes followes the worser part as if a message be brought me from a man of absolute credit with me but by a messenger that is not so my considence of the truth of the relation cannot but be rebated and lessened by my diffidence in the Relatour and therfor because we know only by morall certainty as you speake in the same place that scripture is the word of God and that the contents therof were revealed by God and confirmed by Miracles our belief can be proportionable only to those morall inducements or humane tradition which being as great that there was such a man as Henry the eight as that Jesus Christ suffered c we haue as great reason to belieue that as this If this be your meaning aÌ„d vpoÌ„ this ground theÌ„ I inferr which hither to I haue not so absolutely done that Christian Faith with you is not only fallible and not absolutely certaine but also is no more yea as I haue proved less certaine though it be testifyed by God than if it had bene testifyed or affirmed to be true by men only because all must depend on and be exactly measured not by the difference of Humane and divine testimony but wholy and only by the meanes or probability by which such a Testimony is conveyed to our vnderstanding And this must be the cause which moves you to say that we haue as great reason to belieue there was such a man as Henry the eight as that Jesus Christ suffered Vnder Pontius Pilate because the Motives are a like though the testimony of God and of men be different Or if you say that when we haue the same motiues to belieue that God testifyes a thing and that man doth testify it we haue greater reason to belieue what is testifyed by God than what is testifyed by man then you contradict what yourself say that we haue as great reason to belieue there was such a man as Henry the eight as that Jesus Christ suffered Vnder Pontius Pilate Howsoever I must still conclude that seing according to your Principles and express words we haue as great yea as I haue proved greater reason to belieue there was a Caesar Pompey c than Jesus Christ what will it availe vs in order the exercising to an Act of true Christian Faith that all Points necessary to be believed are contayned in Scripture if in the meane tyme we haue as great reason to belieue what is related in prophane Storyes as what is revealed in scripture 46. A sixt Errour you teach Pag. 67. N. 38. I may beliâ—ue even those questioned Bookes to haue been written by the Apostles and to be Canonicall but I cannot in reason belieue this of them so vndoubtedly as â—f those Books which were never quâ—stioned At least I haue no warrant to damne any man that shall doubt of them or deny them now having the examples of Saints in Heaven either to justify or excise such their doubting or denyall And Pag. 69. N. 45. The Canon of Scripture as we râ—â—eyue it is builded vpon Vniversall Tradition For we do not profess ourselves so absolutely and vndoubtedly certaine neither do we vrge others to be so of those Books which haue been doubted as of those that never haue But this is not all For to the words of Cha. Ma. Part. 1. Chap. 2. N. 9. That according to the sixt Article of the English Protestants which sayth In the name of Holy Scripture we do vnderstand those Canonicall Books of the Old and New Testament of whose Authority was never any doubt in the Church the whole Booke of Esther must quit the Canon and divers Books of the New Testament must be discanonized to wit all those of which some Ancients haue doubted and those which divers Lutherans haue of late denied You answer Pag. 68. N. 43. When they say Of whose Authority there was never any doubt
fallible authority of some particular men who informe them that there is such a decree And if the decrees were translated into vulgar languages why the translatours should not be as fallyble as you say the translatours of scripture are who can possibly imagine 28. Answer Take away an infallible living Judg and Tradition of the Church you will hardly find any Text of Scripture containing the sublime Mysteries of Christian Faith evident even to the learned among you as hath bene proved hertofore and appeares by the experience of your great and irremediable disagreements and is manifest of itselfe because you haue no certaine Rule when the Scripture is to be taken in a litterall figuratiue morall c sense which difficulty ceases in the Decrees of the Church both because it is knowen vpon what occasion and against what Enours the Church makes â—her Decrees as all know vpon what occasion and against whom the sacred Councell of Trent was gathered and therby it is easy to vnderstand the decrees for the Negatiue or affirmatiue part at least for the substance and the things chiefly inteÌ„ded in them or if any doubt should remayne the Church can declare herself which Scripture can never doe And although the Decrees of Popes and Councells are not conceyved so obscurely as you would make men falsely belieue yet all obscurity is easily cleared by some further declaration As for languages in which they are written it is Latine a language knowne not only to the learned but to many also whom we need not reckon among the learned and they who vnderstand not Larine will find so great vniformity among all those who vnderstand that Language that they cannot remaine vncertaine concerning the meaning of those Decrees though they be not translated into vulgar Languages or if they were so translated eyther the translations would be found totally to