errours which were not damnable I answere All that we forfake in you is only the beliefe and practice and profession of your Errors Hereupon you cast us out of your Communion And then with a strange and contradictious and ridiculous hypocrisy complain that we forsake it As if a man should thrust his friend out of doores and then be offended at his departure But for us not to forsake the beliefe of your Errors having discovered them to be Errors was impossible and therefore to doe so could not be damnable believing them to be Errors Not to forsake the practice and profession of them had been damnable hypocrisie supposing that which you vainly runne away with and take for graunted those errors in themselves were not damnable Now to doe so and as matters now stand not to forsake your Communion is apparently contradictious seeing the condition of your Communion is that we must professe to believe all your doctrines not only not to be damnable errors which will not content you but also to be certain and necessary and revealed truths So that to demand why we forsake your Communion upon pretence of Errors which were not damnable is in effect to demand why we forsooke it upon our forsaking it For to pretend that there are Errors in your Church though not damnable is ipso facto to forsake your Communion and to doe that which both in your account and as you think in Gods account puts him as does so out of your Communion So that either you must free your Church from requiring the belief of any errour whatsoever damnable and not damnable or whether you will or no you must free us from Schisme For schisme there cannot be in leaving your communion unlesse we were obliged to continue in it Man cannot be obliged by Man but to what either formally or virtually he is obliged by God for all just power is from God God the eternall truth neither can nor will obliege us to believe any the least and the most innocent falshood to be a divine truth that is to erre nor to professe a known errour which is to lye So that if you require the belief of any errour among the conditions of your Communion our obligation to communicate with you ceaseth and so the imputation of schisme to us vanisheth into nothing but lies heavy upon you for making our seperation from you just and necessary by requiring unnecessary and unlawfull conditions of your Communion Hereafter therefore I intreat you let not your demand be how could we forsake your Communion without Schisme seeing you err'd not damnably But how we could doe so without Schisme seeing you err'd not at all which if either you doe prove or we cannot disprove it we will I at least will for my part returne to your Communion or subscribe my selfe Schismatique In the mean time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 23 Yet notwitstanding all your Errors we doe not renounce your Communion totally and absolutely but only leave Communicating with you in the practise and profession of your Errors The tryall whereof will be to propose some forme of worshipping God taken wholly out of Scripture and herein if we refuse to joyn with you then and not till then may you justly say we have utterly and absolutely abandoned your Communion 24 To the sixteenth Your sixt demand I have already satisfied in my answeres to the Second and the Fourth and in my reply Ad § 2. toward the end And though you say your repeating must be excused yet I dare not be so confident and therefore forbear it 25 To the seaventeenth To the seaventh Whether errour against any one truth sufficiently propounded as testified by God destroy not the Nature and Vnity of Faith or at least is not a grievous offence excluding salvation I answere if you suppose as you seem to doe the proposition so sufficient that the party to whom it is made is convinc'd that it is from God so that the denyall of it involves also with it the denyall of Gods veracity any such errour destroyes both faith and salvation But if the Proposall be only so sufficient not that the party to whom it is made is convinc'd but only that he should and but for his own fault would have been convinc'd of the divine verity of the doctrine proposed The crime then is not so great for the beliefe of Gods veracity may well consist with such an Errour Yet a fault I confesse it is and without Repentance damnable if all circumstances considered the proposall be sufficient But then I must tell you that the proposall of the present Roman Church is only pretended to be sufficient for this purpose but is not so especially all the Rayes of the Divinity which they pretend to shine so conspicuously in her proposalls being so darkned and even extinguished with a cloud of contradiction from Scripture Reason and the Ancient Church 26 To the Eighteenth To the eight How of disagreeing Protestants both parts may hope for salvation seeing some of them must needs erre against some Truth testified by God I answere 1. The most disagreeing Protestants that are yet thus farre agree that these books of Scripture which were never doubted of in the Church are the undoubted word of God and a perfect rule of faith 2. That the sense of them which God intended whatsoever it is is certainly true So that they believe implicitely even those very truths against which they erre and why an implicit faith in Christ and his Word should not suffice as well as an implicit faith in your Church I have desired to be resolved by many of your Side but never could 3. That they are to use their best endeavours to beleive the Scripture in the true sense and to live according to it This if they performe as I hope many on all Sides doe truly and syncerely it is impossible but that they should believe aright in all things necessary to salvation that is in all those things which appertain to the Covenant between God and man in Christ for so much is not only plainly but frequently contained in Scripture And believing aright touching the Covenant if they for their parts perform the condition required of them which is syncere obedience why should they not expect that God will performe his promise and give them salvation For as for other things which lye without the Covenant and are therefore lesse necessary if by reason of the seeming conflict which is oftentimes between Scripture and Reason and Authority on the one side and Scripture Reason and Authority on the other if by reason of the variety of tempers abilities educations unavoidable prejudices whereby mens understandings are variously form'd and fashion'd they doe embrace severall Opinions whereof some must be erroneous to say that God will damne them for such errors who are lovers of him and lovers of truth is to rob man of his comfort and God of his goodnesse it is to make Man
circumstance is the office rather of Prudence then of Faith 4 Thus we allow Protestants as much Charity as D. Potter spares us for whom in the words above mentioned and else where he makes Ignorance the best hope of salvation Much lesse comfort can we expect from the fierce dâ—â—trine of those chiefe Protestants who teach that for many ages before Luther Christ had no visible Church upon earth Not these men alone or such as they but even the 39. Articles to which the English Protestant Clergy subscribes censure our beliefe so deeply that Ignorance can scarce or rather not at all excuse us from damnation Our doctrine of Transubstantiation is affirmed to be repugnant to the plaine words of Scripture our Masses to be blasphemous Fables with much more to be seen in the Articles themselves In a certaine Confession of the Christian faith at the end of their books of Psalmes collected into Meeter and printed Cum privilegio Regis Regali they call us Idolaters and limmes of Antichrist and having set downe a Catalogue of our doctrines they conclude that for them we shall after the Generall Resurrection be damned to unquenchable fire 5 But yet least any man should flatter himselfe with our charitable Mitigations and thereby wax carelesse in search of the true Church we desire him to read the Conclusion of the Second Part where this matter is more explained 6 And because we cannot determine what Iudgment may be esteemed rash or prudent except by weighing the reasons upon which it is grounded we will heere under one aspect present a Summary of those Principles from which we infer that Protestancy in it selfe unrepented destroyes Salvation intending afterward to prove the truth of every one of the grounds till by a concatenation of sequels we fall upon the Conclusion for which we are charged with Wanâ— of Charity 7 Now this is our gradation of reasons Almighty God having ordained Mankind to a supernaturall End of eternall felicity hath in his holy Providence setled competent and convenient Meanes whereby that end may be attained The universall grand Origen of all such means is the Incarnation and Death of our Blessed Saviour whereby he merited internall grace for us and founded an externall visible Church provided and stored with all those helps which might be necessary for Salvation From hence it followeth that in this Church amongst other advantages there must be some effectuall meanes to beget and conserve faith to maintaine Vnity to discover and condemne Heresies to appease and reduce Schismes and to determine all Controversies in Religion For without such meanes the Church should not be furnished with helps sufficient to salvation nor God afford sufficient meanes to attayne that End to which himselfe ordained Mankind This meanes to decide Controversies in faith and Religion whether it should be the holy Scripture or whatsoever else must be indued with an Vniversall Infallibility in whatsoever it propoundeth for a divine truth that is as revealed spoken or testifyed by Almighty God whether the matter of its nature be great or small For if it were subject to errour in any one thing we could not in any other yield it infallible assent because we might with good reason doubt whether it chanced not to erre in that particular 8 Thus farre all must agree to what wee have said unlesse they have a mind to reduce Faith to Opinion And even out of these grounds alone without further proceeding it undenyably followes that of two men dissenting in matters of faith great or small few or many the one connot be saved without repentance unlesse Ignorance accidentally may in some particular person plead excuse For in that case of contrary beliefe one must of necessity be held to oppose Gods word or Revelation sufficiently represented to his understanding by an infallible Propounder which opposition to the Testimony of God is undoubtedly a damnable sin whether otherwise the thing so testified be in it selfe great or small And thus wee have already made good what was promised in the argument of this Chapter that amongst men of different Religions one is only capable of being saved 9 Neverthelesse to the end that men may know in particular what is the said infallible meanes upon which we are to rely in all things concerning Fayth and accordingly may be able to judge in what safety or danger more or lesse they live and because D. Potter descendeth to divers particulars about Scriptures and the Church c. we will goe forward and prove that although Scripture be in it selfe most sacred infallible and divine yet it alone cannot be to us a Rule or Iudge fit an able to end all doubts and debates emergent in matters of Religion but that there must