agree or els it were easy to be informed which of them did mistake seing innumerable persons do perfectly vnderstand Latine and Besides as I sayd it is evidently knowne vpon what occasion the Decrees were framed and what was the scope of them and what part they condemned as false or defined as true But for Scripture seing you haue no certaine Rule to know the sense therof aÌ„d Translations of Protestants are manifestly seen to be contrary one to another the most learned among you can haue no certainty yea I dare say that greater learning will occasion greatest multiplicity of doubts and perplexityes vnless there be acknowledged an infallible Living Judg and much less can the vnleaned haue certainty sufficient to exercise a true Act of Diuine Faith More of this matter may be seen in Charity Maintayned Part 2. Chap 5. N. 32. in answer to an Objection made by Potter like to this of yours To your saying If the Decrees were translated into vulgar Languages why the Translators should not be as fallible as you say the Translators of the Scripture are who can possibly imagine I answer There is a manifold difference between the Translations of Scripture and of the Ecclesiasticall Decrees For every word of Scripture was inspired by the Holy Ghost One Text may haue divers literall senses intended by the same Holy Spirit We are ignorant what was the scope of Canonicall Writers for every particular Chapter or Text Every Reason given in holy Scripture is a matter of Faith The style and Majesty therof surpasses humane wit and manner of writing All which considerations make the Translations of Scripture both more difficult and more dangerous then those of Ecclesiasticall Definitions or Decrees in which the fore sayd Reasons haue not place as appeares by what I sayd even now 29. But you would proue Pag 94. N. 109. that no man can be certaine of the Churches Decrees which must be confirmed by a true Pope Now the Pope cannot be true Pope if he came in by simony Which whether he did or no who can answer me He cannot be true Pope vnless he were baptized and baptized he was not vnless the Minister had due intention So likewise he cannot be a true Pope vnless he were rightly ordained Priest and that againe depends vpon the Ordainers secret intention and also vpon his having the Episcopall Character All which things depend vpon so many vncertaine suppositions that no humane judgment can possibly be resolved in them I conclude therfor that not the learnedst man amongst you all no not the Pope himself can according to the grounds you goe vpon haue any certainty that any Decree of any Councell is good and valid and consequently not any assurance that it is indeed the Decree of a Councell 30. Answer These very Objections Potter made and are answered by Charity Maintayned Part 2. Chap 5. N 31. but you take no notice therof That your suppositions are never to be admitted but we are sure that whosoever in a tyme free from Schisme is once accepted by the Church for a true Pope is such indeed Yet if you will be making such vntrue suppositions that the Pope did enter by Simony or wanted Baptisme or true Ordination God would never permitt him to define any thing in prejudice of the Church Neither are the occasions of Defining matters of Faith alwayes vrgent as we see the Church for the space of three hundred yeares after the Apostles past without any Generall Councell Yea if de facto any Pope define some truth to be a matter of Faith we are sure even by his doing so that he is true Pope it being impossible that God should permit his vniversall Church to be obliged to belieue a falshood or an vncertaine thing as all are obliged to beleeve the Definition of one who is accepted for true Pope See more of this in the saied place of Charity Maintayned 31. But now Good Sr. I beseech you reflect that in being so eager against vs you haue degraded or rather haue denyed your Bishops Priests and the whole Pretended mock-Hierarchy of the Protestant Church in England which hitherto hath bene ambitious to proue the Ordination and Succession of your Bishops from the Roman Church of which nevertheless you say Pag 77. N. 67. He that shall put together and maturely consider all the possible wayes of lapsing and nullifying a Priesthood in the Church of Rome I belieue will be very inclinable to thinke that it is an hundred to one that amongst an hundred seeming Priests there is not one true one Nay that it is not a thing very improbable that amongst those many millions which make vp the Râ—man Hierarchy there are not twenty trâ—â— If this be so if the fountaine be so troubled or rather none at all what certainty can there be in the streame which flowed from Rome to England if of many millyons among vs there are not tweÌ„ty true Priests if wee keepe a proportion with England to the whole world there must not be among you one true Bishop or Priest And was not your Book fitly approved expressly as
this Objection or invention no certainty can be had what the Apostles or other Preachers teach or teach not with infallibility Nor will there remaine any meanes to convert men to Christianity For every one may say that not the Poynt which he apprehends to be false was confirmed by Miracles but those other Articles which he conceaves to be true And so no Heretike can be convinced by Scripture which he will say is not the word of God except for his opinions and so nothing will be proved out of Scripture even for those things which are contayned in it Neither will anie thing remayne certaine except a generall vnprofitable impracticable Notion that the Apostles taught and the Scripture contaynes some things revealed by God without knowing what they are in particular which would be nothing to the purpose and therfore as good as nothing 8. But yet dato non concesso That the Apostles and the Church are to be believed only in such particular Points as are proved by Miracles c we say that innumerable Miracles haue bene wrought in consirmation of those particular Points wherin we disagree from Protestants as may be seene in Brierly Tract 2. Chap 3 Sect 7. subdiv 1. For example of Prayer to Saints out of S. Austine Civit L. 22. C. 8. Worship of Reliques out of S. Gregory Nazian S. Austine S. Hierom S. Basil Greg Turonen Theodoret the Image of Christ Reall presence Sacrifice of Christs Body Purgatory Prayer for the Dead The great vertue of the signe of the Crosse Holy water Lights in the Church Reservation of the Sacrament Holy Chrisme Adoration of the crosse Confession of sins to a Priest and extreme Vnction which miracles Brierly proves by irrefragable Testimonyes of most creditable Authors and Holy Fathers wherof if any Protestant doubt he can do no lesse for the salvation of his soule than examine the matter either by the 〈◊〉 of this Authour or of other Catholique Writers and not only by 〈…〉 clamours and calumnyes of Protestant Preachers in their Ser 〈…〉 Writers in their Bookes And let him take with him for his 〈…〉 thefe considerations 1. That these Miracles were wrought and testifyed before any Protestant appeared in the world And therfore could not be fayned or recorded vpon any particular designe against them and their Heresyes 2. That even Protestants acknowledg the Truths of such Miracles Whitaker cont Duraeum Lib 10. sayth I do not thinke those Miracles vaine which are reported to haue bene done at the monuments of Saints as also Fox and Godwin acknowledg Miracles wrought by S. Austine the Monke sent by S. Gregory Pope to convert England through Gods hand as may be seene in Brierly Tract 1. Sect 5. and yet it is confessed by Protestants and is evident of itself that he converted vs to the Roman Faith But not to be long I referr the Reader to Brierly in the Index of whose Booke in the word Miracles he will find full satisfaction if he examine his allegations that in every Age since our Saviour Christ there haue bene wrought many ad great Miracles both by the Professors of the Roman Faith and expressly in confirmation of it This I say and avouch for a certaine truth that whatsoever Heretikes can object against Miracles wrought by Professors of our Religion and in proofe if it may be in the same manner objected against the Miracles of our B. Saviour and his Apostles and that they cannot impugne vs but joyntly they must vndermine all Christianity 9. To these two considerations let this Third be added that it is evidently delivered in Scripture Miracles to be certaine Proofes of the true Faith and Religion as being appointed by God for that end Exod 4.1 when Moyses sayd They will not belieue me nor heare my voice God gaue him the Gift of Miracles that they might belieue God had spoken to him 3. Reg 17. Vers 24. That woman whose sonne Elias had raised to life sayd Now in this I haue knowen that thou art a man of God and the word of our Lord in thy mouth is true Christ Matt 11. V. 3.4.5 being asked whether he was the Messias proved himself to be such by the Miracle which he wrought The blind see the lame walke the lepers are made cleane the deafe heare the dead rise againe Which words signify that Miracles are not only effectuall but necessary to proue the truth of a Doctrine contrary to what was receyved before Yea Joan 5.36 Miracles are called a greater testimony thē John Marc vlt they preached every where our Lord working withall and consirming the Word with signes that followed 2. Cor 12. V. 12. The signes of my Apostleship haue beene done vpon you in all patience and wonders and mighty deeds Hebr. 2.4 God withall testifying by signes and wonders and divers Miracles But why do I vrge this Point You clearly confess it Pag 144. N. 31. in these words 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 Aposiles doctrine was thus confirmed therfore it was intirely true and in no part either false or vncertaine 10. Now put these Truths togeather Many and great Miracles haue bene wrought by professours of the Roman Religion and particularly in confirmation of it Miracles are vndoubted Proofes of the true Church Faith and Religion What will follow but that the Roman Faith and Religion is entirely true and in no part either false or vncertaine Wherfore men desirous of their Eternall salvation may say confidently with B. S. Austine Lib de Vtilit credendi Cap 17. Dubitabimus nos ejus Ecclesiae c. Shall we doubt to rest in the bosome of that Church which with the acknowledgment of mankind hath obtained the height of Authority from the Apostolique Sea by Succession of Bishops Heretikes in vaine barking about her and being condemned partly by the judgment of the people partly by the gravity of Councells partly by the Majesty of Miracles To which not to giue the first place is indeed either most great impiety or precipitous arrogancie 11. Behold the Notes of the true Church Miracles Succession of Bishops Which perpetuall Succession of Bishops is the Ground and Foundation of the Amplitude Propagation Splendor and Glory of the Church promised by God ād foretold by the Prophets as may be seene Isaiae Chap 60. Vers 22. Chap 2. Vers 2. Chap 49. Vers 23. Chap. 54. Vers 2.3 Psalm 2.8 Dan 2.44 Which Promises some learned Protestants finding evidently not to be fulfilled in the Protestant Church which before Luther was none and being resolved not to embrace the Catholique Church wherin alone those Promises are clearly fulfilled fell