be some externall visible publique living Iudge to whom all sorts of persons both learned and unlearned may without danger of errour have recourse and in whose Iudgment they may rest for the interpreting and propounding of Gods Word or Revelation And this living Iudge we will most evidently prove to be no other but that Holy Catholique Apostolique and Visible Church which our Saviour purchased with the effusion of his most precious bloud 10 If once therefore it be granted that the Church is that means which God hath left for deciding all Controversies in faith it manifestly will follow that shee must be infallible in all her determinations whether the matters of themselves be great or small because as we said above it must be agreed on all sides that if that meanes which God hath left to determine Controversies were not infallible in all things proposed by it as truths revealed by Almighty God it could not settle in our minds a firme and infallible beliefe of any one 11 From this Vniversall infallibility of Gods Church it followeth that whosoever wittingly denyeth any one point proposed by her as revealed by God is injurious to his divine Majesty as if he could either deceive or be deceived in what he testifieth The averring whereof were not a fundamentall error but would overthrow the very foundation of all fundamentall points and therefore without repentance could 〈◊〉 possibly stand with salvation 12 Out of these grounds we will shew that although the distinction of points fundamentall and not fundamentall be good and usefull as it is delivered and applied by Catholique Divines to teach what principall Articles of faith Christians are obliged explicitely to believe yet that it is impertinent to the present purpose of excusing any man from grievous sinne who knowingly disbelieves that is believes the contrary of that which Gods Church proposeth as divine Truth For it is one thing not to know explicitly some thing testifyed by God another positively to oppose what we know he hath restified The former may often be excused from sin but never the latter which only is the case in Question 13 In the same manner shall be demonstrated that to alleadge the Creed as containing all Articles of
faith necessary to be explicitely believed is not pertinent to free from sinne the voluntary deniall of any other point knowen to be defined by Gods Church And this were sufficient to overthrow all that D. Potter alleadgeth concerning the Creed though yet by way of Supererogation we will prove that there are divers important matters of Faith which are not mentioned at all in the Creed 14 From the aforesaid maine principle that God hath alwaies had and alwaies will have on earth a Church Visible within whose Communion Salvation must be hoped and infallible whose definitions we ought to believe we will prove that Luther Calvin and all other who continue the division in Communion or Faith from that Visible Church which at and before Luther's appearance was spread over the world cannot be excused from Schisme and Heresy although they opposed her faith but in one only point whereas it is manifest they dissent from her in many and weighty matters concerning as well beliefe as practise 15 To these reasons drawne from the vertue of Faith we will adde one other taken from Charitas propria the Vertue of Charity as it obligeth us not to expose our soule to hazard of perdition when we can put ourselves in a way much more secure as we will prove that of the Roman Catholiques to be 16 We are then to prove these points First that the infallible means to determine controversies in matters of faith is the visible Church of Christ. Secondly that the distinction of points fundamentall and not fundamentall maketh nothing to our present Question Thirdly that to say the Creed containes all fundamentall points of faith is neither pertinent nor true Fourthly that both Luther and all they who after him persist in division from the Communion and Faith of the Roman Church cannot be excused from Schisme Fiftly nor from Heresy Sixtly and lastly that in regard of the precept of Charity towards ones selfe Protestants be in state of sinne as long as they remaine divided from the Roman Church And these six points shall be severall Arguments for so many ensuing Chapters 17 Only I will here observe that it seemeth very strange that Protestants should charge us so deeply with Want of Charity for only teaching that both they and we cannot be saved seeing themselves must affirme the like of whosoever opposeth any least point delivered in Scripture which they hold to be the sole Rule of Faith Out of which ground they must be enforced to let all our former Inferences passe for good For is it not a grievous sinne to deny any one truth contained in holy Writ Is there in such deniall any distinction betwixt points fundamentall and not fundamentall sufficient to excuse from heresy Is it not impertinent to alleadge the Creed containing all fundamentall points of faith as if believing it alone we were at liberty to deny all other points of Scripture In a word According to Protestants Oppose not Scripture there is no Errour against faith Oppose it in any least point the error if Scripture be sufficiently proposed which proposition is also required before a man can be obliged to believe even fundamentall points must be damnable What is this but to say with us Of persons contrary in whatsoever point of beliefe one party only can be saved And D. Potter must not take it ill if Catholiques believe they may be saved in that Religion for which they suffer And if by occasion of this doctrine men will still be charging us with Want of Charity and be resolved to take scandall where none is given we must comfort our selves with that grave and true saying of S. Gregory If scandall be taken from declaring a truth it is better to permit scandall then forsake the truth But the solid grounds of our Assertion and the sincerity of our intention in uttering what wee think yield us confidence that all will hold for most reasonable the saying of Pope Gelasius to Anastasius the Emperour Farre â—e it from the Roman Emperour that he should hold it for a wrong to have truth declared to him Let us therefore begin with that Point which is the first that can be controverted betwixt Protestants and us for as much as concernes the present Question and is contained in the Argument of the next ensuing Chapter THE ANSWER TO THE FIRST CHAPTER Shewing that the Adversary grants the Former Question and proposeth a New one And that there is no reason why among men of different opinions and Communions one Side only can be sav'd 1. TO the first § Your first onset is very violent D. Potter is charg'd with malice and indiscretion for being uncharitable to you while he is accusing you of uncharitablenesse Verily a great fault and folly if the accusation be just if unjust a great calumnie Let us see then how you make good your charge The effect of your discourse if I mistake not is this D. Potter chargeth the Roman Church with many and great errours judgeth reconciliation betweene her Doctrine and ours impossible and that for them who are convicted in Conscience of her Errors not to forsake her in them or to be reconcil'd unto her is damnable Therefore if Roman Catholiques be convicted in conscience of the Errours of Protestants they may and must judge a reconciliation with them damnable consequently to judge so is no more uncharitable in theÌ„ then it is in the Doctor to judge as he does All this I grant nor would any Protestant accuse you of want of Charity if you went no further if you judg'd the Religion of Protestants damnable to them only who professe it being convicted in conscience that it is erroneous For if a man judge some act of vertue to be a sinne in him it is a sinne indeed So you have taught us p. 19. So if you be convinc'd or rather to speake properly perswaded in conscience that our Religion is erroneous the profession of it though in it selfe most true to you would be damnable This therefore I subscribe very willingly and withall that if you said no more D. Potter and my selfe should not be to Papists only but even to Protestants as uncharitable as you are For I shall alwaies professe and glory in this uncharitablenesse of judging hypocrisie a damnable sinne Let Hypocrites then and Dissemblers on both sides passe It is not towards them but good Christians not to Protestant Professors but Believers that we require your Charity What think you of those that believe so verily the truth of our Religion that they are resolv'd to die in it and if occasion were to die for it What Charity have you for them What think yee of those that in the dayes of our Fathers laid down their lives for it are you content that they shall be saved or doe you hope they may be so Will you grant that notwithstanding their Errours there is good hope they might die with repentance and if they did so certainly they are
Tradition Now nothing but Scripture hath thus descended to us Therefore nothing but Scripture can challenge our beliefe Now then to come up closer to you and to answer to your Question not as you put it but as you should haue put it I say That this position Scripture alone is the rule whereby they which belieue it to be Gods Word are to judge all Controversies in Faith is no fundameÌ„tall point Though not for your Reasons For your first and strongest reason you see is plainly voided and cut off by my stating of the Question as I haue done and supposing in it that the parties at variance are agreed about this That the Scripture is the word of God and consequently that this is none of their Controversies To your second That Controversies cannot be ended without some living Authority We haue said already that necessary Controversies may be are decided And if they be not ended this is not through defect of the Rule but through the default of Men. And for these that cannot thus be ended it is not necessary they should be ended For if God did require the ending of them he would have provided some certain meanes for the ending of them And to your Third I say that your pretence of using these meanes is but hypocriticall for you use them with prejudice and with a setled resolution not to believe any thing which these meanes happily may suggest into you if it any way crosse your pre-conceav'd persuasion of your Churches infallibility You give not your selves liberty of judgement in the use of them nor suffer your selves to bee led by them to the Truth to which they would lead you would you but be as willing to believe this consequence Our Church doth oppose Scripture therefore it doth erre therefore it is not Infallible as you are resolute to believe this The Church is infallible therefore it doth not erre and therefore it doth not oppose Scripture though it seem to doe so never so plainly 157 You pray but it is not that God would bring you to the true Religion but that he would confirm you in your own You conferre places but it is that you may confirm or colour over with plausible disguises your erroneous doctrine not that you may judge of them forsake them if there be reason for it You consult the Originalls but you regard them not when they make against your Doctrine or Translation 158 You adde not only the Authority but the Infallibility not of Gods Church but of the Roman a very corrupt and degenerous part of it whereof D. Potter never