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
externall communion in Sacraments Liturgy c. vpon pretence of Errours in the Faith and corruptions in the discipline of the Church and were so farr from repenting themselves of such their proceedings or admitting any votum or desire to be vnited with the Church that they held all such repentance to be a sin wherby they certainly exclude themselves from Gods Grace and Charity and so it appeares that by meere Excommunication one is not separated from the Church as a Schismatike is nor is a Schismatike first separated because he is excomunicated but is excommunicated because he is a Schismatike and had been divided from the Church though he had never been excommunicated or though the excommunication were taken away Besides as I touched already it is ridiculous to say that the Church requires as a condition of her Communion the profession of her errours in Faith and externall Communion in Sacraments Liturgy and other publike worship of God For profession of the same Faith and communion in Sacraments c. is the very thing wherin Communion consists or rather is the Communion itselfe and therfore is not an extrinsecall or accidentall condition voluntarily required by the Church or to be conceived as a thing separable from her communion and so you speake as if one should say Profession of the same Faith is a condition required for Communion in profession of the same Faith It was therfore no condition required by vs that made Protestants leaue our Communion but they first left our Communion by their Voluntary proper Act of leaving vs which essentially is incompatible with our Communion This whole matter will appeare more clearly by the next Reason 95. Fourthly Either there was just cause for your separation from the Communion of the Church or there was not If not then by your owne confession you are Schismatiks seing you define Schisme to be a causeless separation in which case the Church may justly impose vnder paine of Excommunication a necessity of your returne and then your Memorandum cannot haue place nor can excuse you from Schisme since such an imposing a necessity would vpon that supposition be both lawfull and necessary If there were just cause for your separation then you had been excused from Schisme though the Church had never imposed vnder payne of Excommunication a necessity of professing knowne errours because you say Schisme is a Causless separation and surely that separation is not causelesse for which there is just cause Wherfore your Memorandum about imposing vpon men a necessity c is both impertinent and incoherent with your first Memordium That not every separation but a causeless separation is the sin of Schisme And yet P. 282. N. 71. you say expressly It is to be observed that the chief part of our defence that you deny your Communion to all that deny or doubt of any part of your doctrine cannot with any colour be imployed against Protestants who grāt their communion to all who hold with them not all things but things necessary that is such as are in Scripture plainly delivered So still you vtter contradictions Wherfore the confessed chife part of your defense being confuted both by evident reason and out of your owne sayings it remaines that you will never be able to acquit yourselfe of Schisme 66. Fiftly How can you maintayne this your Memorandum and not giue full scope to all other Protestants who belieue not all the 39. Articles of the Church of England to be true of whom I am sure you are one to forsake her communion seing she excommunicates all whosoever shall affirme that the 39 Articles are in any parte superstitious or erroneous Is not this the very thing which you say is the cheef part of your defence for your separation from vs O Approbators Is it conforme to the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England to say Her communion may and must be forsaken And with what conscience could you Mr. Chillingworth communicate with English and other Protestants in their publike service corrupted with errours about the Trinity the Creed of S. Athā c as you belieue it is Or why could you not communicate with vs Or how will you excuse Luther who left vs 67. Yet I must not here omitt to obserue some Points First what a thing your Religion is which can so well agree and hold communion with innumerable Sects infinitly differing one from another and yet you conceiue yourselfe to be obliged to parte from vs Catholiks But so it is The false Gods of the Heathens and their Idolaters could handsomly agree amongst themselves but in no wise with the true God and his true worshippers An evident signe that the Catholique Roman Religion is only true and teaches the right worship of God and way to salvation Falshoods may stand togeather but cannot consist with truth 68. Secondly If as you tell vs things necessary be such as are in Scripture plainly deliuered points not Fundamentall of themselves become Fundamentall because they are revealed in Scripture and it is Fundamentall to the Faith of a Christian to belieue all Truths sufficiently proposed as revealed