confessed that it cannot erre damnably And which being a company made up of particular men can afford you no help but the industry learning and wit of private men and that these helps may not help you out of your errour tell you that you must make use of none of all these to discover any errour in the Church but only to maintaine her impossibility or erring And lastly D. Potter assures himselfe that your Doctrine and practises are damnable enough in themselves Only he hopes and spes est rei incertae nomen he hopes I say that the Truths which you retain especially the necessity of repentance and faith in Christ will bee as an antidote to you against the errours which you maintain and that your superstructions may burne yet they amongst you Qui sequun tur Absalonem in simplicitate cor dis may be saved yet so as by fire Yet his thinking so is no reason for you or me to think so unlesse you suppose him infallible and if you doe why doe you write against him 159 Notwithstanding though not for these reasons yet for others I conceive this Doctrine not Fundamentall Because if a man should believe Christian Religion wholly and entirely and live according to it such a man though he should not know or not believe the Scripture to be a Rule of Faith no nor to be the word of God my opinion is he may be saved and my reason is because he performes the entire condition of the new Covenant which is that we believe the matter of the Gospell and not that it is contained in these or these Bookes So that the Bookes of Scripture are not so much the objects of our faith as the instruments of conveying it to our understanding and not so much of the being of the Christian Doctrine as requisite to the well being of it Irenaeus tels us as M. K. acknowledgeth of some barbarous Nations that believed the Doctrine of Christ and yet believed not the Scripture to be the word of God for they never heard of it and Faith comes by hearing But these barbarous people might be saved therefore men might be saved without believing the Scripture to be the word of God much more without believing it to be a Rule and a perfect Rule of Faith Neither doubt I but if the bookes of Scripture had been proposed to them by the other parts of the Church where they had been before received and had been doubted of or even rejected by those barbarous nations but still by the bare beliefe and practise of Christianity they might be saved God requiring of us under pain of damnation only to believe the verities therein contained and not the divine Authority of the bookes wherein they are contained Not but that it were now very strange and unreasonable if a man should belieue the matter of these bookes and not the Authority of the bookes and therefore if a man should professe the not believing of these I should have reason to fear he did not believe that But there is not alwaies an equall necessity for the belief of those things for the belief whereof there is an equall reason We have I believe as great reason to believe there was such a man as Henry the eight K. of England as that Iesus Christ suffered under Pontius Pilaâ—â— yet this is necessary to be believed and that is not so So that if any man should doubt of or disbelieve that it were most unreasonably done of of him yet it were no mortall sinne nor no sinne at all God having no where commanded men under pain of damnation to believe all which reason induceth them to believe Therefore as an Executor that should performe the whole will of the dead should fully satisfy the Law though he did not believe that Parchment to be his written Will which indeed is so So I believe that he who believes all the particular doctrines which integrate Christianity and lives according to them should be saved though he neither believed nor knew that the Gospels were written by the Evangelists or the Epistles by the Apostles 160 This discourse whether it be rationall and concluding or no I submit to better judgement But sure I am that the corollary which you draw from this position that this point is not Fundamentaâ— is very inconsequent that is that we are uncertain of the truth
damnable if the contrary truth be sufficiently propounded as revealed by God Therefore all errors are alike for the generall effect of damnation if the difference arise not from the manner of being propounded And what now is become of their distinction 5 I will therefore conclude with this Argument According to all Philosophy and Divinity the Vnity and distinction of every thing followeth the Nature and Essence thereof and therefore if the Nature and being of faith be not taken from the matter which a man believes but from the motive for which he believes which is Gods word or Revelation we must likewise affirme that the Vnity and Diversity of faith must be measured by Gods revelation which is alike for all objects and not by the smalnesse or greatnesse of the matter which we believe Now that the nature of faith is not taken from the greatnesse or smalnesse of the things believed is manifest because otherwise one who believes only fundamentall points and another who together with them doth also believe points not fundamentall should have faith of different natures yea there should be as many differences of faith as there are different points which men believe according to different capacities or instruction c. all which consequences are absurd and therefore we must say that Vnity in Faith doth not depend upon points fundamentall or not fundamentall but upon Gods revelation equally or unequally proposed and Protestants pretending an Vnity only by reason of their agreement in fundamentall points doe indeed induce as great a multiplicity of faith as there is multitude of different objects which are believed by them and since they disagree in things Equally revealed by Almighty God it is evident that they forsake the very Formall motive of faith which is Gods revelanon and consequently loose all Faith and Vnity therein 6 The first part of the Title of this Chapter That the distinction of points fundamentall and not fundamentall in the sense of Protestants is both impertinent and untrue being demonstrated let us now come to the second That the Church is infallible in all her definitions whether they concerne points fundamentall or not fundamentall And this I prove by these reasons 7 It hath been shewed in the precedent Chapter that the Church is Iudge of Controversies which she could not be if she could erre in any one point as Doctor Potter would not deny if he were once perswaded that she is Iudge Because if the could erre in some points we could not rely upon her Authority and Iudgment in any one thing 8 This same is proved by the reason we alleadged before that seeing the Church was infallible in all her definitions ere Scripture was written unlesse we will take away all certainty of faith for that time we cannot with any shew of reason affirme that shee hath been deprived thereof by the adjoyned confort and helpe of sacred writ 9 Moreover to say that the Catholique Church may propose any false doctrine maketh her lyable to damnable sinne and error and yet D. Potter teacheth that the Church cannot erre damnably For if in that kind of Oath which Divines call Assertorium wherein God is called to witnesse every falshood is a deadly sinne in any private person whatsoever although the thing be of it selfe neither materiall nor prejudiciall to any because the quantity or greatnesse of that sinne is not measured so much by the thing which is affirmed as by the manner and authority whereby it is avouched and by the injury that is offered to Almighty God in applying his testimony to a falshood in which respect it is the unanimous consent of all Divines that in such kind of Oathes no levitas materiae that is smallnes of matter can excuse from a morall sacriledge against the morall vertue of Religion which respects worship due to God If I say every least falshood be deadly sinne in the foresaid kind of Oath much more pernicious a sinne must it be in the publique person of the Catholique Church to propound untrue Articles of faith thereby fastning Gods prime Verity to falshood and inducing and obliging the world to doe the same Besides according to teh doctrine of all Divines it is not only injurious to Gods Eternall Verity to disbelieve things by him revealed but also to propose as revealed truths things not revealed as in common wealths it is a haynous offence to coyne either by counterfeiting the metall or the stamp or to apply the Kings seale to a writing counterfeit although the contents were supposed to be true And whereas to shew the detestable sinne of such pernitious fictions the Church doth most exemplarly punish all broachers of fained revelations visions miracles prophecies c. as in particular appeareth in the Councell of Lateran excommunicating such persons if the Church her selfe could propose false revelations she herselfe should have been the first chiefest deserver to have been censured and as it were excommunicated by herselfe For as the holy Ghost saith in Iob doth God need your lye that for him you may speak deceipts And that of the Apocalyps is most truly verified in fictitious revelations If any shall adde to these things God will adde unto him the plagues which are written in this book and D. Potter saith to adde to it speaking of the Creed is high presumption almost as great as to detract from it And therefore to say the Church may addefalse Revelations is to accuse her of high presumption and of pernitious errour excluding salvation 10 Perhaps some will here reply that although the Church may erre yet it is not imputed to her for sinne by reason shee doth not erre upon malice or wittingly but by ignorance or mistake 11 But it is easily demonstrated that this excuse cannot serve For if the Church be assisted only for points fundamentall she cannot but know that she may erre in points not fundamentall at least she cannot be certain that she cannot erre and therefore cannot be excused from headlong and pernitious temerity in proposing points not fundamentall to be believed by Christians as matters of faith wherein she can have no certainty yea which alwaies imply a falshood For although the thing might chance to be true and perhaps also revealed yet for the matter she for her part doth alwaies expose her selfe to danger of falshood and error and in fact doth alwaies erre in the â—anner in which she doth propound any matter not fundamentall because shee proposeth it as a point of faith certainly true which yet is alwaies uncertain if she in such things may be deceived 12 Besides if the Church may erre in points not fundamentall she may erre in proposing some Scripture for Canonicall which is not such or else not erre in keeping and conserving from corruptions such Scriptures as are already believed to be Canonicall For I will suppose that in such Apocryphaâ—â— Scripture as she delivers there is no fundamentall error against faith or
all things in their own hands may have altered them for their purpose If to this he answer again that the Church is infallible and therefore cannot doe so I hope it would be apparent that he runs round in a circle and proves the Scriptures incorruption by the Churches infallibility and the Churches infallibility by the Scriptures incorruption and that is in effect the Churches infallibility by the Churches infallibility and the Scriptures incorruption by the Scriptures incorruption 28 Now for your observation that some Bookes which were not alwaies known to be Canonicall have been afterwards received for such But never any book or syllable defined for Canonicall was afterwards questioned or rejected for Apocryphall I demand touching the first sort whether they were commended to the Church by the Apostles as Canonicall or not If not seeing the whole faith was preached by the Apostles to the Church and seeing after the Apostles the Church pretends to no new Revelations how can it be an Article of faith to believe them Canonicall And how can you pretend that your Church which makes this an article of faith is so assisted as not to propose any thing as a divine truth which is not revealed by God If they were how then is the Church an infallible keeper of the CanoÌ„ of Scripture which hath suffered some Bookes of Canonicall Scripture to be lost others to loose for a long time their being Canonicall at least the necessity of being so esteemed and afterwards as it were by the law of Post liminium hath restored their Authority and Canonicalnesse unto them If this was delivered by the Apostles to the Church the point was sufficiently discussed and therefore your Churches omission to teach it for some ages as an article of faith nay degrading it from the number of articles of faith and putting it among disputable problems was surely not very laudable If it were not revealed by God to the Apostles and by the Apostles to the Church then can it be no Revelation and therefore her presumption in proposing it as such is inexcusable 19 And then for the other part of it that never any book or syllable defined for Canonicall was afterwards question'd or rejected for Apocryphall Certainly it is a bold asseveration but extreamly false For I demand The Book of Ecclesiasticus and Wisdome the Epistle of Saint Iames and to the Heb. were they by the Apostles appoved for Canonicall or no If not with what face dare you approve them and yet pretend that all your doctrine is Apostolicall Especially seeing it is evident that this point is not deducible by rationall discourse from any other defined by them If they were approved by them this I hope was a sufficient definition and therefore you were best rub your forehead hard and say that these Books were never questioned But if you doe so then I shall be bold to aske you what bookes you meant in saying before Some bookes which were not alwaies known to be Canonicall have been afterwards received Then for the book of Macchabes I hope you will say it was defin'd for Canonicall before S. Gregories time and yet he lib. 19. Moral c. 13. citing a testimony out of it prefaceth to it after this manner Concerning which matter we doe not amisse if we produce a testimony out of Bookes although not Canonicall yet set forth for the edification of the Church For Eleazar in the Book of Machabees c. Which if it be not to reject it from being Canonicall is without question at least to question it Moreover because you are so punctuall as to talk of words and syllables I would know whether before Sixtus Quint us his time your Church had a defined Canon of Scripture or not If not then was your Church surely a most Vigilant keeper of Scripture that for 1500 yeares had not defined what was Scripture and what was not If it had then I demand was it that set forth by Sixtus or that set forth by Clement or a third different from both If it were that set forth by Sixtus then is it now condemned by Clement if that of Clement it was condemned I say but sure you will say contradicted and question'd by Sixtus If different from both then was it question'd and condemned by both and still lies under the condemnation But then lastly suppose it had been true That both some Book not known to be Canonicall had been received and that never any after receiving had been questioned How had this been a signe that the Church is infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost In what mood or figure would this conclusion follow out of these Premises Certainly your flying to such poor signes as these are is to me a great signe that you labour with penury of better arguments and that thus to catch at shadowes and bulâ—ushes is a shrewd signe of a sinking cause 30 Ad § 13. We are told here That the generall promises of Infallibility to the Church must not be restrained only to points fundamentall Because then the Apostles words and writings may also be so restrained The Argument put in forme and made compleat by supply of the concealed Proposition runs thus The Infallibility promised to the present Church of any age is as absolute and unlimited as that promised to the Apostles in their Preaching and Writings But the Apostles Infallibility is not to be limited to Fundamentalls Therefore neither is the Churches Infallibility thus to be limited Or thus The Apostles Infallibility in their Preaching and writing may be limited to Fundamentalls as well as the Infallibility of the present Church But that is not to be done Therefore this also is not to be done Now to this Argument I answere that if by may be as well in the major Proposition be understood may be as possibly it is true but impertinent If by it we understand may be as iustly and rightly It is very pertinent but very false So that as D. Potter limits the infallibility of the Present Church unto Fundamentalls so another may limit the Apostles unto them also He may doe it de facto but de iure he cannot that may be done and done lawfully this also may be done but not lawfully That may be done and if it be done cannot be confuted This also may be done but if it be done may easily be confuted It is done to our hand in this very Paragraph by five words taken out of Scripture All Scripture is divinely inspired Shew but as much for the Church Shew where it is written That all the decrees of the Church are divinely inspired and the Controversy will be at an end Besides there is not the same reason for the Churches absolute infallibility as for the Apostles and Scriptures For if the Church fall into error it may be reformed by comparing it with the rule of the Apostles doctrine and Scripture But if the Apostles have erred in delivering the doctrine of Christianity to whom
but seldom qualifies them or declares whether they be or be not absolutely necessary to salvation Yet not so seldome but that out of it I could giue you an abstract of the Essentiall part of Christianity if it were necessary but I haue shewed it not so by confuting your reason pretended for the necessity of it at this time I haue no leasure to doe you curtesies that are so troublesome to my selfe Yet thus much I will promise that when you deliver a particular Catalogue of your Church Proposals with one hand you shall receiue a particular Catalogue of what I conceiue Fundamentall with the other For as yet I see no such faire proceeding as you talke of nor any performance on your own part of that which so clamorously you require on ours For as for the Catalogue which heâ—e you haue given us in saying You are obliged under pain of damnation to belieue whatsoever the Catholique visible Church of Christ proposeth as revealed by Almighty God it is like a covey of one Patridg or a flock of one sheep or a Fleet compos'd of one ship or an Army of one man The Author of Charity mistaken demands a particular Catalogue of Fundamentall points And We say you again and again demand such a Catalogue And surely if this one Proposition which here you think to stop our mouthes with be a Catalogue yet at least such a Catalogue it is not and therefore as yet you haue not perform'd what you require For if to set down such a PropositioÌ„ wherein are compriz'd all points taught by us to be necessary to salvation will serue you insteed of a Catalogue you shall haue Catalogues enough As we are oblig'd to belieue all under pain of damnation which God commands us to belieue There 's one Catalogue We are oblig'd under pain of damnation to belieue all whereof we may be sufficiently assured that Christ taught it his Apostles his Apostles the Church There 's another We are oblig'd under pain of damnation to belieue Gods word all contained in it to be true There 's a third If these generalities will not satisfie you but you will be importuning us to tell you in particular what they are which Christ taught his Apostles and his Apostles the Church what points are contained in Gods word Then I beseech you doe us reason and giue us a particular and exact Inventory of all your Church Proposalls without leaving out or adding any such a one which all the Doctors of your Church will subscribe to if you receiue not then a Catalogue of Fundamentals I for my part will giue you leaue to proclaim us Banckrupts 54 Besides this deceitfull generality of your Catalogue as you call it another main fault we finde with it that it is extreamly ambiguous and therefore to draw you out of the clouds giue me leaue to propose some Questions to you concerning it I would know therefore whether by believing you mean explicitely or implicitely If you mean implicitely I would know whether your Churches infallibility be under pain of damnation to be believed explicitely or no Whether any other point or points besides this be under the same penalty to be believed explicitely or no And if any what they bee I would know what you esteem the Proposalls of the Catholike visible Church In particular whether the Decree of a Pope ex Cathedra that is with an intent to oblige all Christians by it be a sufficient and an obliging proposall Whether men without danger of damnation may examine such a Decree and if they think they have just cause refuse to obey it Whether the Decree of a Councell without the Popes confirmation be such an obliging proposall or no Whether it be so in case there be no Pope or in case it be doubtfull who is Pope Whether the Decree of a generall Councell confirm'd by the Pope be such a Proposall and whether he be an Heretique that thinks otherwise Whether the Decree of a particular Councell confirm'd by the Pope be such a proposall Whether the Generall uncondemn'd practise of the Church for some ages be such a sufficient Proposition Whether the consent of the most eminent Fathers of any age agreeing in the affirmation of any doctrine not contradicted by any of their Contemporaries be a sufficient Proposition Whether the Fathers testifying such or such a doctrine or practise to be Tradition or to bee the Doctrine or practise of the Church be a sufficient assurance that it is so Whether we be bound under pain of damnation to belieue every Text of the vulgar Bible now authoriz'd by the Roman Church to bee the true translation of the Originalls of the Prophets and Evangelists and Apostles without any the least alteration Whether they that lived wheÌ„ the Bible of Sixtus was set forth were bound under pain of damnation to believe the same of that And if not of that of what Bible they were bound to believe it Whether the Catholique visible Church be alwaies that Society of Christians which adheres to the Bishop of Rome Whether every Christian that hath ability and oportunity be not bound to endeavour to know explicitely the Proposalls of the Church Whether Implicite Faith in the Churches Veracity will not saue him that Actually and Explicitely disbelieves some doctrine of the Church not knowing it to be so and Actually belieues some damnable Heresie as that God has the shape of a man Whether an ignorant man be bound to believe any point to be decreed by the Church when his Priest or Ghostly Father assures him it is so Whether his Ghostly Father may not erre in telling him so and whether any man can be oblig'd under pain of damnation to belieue an Errour Whether he be bound to believe such a thing defined when a number of Priests perhaps ten or twenty tell him it is so And what assurance he can haue that they neither erre nor deceive him in this matter Why Implicite Faith in Christ or the Scriptures should not suffice for a mans salvation as well as implicit faith in the Church Whether when you say Whatsoever the Church proposeth you meane all that ever she propos'd or that only which she now proposeth and whether shee now proposeth all that ever she did propose Whether all the Books of Canonicall Scripture were sufficiently declared to the Church to be so and propos'd as such by the Apostles And if not from whom the Church had this declaration afterwards If so whether all men ever since the Apostles time were bound under paine of damnation to believe the Epistle of S. Iames and the Epistle to the Hebrews to be Canonicall at least not to disbelieve it believe the contrary Lastly why it is not sufficient for any mans salvation to use the best meanes he can to inform his conscience and to follow the direction of it To all these demands when you haue given faire and ingenuous answers you shall heare further from me 55 Ad