by God as Potter expressly grants Seing then Protestants differ in points which one part verily believes to be plainly delivered in Scripture and consequently in things necessary according to your assertion they cannot grant their communion to those who hold not with them in such necessary points that is in effect in all things wherin they disagree For every one judges his opinions to be plainly delivered in Scripture How then can they be excused from Schisme in their separation from vs while they hold Communion with other Protestants and thinke they may and ought to do so and that in doing otherwise they should be Schismatiks Which Argument still presses them more forcibly if we reflect that many of the most learned Protestants in divers chiefe Articles of Faith stand with vs Catholiks against their pretended Brethren and therfore they must either parte from them or not parte from vs 69. Thirdly it appeares by your express words that they who differ in Points necessary must divide from one another though neither part impose vpon the other a necessity of professing known Errours and since every one thinks his Doctrine to be necessary that is plainly dedelivered in Scripture he cannot communicate with any of a contrary Faith though they do not pretend to impose a necessity c And so your memorandum about imposing a necessity c Which you say is the chiefe part of your defense comes to nothing even by your owne grounds and therfore you haue indeed no defense at all to free yourselves from Schisme 70. Fourthly When we speake of Points of Faith not Fundamentall it is alwayes vnderstood that they be sufficiently proposed and therfore are alwayes Fundamentall per accidens and the contrary Errours certainly damnable and consequently a necessary cause of separation no lesse then Errours against Points Fundamentall of themselves and seing
if it should containe more And yet even in this one point there could be agreement only in words among Protestants themselves or with vs. For in the sense I haue shewed elswere that Protestants disagree about Faith or what to belieue signifies and about the Attributes and perfections of the Deity and his Title of a Rewarder and about our Saviour Christ whether he be true God Whether he be to be adored Whether to be invoked Vid Volkel Lib 4. Cap 11. Whether reverence to be done to his sacred name Jesus And many other such points And then I pray what Communion could there be in a worship of God consisting only in words or in prating like parrots with infinite difference in the meaning of them and such a difference as one part holds the contrary to belieue damnable errours even in that one Point in which they must be supposed to agree as in a Forme common to all in Errours I say damnable as being repugnant to the Testimony of that God whom they pretend to worship Jewes and Turks belieue that God is and that he is a rewarder and Philosophers believed that there is a God and some of them in generall that he is a rewarder What a sight would it be to behold all these in one Church or Quire of Christians as agreeing in this generall Liturgy Of which Jewes Turks and Philosophers might say in your owne words Behold we propose a Forme of Liturgy which all sides hold to be lawfull Why then do you not joyne with vs If you answer them because they erre in other points they might reply what is that to the purpose as long as a necessity of professing those Errours is not imposed vpon you Or if it be not lawfull to communicate with men of different Faith and Religion though they do as it were abstract from that in which they differ how can Catholiks communicate with you or Protestants with one another or how can you say If you would propose a Forme of Liturgy which both sides hold lawfull and then they would not joyne with you in this Liturgy you might haue some colour then to say they renounce your Communion absolutely seing men of different faith cannot communicate togeather even in a Forme of Liturgy which both sides hold lawfull Or if they may you cannot refuse your Communion to Jewes and Turks in such a common Forme of Liturgy I therfore conclude that either you may communicate with Jewes Turkes c. or els you must confess that men of different faith cannot communicate in one Liturgy and publike worship of God whatsoever imaginary Forme be proposed and that you renounce our Communion absolutely which you deny against all Truth and your owne grounds and the common grounds of Christianity vnless you will make vp one Church of Jewes Turks Philosophers condemned Heretiks and whatsoever different Sects and therfore you cannot avoide the just imputation of Schisme 82. Morover we know you disliked diverse Points in the publike Service of the Protestants Church of England as the Mystery of the Blessed Trinity the Creed of S. Athanasius c Now I aske whether you could with a good conscience be present at the English Service or no If you say you could because your intention was carryed only to that which was good and true and not to those particulars which you did belieue to be false and errours why may not Protestants on their part be present at Masse and our publike worship of God And why do they alledg as a cause of their forsaking our externall communion in Liturgy the corruptions thereof Or why do you require a Forme of Liturgy which all sides hold lawfull if one may be present at some corrupt worship of God so that he intend to participate and communicate only in what is good And