Reason then you foresee that you should be forced to grant that these are fit meanes to decide this Controversie and therefore may be as fit to decide others Therefore to avoid this you runne into a most ridiculous absurdity and tell us that this difference also whether the Church be infallible as well as others must be agreed by a submissiue acknowledgment of the Churches infallibility As if you should haue said My Brethren I perceiue this is a great contention amongst you whether the Roman Church be infallible If you will follow my advice I will shew you a ready meanes to end it you must first agree that the Roman Church is infallible and then your contention whether the Roman Church be infallible will quickly be at an end Verily a most excellent advice and most compendious way of ending all Controversies even without troubling the Church to determine them For why may not you say in all other differences as you haue done in this Agree that the Pope is supream head of the Church That the substance of Bread and Wine in the Sacrament is turned into the body bloud of Christ That the Communion is to be given to Lay-men but in one kind That Pictures may be worshipped That Saints are to bee invocated and so in the rest and then your differences about the Popes Supremacy Transubstantiation and all the rest will speedily be ended If you say the advice is good in this but not in other cases I must request you not to expect alwaies to be believed upon your word but to shew us some reason why any one thing namely the Churches infallibility is fit to prove it selfe and any other thing by name the Popes Supremacy or Transubstantiation is not as fit Or if for shame you will at length confesse that the Churches infallibility is not fit to decide this difference whether the Church be infallible then you must confesse it is not fit to decide all Vnlesse you will say it may be fit to decide all and yet not fit to decide this or pretend that this is not comprehended under all Besides if you grant that your Churches infallibilitie cannot possibly be well grounded upon or decided by it selfe then having professed before that there is no possible meanes besides this for us to agree hereupon I hope you will giue mee leaue to conclude that it is impossible upon good ground for us to agree that the Roman Church is infallible For certainly light it selfe is not more cleere then the evidence of this syllogisme If there be no other meanes to make men agree upon your Churches infallibility but only this and this be no meanes then it is simply impossible for men upon good grounds to agree that your Church is infallible But there is as you haue granted no other possible meanes to make men agree hereupon but only a submissive acknowledgment of her Infallibility And this is apparently no meanes Therefore it is simply impossible for men upon good grounds to agree that your Church is infallible 90 Lastly to the place of S. Austine wherein we are advis'd to follow the way of Catholique discipline which from Christ himselfe by the Apostles hath come down even to us and from us shall descend to all posterity I answer That the way which S. Austine spake of the way which you commend being divers waies in many things cleane contrary we cannot possibly follow them both and therefore for you to apply the same words to them is a vaine equivocation Shew us any way doe not say but proue it to haue come from Christ his Apostles down to us and we are ready to follow it Neither doe wee expect demonstration hereof but such reasons as may make this more probable then the contrary But if you bring in things into your now Catholique Discipline which Chistians in S. Austins time held abominable as the picturing of God which you must confesse to haue come into the Church seven hundred yeares after Christ if you will bring in things as you haue done the halfe Communion with a non obstante notwithstanding Christs Institution and the practise of the Primitive Church were to the contrary If you will doe such things as these and yet would haue us believe that your whole Religion came from Christ and his Apostles this we conceive a request too unreasonable for modest men to make or for wise men to grant CHAP. IIII. To say that the Creed containes all points necessarily to be believed is neither pertinent to the Question in hand nor in it selfe true I SAY neither pertinent nor true Not pertinent Because our Question is not what points are necessary to be explicitely believed but what points may be lawfully disbelieved or rejected after sufficient Proposition that they are divine Truths You say the Creed containes all points necessary to be believed Be it so But doth it likewise containe all points not to be disbelieved Certainly it doth not For how many truths are there in holy Scripture not contained in the Creed which we are not obliged distinctly and particularly to know and believe but are bound under paine of damnation not to reject as soone as we come to know that they are found in holy Scripture And we having already shewed that whatsoever is proposed by Gods Church as a point of faith is infallibly a truth revealed by God it followeth that whosoever denieth any such point opposeth Gods sacred testimony whether that point be contained in the Creed or no. In vaine then was your care imployed to prove that all points of faith necessary to be explicitely believed are contained in the Creed Neither was that the Catalogue which Charity Mistaken demanded His demand was and it was most reasonable that you would once give us a list of all fundamentals the deniall whereof destroyes Salvation whereas the deniall of other points not fundamentall may stand with salvation although both these kinds of points be equally proposed as revealed by God For if they be not equally proposed the difference will arise from diversity of the Proposall and not of the Matter fundamentall or not fundamentall This Catalogue only can shew how farre Protestants may disagree without breach of Vnity in faith and upon this many other matters depend according to the ground of Protestants But you will never adventure to publish such a Catalogue I say more You cannot assigne any one point so great or fundamentall that the deniall thereof will make a man an Heretique if it be not sufficiently propounded as a divine Truth Nor can you assigne any one point so small that it can without heresie be rejected if once it be sufficiently represented as revealed by God 2. Nay this your instance in the Creed is not only impertinent but directly against you For all points in the Creed are not of their own nature fundamentall as I shewed before And yet it is damnable to deny any one point contained in
to distinguish betwixt fundamentall and not fundamentall points 7. I come to the second part That the Creed doth not containe all maine and principall points of faith And to the end we may not strive about things either granted by us both or no thing concerning the point in question I must premise these observations 8. First That it cannot be denied but that the Creed is most full and complete to that purpose for which the holy Apostles inspir'd by God meant that it should serve and in that manner as they did intend it which was not to comprehend all particular points of faith but such generall heads as were most befitting and requisite for preaching the faith of Christ to Iewes and Gentiles and might be briefly and compendiously set down and easily learned and remembred And therefore in respect of Gentiles the Creed doth mention God as Creator of all things and and for both Iewes and Gentiles the Trinity the Messias and Saviour his birth life death resurrection and glory from whom they were to hope remission of sinnes and life everlasting and by whose sacred Name they were to be distinguished from all other professions by being called Christians According to which purpose S. Thomas of Aquine doth distinguish all the Articles of the Creed into these generall heads That some belong to the Majesty of the God head others to the Mystery of our Saviour Christs Humane nature Which two generall objects of faith the holy Ghost doth expresse and conjoyne Ioan. 17. Haec est vita aeterna c. This is life everlasting that they know thee true GOD and whom thou hast sent IESVS CHRIST But it was not their meaning to give us as it were a course of Divinity or a Catechisme or a particular expression of all points of Faith leaving those things to be performed as occasion should require by their own word or writing for their time and afterwards for their Successours in the Catholique Church Our question then is not whether the Creed be perfect as farre as the end for which it was composed did require For we beleive and are ready to give our lives for this but only we denie that the Apostles did intend to comprise therein all particular â—oints of beliefe necessary to salvation as even by D. Potters owne confession it doth not comprehend agenda or things belonging to practise as Sacraments Commandements the acts of Hope and duties of Charity which we are obliged not only to practise but also to believe by divine infallible faith Will he therefore inferre that the Creed is not perfect because it containes not all those necessary and fundamentall Objects of faith He will answer No because the Apostles intended only to expresse credenda things to be believed not practised Let him therefore give us leave to say that the Creed is perfect because it wanteth none of those Objects of beliefe which were intended to be set downe as we explicated before 9. The second observation is that to satisfie our question what points in particular be fundamentall it will not be sufficient to alleage the Creed unlesse it containes all such points either expressely and immediatly or else in such manner that by evident and necessary consequence they may be deduced from Articles both cleerely and particularly contained therein For if the deduction be doubtfull we shall not be sure that such Conclusions be fundamentall or if the Articles themselves which are said to be fundamentall be not distinctly and particularly expressed they will not serve us to know and distinguish all points fundamentall from those which they call not fundameÌ„tall We doe not deny but that all points of faith both fundamentall not fundamentall may be said to be contained in the Creed in some sense as for example implicitely generally or in such involved manner For when we explicitely believe the Catholike Church we doe implicitely believe whatsoever she proposeth as belonging to faith Or else by way of reductioÌ„ that is when we are once instructed in the beliefe of particular points of faith not expressed nor by necessary consequence deducible from the Creed we may afterward by some analogy or proportion and resemblance reduce it to one or moe of those Articles which are explicitely contained in the Symbole Thus S. Thomas the Cherubim among Divines teacheth that the miraculous existence of our Blessed Saviours body in the Eucharist as likewise all his other miracles are reduced to Gods Omnipotency expressed in the Creed And Doctor Potter saith The Eucharist being a seale of that holy Vnion which we have with Christ our head by his spirit and Faith and with the Saints his members by Charity is evidently included in the communion of Saints But this reductive way is farre from being sufficient to inferre out of the Articles of Gods Omnipotency or of the Communion of Saints that our Saviours body is in the Eucharist and much lesse whether it be only in figure or else in reality by Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation c. and least of all whether or no these points be fundamentall And you hyperbolize in saying the Eucharist is evidently included in the Communion of Saints as if there could not have been or was not a Communion of Saints before the Blessed Sacrament was instituted Yet it is true that after we know and believe there is such a Sacrament wee may referre it to some of those heads expressed in the Creed and yet so as S. Thomas referres it to one Article and D. Potter to another and in respect of different analogies or effects it may be referred to severall Articles The like I say of other points of faith which may in some sort be reduced to the Creed but nothing to D. Potters purpose But contrarily it sheweth that your affirming such and such points to be fundamentall or not fundamentall is meerely arbitrary to serve your turne as necessity and your occasions may require Which was an old custome amongst Heretiques as wee read in S. Augustine Pelagius and Celessius desiring fraudulently to avoide the the hatefull name of Heresies affirmed that the question of Originall sinne may be disputed without danger of faith But this holy Father affirmes that it belongs to the foundation of Faith We may saith he endure a disputant who erres in other questions not yet diligently examined not yet diligently established by the whole authority of the Church their errour may be borne with but it must not passe so farre as to attempt to shake the foundation of the church We see S. Augustine places the being of a point fundamentall or not fundamentall in that it hath beene examined and established by the Church although the point of which he speaketh namely Originall Sinne be not contained in the Creed 10. Out of that which hath beene said I inferre that Dostor Potters paines in alleaging Catholique Doctors the ancient Fathers and the Councell of Trent to prove that the Creed containes all points
us of innumerable grosse damnable Heresies that have been are and may be whose contrary Truths are neither explicitly nor by consequence comprehended in this Creed So that no man by the beleife of this Creed without the former can be possibly guarded from falling into them and continuing obstinate in them Nay so far is this Creed from guarding them from these mischiefes that it is more likely to ensnare thē into them by seeming and yet not being a full comprehension of all necessary points of faith which is apt as experience shewes to mis-guide men into this pernitious errour That believing the Creed they believe all necessary points of faith whereas indeed they doe not so Now upon these grounds I thus conclude That Creed which hath great commodities and no danger would certainly be better then that which hath great danger and wants many of these great commodities But the former short Creed propos'd by me I believe the Roman Church to be infallible if your doctrine be true is of the former condition and the latter that is the Apostles Creed is of the latter Therefore the former if your doctrine be true would without controversie be better then the latter 80 But say you by this kind of arguing one might inferre quite contrary If the Apostles Creed contain all points necessary to Salvation what need have wee of any Church to teach us And consequently what need of the Article of the Church To which I answer that having compared your inference and D. Potter together I cannot discover any shadow of resemblance between them nor any shew of Reason why the perfection of the Apostles Creed should exclude a necessity of some body to deliver it Much lesse why the whole Creed's containing all things necessary should make the beliefe of a part of it unnecessary As well for ought I understand you might avouch this inference to be as good as D. Potters The Apostles Creed contains all things necessary therefore there is no need to believe in God Neither does it follow so well as D. Potters argument followes That if the Apostles Creed containes all things necessary that all other Creeds and Catechismes wherein are added divers other Particulars are superfluous For these other Particulars may be the duties of obedience they may be profitable points of Doctrine they may be good expositions of the Apostles Creed and so not superfluous and yet for all this the Creed may still contain all points of belief that are simply necessary These therefore are poor consequences but no more like D. Potters then an apple is like an oister 81 But this consequence after you have sufficiently slighted and disgraced it at length you promise us newes and pretend to grant it But what is that which you mean to grant That the Apostles did put no Article in their Creed but only that of the Church Or that if they had done so they had done better then now they have done This is D. Potters inference out of your Doctrine and truly if you should grant this this were newes indeed Yes say you I will grant it but only thus farre that Christ hath referred us only to his Church Yea but this is clean another thing and no newes at all that you should grant that which you would fain have granted to you So that your dealing with us is just as if a man should profer me a curtesy and pretend that he would oblige himselfe by a note under his hand to give me twenty pound and in stead of it write that I owe him forty and desire me to subscribe to it and be thankfull Of such favours as these it is very safe to be liberall 82 You tell us afterward but how it comes in I know not that it were a childish argument The Creed containes not all things necessary Ergo It is not Profitable Or the Church alone is sufficient to teach us by some convenient meanes Ergo She must teach us without meanes These indeed are childish arguments but for ought I see you alone are the father of them for in D. Potters book I can neither meet with them nor any like them He indeed tels you that if by an impossible supposition your Doctrine were true another and a farre shorter Creed would have been more expedient even this alone I believe the Roman Church to be infallible But why you should conclude he makes this Creed unprofitable because he saies another that might be conceived upon this false supposition would be more profitable or that he laies a necessity upon the Church of teaching without meanes or of not teaching this very Creed which now is taught these things are so subtill that I cannot apprehend them To my understanding by those words And sent us to the Church for all the rest he does rather manifestly imply that the rest might be very well not only profitable but necessary and that the Church was to teach this by Creeds or Catechismes or Councells or any other meanes which she should make choice of for being Infallible she could not choose amisse 83 Whereas therefore you say If the Apostles had exprest no Article but that of the Catholique Church she must haue taught us the other Articles in particular by Creeds or other meanes This is very true but no way repugnant to the truth of this which followes that the Apostles if your doctrine be true had done better service to the Church though they had never made this Creed of theirs which now we haue if insteed thereof they had commanded in plain termes that for mens perpetuall direction in the faith this short Creed should be taught all men I believe the Roman Church shall be for ever infallible Yet you must not so mistake me as if I meant that they had done better not to haue taught the Church the substance of Christian Religion For then the Church not having learnt it of them could not haue taught it us This therefore I doe not say but supposing they had written these Scriptures as they haue written wherein all the Articles of their Creed are plainly delivered and preached that Doctrine which they did preach and done all otherthings as they have done besides the composing their Symbole◠I say if your doctrine were true they had done a work infinitely more beneficiall to the Church of Christ if they had never compos'd their Symbole which is but an imperfect comprehension of the necessary points of simple beliefe and no distinctiue mark as a Symbole should be between those that are good Christians and those that are not so But insteed thereof had delivered this one Proposition which would haue been certainly effectuall for all the aforesaid good intents and purposes The Roman Church shall be forever infallible in all things which she proposes as matters of faith 84 Whereas you say If we will belieue we haue all in the Creed whē we haue not all it is not the Apostles fault but our own I tell