you cannot deny but that in our Liturgy there are many good and holy things out of which the ProtestaÌ„t church of EnglaÌ„d transcribed divers things into their booke of coÌ„mon prayer wherby they proue theÌ„selves true Heretiks or chusers accepting or rejecting what they please aÌ„d deceyving simple people as if there were small differeÌ„ce betwixt English Protestants and Catholiks Or how could you wickedly perswade Catholiks to go to Protestant Service which you know we belieue to containe Errours against our Faith and Religion and yet pretend that Protestants were obliged to forsake our Communion in Liturgy c. Or if they were not obliged to forsake vs how can they be excused from Schisme in doing so If you could not be present at the English Service which was the other part of my demand the reason must be because men of different Faith cannot communicate in one publike worship of God or Liturgy And the further reason of this because such a communicating or Communion were indeed a reall and practicall approbation of such a Communion and of such a Church stayned with Errours and consequently how can one Protestant communicate with an other whom they belieue to erre in points of Faith and yet thinke they are obliged not to communicate with vs Truly they cannot possibly giue any reason for this their proceeding and as I may say acception of persons the merit or demerite of the cause being the same For this Rule it is not lawfull for men of different Faith to communicate in Liturgy and publike worship of God is vniversally true and the contrary is only a ready way to breed confusion stisle all zeale overthrow Religion and is of its owne nature intrinsecè malum though there were no scandall danger of being perverted and the like as really alwayes there are Certainly if in any case a Catholike can be sayed to approue and participate with Heretikes as such it is by communion in the same Liturgy and divine offices and never more than when it happens to be with such Heretiks as did purposely reject the Liturgy of Catholiks as superstitions and corrupted and framed an other as proper to themselves which happened in England in direct opposition to our Liturgy to which proceeding of theirs hee in fact consents and gives approbation who refuseth not to be present at their Service so opposite â—o our Liturgy Whosoever considers the zeale of all Antiquity in abhorring the least shaddow of communion with Heretiks will haue just cause to lament the coldnesse of them who seeke by distinctions and speculations to induce a pernicious participation of justice with Iniquity a society between light and darkness an agreement with â—hrist and Belial a participation of the faithfull with the infidell as we haue heard our adversaryes confess every Errour against a Divine Truth sufficiently propounded to be Infidelity Holy Scripture Num 16.26 speaking of Core Dathan and Abiron saith Depart from the tabernacles of the impious men and touch you not those things which pertaine to them least you be enwrapped in their sin What then shall we say of those who will not depart I say not from the tabernacles
those Protestants who affirme the Roman Church to haue lost the Nature and Being of a true Church do by inevitable consequence grant that for diverse Ages Christ had no Visible Church an earth From which Errour because Dr. Potter disclaimeth he must of necessity maintaine that the Roman Church is free from Fundamētall ād damnable Errours and that she is not cut off from the Body of Christ and Hope of salvation And if saith he ibidem any Zealops amongst vs haue proceeded to heavyer Censures their zeale may be excused but their Charity and wisdome cannot be justifyed Thus Charity Maintayned in that place and then immediatly proves clearly that the Grecians Waldenses Wicklef Huss Muscovites Armenians Georgians Aethiopians or Abissines either held damnable Heresyes confessed to be such both by Catholiks and Protestants or els that they agree with vs Catholiks in the particular doctrines wherin Protestants haue for saken vs. This being so who can deny but that if Luther and his followers were Schismatiks for leaving the externall communion of all visible Churches which for the present you are content to suppose the Roman Church taken in this sense which you haue heard Charity Maintayned declare was that visible Church seing there was no true Church of Christ but the Roman in that sense in which she is not a particular but the vniversall Church including all true Churches And yet by way of supererogation Charity Maintayned said N. 55. Pag 229. that Luther and his followers had been Schismatiks though the Roman were but a particular Church because Potter Pag 76. saith Whosoever professes himselfe to forsake the communion of any one member of the Body of Christ must confesse himselfe consequently to forsake the whole Since therfore in the same place he expressly acknowledges the Church of Rome to be a member of the Body of Christ and that it is cleare they forsooke Her and professe to haue done so it followes evidently that they forsooke the whole and therfore are most properly Schismatiks for leaving the Roman Church whether you take it for a particular or for the vniversall Church that is for all Churches which agreed with Her and so your instance P. 263. N. 27. that the foote might say to the head I acknowledg there is a Body and yet that no member besides you is this Body nor yet that you are it but only a part of it hath indeed neither head nor foote Because when we say the Roman Church is the vniversall Church we speake not of Her as a particular Church or part of the whole but taken with all other Churches and consequently as a Whole and then you are not to aske whether the foote be the whole Body but whether head foote and all other parts taken together be not the whole Body which if you cannot deny you must confess that your owne instance is against yourself and for vs. 85. By this also is answered what you say that Protestants make not the true preaching of the word and due adminstration of the Sacraments the Notes of the visible Church but only of a visibble Church Not of the Church Catholique or the whole Church but of a particular Church or a part of the Catholique But out of what we haue sayd this appeares to be a plaine contradiction For if they be Notes of every particular Church or of every part of the whole they must also be Notes of the whole which is nothing but every part as joyned with all the rest or the parts taken collectiuè that is the whole number of parts which is nothing but the whole Body consisting of such parts As if vitall actions be a Note or signe of the presence of our soule or life in every part of our Body it must also be a signe of life in the whole Body consisting of all its parts Will you haue the whole an Idaea Platonica separate from all parts how then can the true preaching of the word be a signe of every part of the Church and not of the whole Or will you haue the whole or vniversall Church want an essentiall note of a true Church But as every where so here you take more vpon you in behalfe of Protestants than you haue commission from them to doe The English Protestant Church Artic 19. saith The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithfull men in the which the pure word of God is preached and the Sacraments be duly ministred Where you see the visible Church is called a congregation and therfore no such necessary difference passes between the Church and a Congregation or Church as you confidently affirme Will you say that the Church which you will haue to signify the vniversall or whole Church is a congregation that is a particular Church And yet the sayd 19. Article saith The Church of Christ is a congregation that is according to your Divinity a particular Church Or by what Logick can you say that the Subjectum in a proposition can be of a larger extent than the Praedicatum and the vniversall Church affirmed to be a particular Church Also if preaching of the word be not a Note of the visible Church how comes it to be put in the very definition of it Willet in his Synopsis Pag 71. saith These markes eannor be absent from the Church it is no longer A true Church than it hath these markes And Pag 69. The only absence of them doth make a nullity of the Church Behold Preaching of the word c Markes both of the and a Church And these markes are sayd to be essentiall to both yea both the and a are applied to the same Church And as I sayd it is strang in you to imagine that what is essentiall to every part must not necessarily be essentiall to the whole or that the whole must participate of the parts and not of that which is essentiall to them or that the parts by being vnited to compound one whole must loose that which was essentiall to them before such an vnion or composition that is that they must loose themselves by loosing that which was essentiall to them But if these cleare reasons will not serve at least be content to be convinced by your owne words Pag 294. N. 93. Where you must suppose that it is a good Argument to make an inference from every one of the parts to the whole What is say you this Catholique Church but the society of men wherof every particular and by consequence the whole company is or may be guilty of many sins dayly committed against knowledg and conscience Now I would fame vnderstand why one Errour in Faith especially if not Fundamentall should not consist with the holyness of the Church as well as many and great sins committed against knowledg and conscience And why then do you not make the like consequence and say the visible Church is but a society of men consisting of diverse Churches wherof every particular and by consequence the
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
conforme to the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England Neither can you answer that your Arguments proceed only against the ground we goe on that intention of the Minister is necessary to the validity of Sacraments For if indeed it be not necessary then you must grant that those vncertaintyes which you exaggerate against our Baptisme Ordination c are but imaginary feares as yourself say Pag 358. That some mens perswasion that there is no such thing as an indeleble Character hinders them not from having it if there be any such thing no more than a mans perswasion that be has not taken Physick or Poyson will make him not to haue taken it if he has Though by your leaue this instance of Physick c is not convincing because they who deny an indeleble Character may perhaps out of an obstinate loue to their Heresy and hatred against our Doctrine resolve and intend rather not to receiue the Sacrament than to admit any thought that there is such a thing as a Character which you call a creature of our owne making a fancy of our oâ—ne Imagination and then really they receaue neither Character nor Sacrament and so if intention be not necessary