himselfe confirmed their doctrine we are assured that what the said never-interrupted Church proposeth doth deserve to be accepted and acknowledged as a divine truth By evidence of Sense we see that the same Church proposeth such and such doctrines as divine truths that is as revealed and testified by Almighty God By this divine Testimony we are infallibly assured of what we believe and so the last period ground motive and formall obiect of our Faith is the infâ—llible testimony of that supreme Verity which neither can deceive nor be deceived 7 By this orderly deduction our Faith commeth to be endued with these qualities which we said were â—equisite thereto namely Certainty Obscurity and Prudence Certainty proceeds from the infallible Testimony of God propounded and conveyed to our understanding by such a meane as iâ— infallible in it selfe and to us is evidently knowne that it proposeth this point or that and which can manifestly declare in what sense it proposeth them which meanes we have proved to be only the visible Church of Christ. Obscurity from the manner in which God speakes to Mankind which ordinarily is such that it doth not manifestly shew the person who speakes nor the truth of the thing spoken Prudence is not wanting because our faith is accompanyed with so many arguments of Credibility that every well disposed Vnderstanding may and ought to judge that the doctrines so confirmed deserve to be believed as proceeding from divine Authority 8. And thus from what hath been said we may easily gather the particular nature or definition of Faith For it is a voluntary or free infallible obscure assent to some truth because it is testifed by God and is sufficiently propounded to us for such which proposall is ordinarily made by the Visible Church of Christ. I say Sufficiently proposed by the Church not that I purpose to dispute whether the proposall of the Church enter into the â—ormall Obiect or motiâ—â— of Faith or whether an error be any heresie formally and precisely because it is against the proposition of the Church as if such proposall were the formall Object of Faith which D. Potter to no purpose aâ— all labours so very hard to disprove But I only affirme that when the Church propounds any Truth as revealed by God we are assured that it is such indeed and so it instantly growes to be a fit Object for Christian faith which enclines and enables us to beleeve whatsoever is dâ—ely presented as a thing revealed by Almighty God And in the same manner we are sure that whosoever opposeth any doctrine proposed by the Church doth thereby contradict a truth which is testified by God As when any lawfull Superiour notifies his will by the meanes and as it were proposall of some faithfull messenger the subject of such a Superiour in performing or neglecting what is delivered by the Messenger is said to obey or disobey his owne lawfull Superiour And therefore because the testimony of God is notified by the Church we may and we doe most truely say that not to beleeve what the Church proposeth is to deny God's holy word or testimony signified to us by the Church according to that saying of S. Irenaeâ—s We need not goe to any other to seek the truth which we may easily receive from the Church 9. From this definition of faith we may also know what Heresie is by taking the contrary termes as Heresie is contrary to Faith and saying Heresie is a voluntary error against that which God hath revealed and the Church hath proposed for such Neither doth it import whether the error concerne points in themselves great or small fundamentall or not fundamentall For more being required to an act of Vertue then of Vice if any truth though neuer so small may be believed by Faith as soone as we know it to be testified by divine revelation much more will it be a formall Heresie to deny any least point sufficiently propounded as a thing witnessed by God 10. This divine Faith is divided into Actuall and Habituall Actuall faith or faith actuated is when we are in act of consideration and belife of some mystery of Faith for example that our Saviour Christ is true God and Man c. Habituall faith is that from which we are denominated Faithfull or Believers as by Actuall faith they are stiled Believing This Habit of faith is a Quality enabling us most firmly to believe Objects above humane discourse and it remaineth permanently in our Soule even when we are sleeping or not thinking of any Mystery of Faith This is the first among the three Theologicall Vertues For Charity unites us to God as he is infinitely Good in himselfe Hope tyes us to him as he is unspeakably Good to us Faith joynes us to him as he is the Supreame immoveable Verity Charity relies on his Goodnesse Hope on his Power Faith on his divine Wisdome From hence it followeth that Faith being one of the Vertues which Divines terme Infused that is which cannot be acquired by human wit or industry but are in their Nature and Essence supernaturall it hath this property that it is not destroyed by little and little contrarily to the Habits called acquisiti that is gotten by human endeâ—vour which as they are successiuely produced so also are they lost successiuely or by little and little but it must either be conserved entire or wholly destroyed And since it cannot stand entire with any one act which is directly contrary it must be totally overthrowne and as it were demolished and razed by every such act Wherefore as Charity or the Love of God is expelled from our soule by any one act of Hatred or any other mortall sinne against his divine Majesty and as Hope is destroyed by any one act of voluntary Desperation so Faith must perish by any one act of Heresy because every such act is directly and formally opposite therevnto I know that some sinnes which as Divines speak are exgenere suo in their kind grievous and mortall may be much lessened and fall to be veniall ob levitatem materiae because they may happen to be exercised in a matter of small consideration as for example to steale a penny is veniall although Theft in his kind be a deadly sinne But it is likewise true that this Rule is not generall for all sorts of sinnes there being some so inexcusably wicked of their owne nature that no smalnesse of matter not paucity in number can defend them from being deadly sinnes For to give an instance what Blasphemy against God or voluntary false Oath is not a deadly sinne Certainly none at all although the salvation of the whole world should depend upon swearing such a falshood The liâ—e hapneth in our present case of Heresie the iniquity whereof redounding to the injury of God's supreme wisdome and Goodnesse is alwayes great and enormous They were no precious stones which David picket out of the water to encounter Goliâ—â— yet if a man
nature of the habit cannot remain But the formall Obiect of faith is the supreme truth as it is manifested in Scriptures and in the doctrine of the Church which proceeds from the same supreme verity Whosoever therefore doth not rely upon the doctrine of the Church which proceeds from the supreme verity manifested in Scripture as upon an infallible Rule hee hath not the habit of faith but belieues those things which belong to faith by some other me anes then by faith as if one should remember some Conclusion and not know the reason of that demonstration it is cleer that hee hath not certain knowledge but only Opinion Now it is manifest that hee who relies on the doctrine of the Church as upon an infallible Rule will yeeld his assent to all that the Church teacheth For if among those things which she teacheth he hold what he will and doth not hold what he will not hee doth not rely upon the doctrine of the Church as upon an infallible Rule but only upon his own will And so it is cleer that an Heretique who with pertinacity denieth one Article of faith is not ready to follow the doctrine of the Church in all things And therefore it is manifest that whosoever is an Heretique in any one Article of faith concerning other Articles hath not saith but a kind of Opinion or his own will Thus far S. Thomas And afterward A man doth belieue all the Articles of faith for one and the selfe same reason to wit for the Prime Verity proposed to us in the Scripture understood aright according to the Doctrine of the Church and therefore whosoever fals from this reason or motiue is totally deprived of faith From this true doctrine wee are to infer that to retain or want the substance of faith doth not consist in the matter or multitude of the Articles but in the opposition against Gods divine testimony which is involved in every least error against faith And since some Protestants must needs erre and that they haue no certain rule to knowe why rather one then another it manifestly follows that none of them haue any Certainty for the substance of their faith in any one point Moreover D. Potter being forced to confesse that the Roman Church wants not the substance of faith it follows that she doth not erre in any one point against faith because as we haue seen out of S. Thomas every such errour destroies the substance of faith Now if the Roman Church did not erre in any one point of faith it is manifest that Protestants erre in all those points wherein they are contrary to her And this may suffice to prove that the faith of Protestants wants Infallibility 30 And now for the second Condition of faith I say If Protestants haue Certainty they want Obscurity and so haue not that faith which as the Apostle saith is of things not appearing or not necessiâ—ating our Vnderstanding to an assent For the whole edifice of the faith of Protestants is setled on these two Principles These particular Books are Canonicall Scripture And the sense and meaning of these Canonicall Scriptures is cleer and evident at least in all points necessary to Salvation Now these Principles being once supposed it cleerly followeth that what Protestants belieue as necessary to salvation is evidently known by them to be true by this argument It is certain and evident that whatsoever is contained in the word of God is true But it is certain and evident that these Books in particular are the word of God Therefore it is certaine and evident that whatsoever is contained in these Books is true Which Conclusion I take for a Maior in a second Argument and say thus It is certain and evident that whatsoever is contained in these Books is true but it is certain and evident that such particular Articles for example the Trinity Incarnation Originall sin c. are contained in these Books Therefore it is certain and evident that these particular Objects are true Neither will it avail you to say that the said Principles are not evident by naturall discourse but onely to the eye of reason cleered by grace as you speak For supernaturall evidence no lesse yea rather more drawes and excludes obscurity then naturall evidence doth neither can the party so enlightned be said voluntarily to captivate his understanding to that light but rather his understanding is by a necessity made captive and forced not to disbelieve what is presented by so cleare a light And therefore your imaginary faith is not the true faith defined by the Apostle but an invention of your own 31 That the faith of Protestants wanteth the third Condition which was Prudence is deduced from all that hitherto hath been said What wisdome was it to forsake a Church confessedly very ancient and besides which there could be demonstrated no other visible Church of Christ upon earth A Church acknowledged to want nothing necessary to Salvation endued with Succession of Bishops with Visibility and Vniversality of Time and Place A Church which if it bee not the true Church her enemies cannot pretend to have any Church Ordination Scriptures Succession c. and are forced for their own sake to maintain her perpetuall Existence and Being To leave I say such a Church and frame a Community without either Vnity or means to procure it a Church which at Luthers first revolt had no larger extent then where his body was A Church without Vniversality of place or Time A Church which can pretend no Visibility or Being except only in that former Church which it opposeth A Church void of Succession of Persons oâ— Doctrine What wisedome was it to follow such men as Luther in an opposition against the visible Church of Christ begun upon meer passion What wisdome is it to receive from Vs a Church Ordination Scriptures Personall Succession and not Succession of Doctrine Is not this to verifie the name of Heresie which signifieth Election or Choice Whereby they cannot avoid that note of Imprudency or as S. Augustine calls it Foolishnesse set down by him against the Manichees and by me recited before I would not saith he belieue the Gospell unlesse the Authority of the Church did moue me Those therefore whom I obeyed saying Belieue the Gospel why should I not obey the same meÌ„ saying to me Doe not belieue Manichaeus Luther Calvin c. Choose what thou pleasest If thou say Belieue the Catholiques they warne me not to belieue thee Wherefore if I belieue them I cannot belieue thee If thou say Doe not belieue the Catholiques thou shalt not doe well in forcing me to the faith of Manichaeus because by the Preaching of Catholiques I believed the Gospell it selfe If thou say you did well to belieue them Catholiques commending the Gospell but you did not well to belieue them discommending Manichaeus dost thou think me so very FOOLISH that without any reason at all I should belieue what