the want of it cannot possibly make any Sacrament invalide If it be necessary you haue destroyed your owne Hierarchy while you impugne ours vpon this ground that we hold the intention of the Minister to be necessary Nay seing not only all Catholikes but some learned Protestants also teach intention to be necessary at least you cannot be sure that it is not so and then againe you must either renounce your owne Objections or vndermine and make doubtfull your Hierarchy Which you must do also in another respect For though you take our Catholique Doctrine about the necessity of intention as one ground of vncertainty for the validity of our SacrameÌ„ts yet you mention other Points which are common to vs and Protestants as that determinate Matter and Forme are essentiall to Sacraments and your English Church in particular in the Administration of Baptisme expressly saith If they which bring the infants to the Church do make such vncertaine answers to the Priests questions as that it cannot appeare that the child was baptized with water in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost which are essentiall parts of Baptisme then let the Priest baptise it in Forme aboue writteâ— concerning Publike Baptisme c And Pag 76. N. 64. You say To be certaine that one is a Priest he must know first that he was baptized with due Matter 2. With the due Forme of words which he cannoâ— know vnless he were both present and attentiue And N. 65. He must vndertake to know that the Bishop which ordayned him Prtest ordayned him compleatly with due Matter and Forme And N. 60. He must vndertake to know that the Bishop which made him Priest was a Priest himself And N. 67. He must protend to know the same of him that made him Priest even vntill he comes to the very fountaâ—ne of Priesthoed For take any one in the whole traine and Su cession of Ordainers and suppâ—se him by reason of any defect only a supposed and not a true Priest then according to your Doctrine and according to the Doctrine of Protestants also if the defect fall vpon the Matter or Forme he could not giue a true but only a supposed Priesthood and they that receyve it of him and againe they that derive it from them can giue no better than they receyved receyving nothing but a name and shadow can give nothing but a name and shadow and so from age to age from generation to generation being equivocall Fathers beget only equivocall Sons Thus you And it is Gods just judgmeÌ„t that the certainty aÌ„d validity of ProtestaÌ„ts OrdinatioÌ„s aÌ„d their whole Hierarchy of Bishops should be made questionable seing they could endure the publishing of your Booke wherin the certainty of Christian Faith is denyed 31. But now to say somthing by this occasion concerning the Intention in administration of Sacraments whatsoever you are pleased to say yet in true judgment there is less danger of any defect in that behalf than in any other for example of Matter or Forme which may be vitiated both by the malice of the Minister and also against his will wheras a due Intention is wholly in his owne power and will and as I may say costs him nothing and we suppose him to be a man not a Divell delighting in the damnation of Soules without any self interest or if in your Charity you will suppose him to be so full of malice it is easy for him to vitiate the Forme For seing the validity of the Sacrament doth not oblige him to speake with a voice loud and audible to others he may pretend to speak the forme secretly and yet either say nothing at all and so omit the Forme or els say somthing els or if he pronounce most of the words audibly he may with an vnder-voyce interpose some words which will destroy the Forme as if for example he say openly I Baptize the and secretly put in this word Not in the Name of the Father c And this he may be induced to doe by your doctrine that Intention is not necessary and so the want of it will not invalidate the Sacrament and therfoâ— to be sure of some defect to be committed in that which is essentially necesary even in the opinion of Protestants he will procure to corrupt the matter oâ— forme or both 32. Besides as I began to say aboue some chief learned Protestants teach the necessity of Intention in the Ministers of Sacraments Pag 326. N. 3. you stile Mr. Hooker a Protestant Divine of great Authority and no way singular in his opinions and yet this very man who you say is not singular in his Opinions in his sift Booke of Ecclesiasticall Policy Sect 58. sayth That in as much as Sacraments are Actions religious and mysticall which nature they haue not vnless they proceed from a serious meaning and what every mans private mynd is as we cannot know so neither are we bound to examine therfor alwayes in these cases the knowne inof the Church generally doth suffice and where the contrary is not manifest we may presume that he which outwardly doth the worke hath inwardly the purpose of the Church of God Consider how this your Divine of great Authority affirmes that Sacraments cannot be so much as religious and mysticall actions which are Attributes essentiall to Sacraments vnless they proceede from a serious meaning and that this meaning hath noe difficulty seing it suffices that one intend to exercise that Action as Christians are wont to doe which intention we may in a manner say a man cannot chuse but haue For though he were a Pagan yet if he intended to do what Christians are wont to doe in that particular action it were sufficient Covell also in