men and deducing according to the never failing rules of Logick consequent deductions from them if this be it which you mean by discourse it is very meet reasonable necessary that men as in all their actions so especially in that of greatest importance the choice of their way to happinesse should be left unto it and he that followes this in all his opinions and actions and does not only seeme to doe so followes alwaies God whereas he that followeth a Company of men may oftimes follow a company of beasts And in saying this I say no more then S. Iohn to all Christians in these words Dearly beloved believe not every spirit but try the spirits whether they be of God or no and the rule he gives them to make this tryall by is to consider whether they confesse Iesus to be the Christ that is the Guide of their Faith and Lord of their actions no◠whether they acknowledge the Pope to be his Vicar I say no more then S. Paul in exhorting all Christians to try all things and to hold fast that which is good then S. Peter in cōmanding all Christians to be ready to give a reason of the hope that is in them then our Saviour himselfe in forewarning all his followers that if they blindly followed blind guides both leaders and followers should fall into the ditch and again in saying even to the people Yea why of your selves iudge ye not what is right And though by passion or precipitation or preiudice by want of reason or not using that they have men may be and are oftentimes led into error and mischiefe yet that they cannot be misguided by discourse truly so called such as I have described you your selfe have given them security For what is discourse but drawing conclusions out of premises by good consequence Now the principles which we have setled to wit the Scriptures are on all sides agreed to be infallibly true And you have told us in the fourth chap. of this Pamphlet that from truth no man can by good consequence inferre falshood Therefore by discourse no man can possibly be led to error but if he erre in his conclusions he must of necessity either erre in his principles which here cannot have place or commit some error in his discourse that is indeed not discourse but seeme to doe so 13 You say thirdly with sufficient confidence that if the true Church may erre in defining what Scriptures be Canonicall or in delivering the sense thereof then we must follow either the privat Spirit or else naturall wit and iudgement and by them examine what Scriptures containe true or false doctrine and in that respect ought to be received or reiected All which is apparently untrue neither can any proofe of it be pretended For though the present Church may possibly erre in her judgement touching this matter yet have we other directions in it besides the privat spirit and the examination of the contents which latter way may conclude the negative very strongly to wit that such or such a book cannot come from God because it containes irreconcileable contradictions but the affirmative it cannot conclude because the contents of a book may be all true and yet the book not written by divine inspiration other direction therefore I say we have besides either of these three that is the testimony of the Primitive Christians 14 You say Fourthly with convenient boldnesse That this infallible Authority of your Church being denied no man can be assur'd that any parcell of Scripture was written by Divine inspiration Which is an untruth for which no proofe is pretended and besides void of modesty and full of impiety The first because the experience of innumerable Christians is against it who are sufficiently assur'd that the Scripture is divinely inspir'd and yet deny the infallible authority of your Church or any other The second because if◠I cannot have ground to be assur'd of the divine authority of Scripture unlesse I first believe your Church infallible then I can have no ground at all to believe it because there is no ground nor can any be pretended why I should believe your Church infallible unlesse I first beleeve the Scripture divine 15 Fiftly and lastly You say with confidence in abundance that none can deny the infallible authority of your Church but he must abandon all infus'd faith and true religion if he doe but understand him selfe Which is to say agreeable to what you had said before and what out of the abundance of your hearts you speak very often That all Christians besides you are open Fooles or conceal'd Atheists All this you say with notable confidence as the manner of Sophisters is to place their confidence of prevailing in their confident manner of speaking but then for the evidence you promised to maintaine this confidence that is quite vanished and become invisible 16 Had I a mind to recriminate now and to charge Papists as you doe Protestants that they lead men to Socinianisme I could certainly make a much fairer shew of evidence then you have done For I would not tell you you deny the infallibility of the Church of England ergo you lead to Socinianisme which yet is altogether as good an Argument as this Protestants deny the infallibility of the Roman Church ergo they induce Socinianisme Nor would I resume my former Argument and urge you that by holding the Popes infallibility you submit your selfe to that capitall and Mother Heresy by advantage whereof he may lead you at ease to believe vertue vice and vice vertue to believe Antichristianity Christianisme and Christianity Antichristian he may lead you to Socinianisme to Turcisme nay to the Divell himselfe if he have a mind to it But I would shew you that divers waies the Doctors of your Church doe the principall and proper work of the Socinians for the undermining the Doctrine of the Trinity by denying it to be supported by those pillars of the Faith which alone are fit and able to support it I mean Scripture and the Consent of the ancient Doctors 17 For Scripture your men deny very plainly and frequently that this Doctrine can be proved by it See if you please this plainly taught and urged very earnestly by Cardinall Hosius De Author Sac. Scrip. l. 3. p. 53. By Gordonius Huntlaeus Contr. Tom. 1. Controv. 1. De verbo Dei C. 19. by Gretserus and Tanerus in Colloquio Ratesbon And also by Vega Possevin Wiekus and Others 18 And then for the Consent of the Ancients that that also delivers it not by whom are we taught but by Papists only Who is it that makes known to all the world that Eusebius that great searcher and devourer of the Christian libraries was an Arrian Is it not your great Achilles Cardinall Perron in his 3. Book 2. Chap. of his Reply to K. Iames Who is it that informs us that Origen who never was questioned for any error in this matter in or
you shew in quarrelling with him for descending to the particular disputes here mentioned by you For to say nothing that many of these Questions are immediatly and directly pertinent to the businesse in hand as the 1. 2. 3. 5. 6. and all of them fall in of themselves into the stream of his discourse and are not drawn in by him and besides are touched for the most part rather then handled to say nothing of all this you know right well if he conclude you erroneous in any one of all these be it but in the Communion in one kind or the Language of your service the infallibility of your Church is evidently overthrown And this being done I hope there will be no such necessity of hearkning to her in all things It will be very possible to seperate from her communion in some things without schisme and from her doctrine so farre as it is erroneous without heresy Then all that she proposes will not be eo ipso fundamentall because shee proposes it and so presently all Charity Mistaken will vanish into smoak and clouds and nothing 5 You say he was loath to affirme plainly that generally both Catholiques Protestants may be saved which yet is manifest he doth affirme plainly of Protestants throughout his book of erring Papists that have syncerely sought the Truth and failed of it and dye with a generall repentance p. 77. 78. And yet you deceive your selfe if you conceive he had any other necessity to doe so but only that he thought it true For we may and doe pretend that before Luther there were many true Churches besides the Roman which agreed not with her in particular The greek Church So that what you say is evidently true is indeed evidently false Besides if he had had any necessity to make use of you in this matter he needed not for this end to say that now in your Church Salvation may be had but onely that before Luthers time it might be Then when your meanes of knowing the Truth were not so great and when your ignorance might be more invincible and therefore more excusable So that you may see if you please it is not for ends but for the loue of truth that we are thus charitable to you 6 Neither is it materiall that these particulars he speakes against are not fundamentall errours for though they be not destructiue of salvation yet the convincing of them may be and is destructiue enough of his Adversaries assertion and if you be the man I take you for you will not deny they are so For certainly no Consequence can be more palpable then this The Church of Rome doth erre in this or that therefore it is not infallible And this perhaps you perceiu'd your selfe therefore demanded not Since they be not fundamentall what imports it whether we hold them or no simply But for as much as concernes our possibility to be saved As if we were not bound by the loue of God the loue of truth to be zealous in the defence of all Truths that are any way profitable though not simply necessary to salvation Or as if any good man could satisfie his conscience without being so affected and resolv'd Our Saviour himselfe having assur'd us That hee that shall breake one of his least Commandements some whereof you pretend are concerning veniall sinnes and consequently the keeping of them not necessary to salvation and shall so teach men shall be called the least in the kingdome of Heaven 7 But then it imports very much though not for the possibilitie that you may be saved yet for the probabilitie that you will be so because the holding of these errours though it did not merit might yet occasion damnation As the doctrine of Indulgences may take away the feare of Purgatory and the doctrine of Purgatorie the feare of Hell as you well knowe it does too frequently So that though a godly man might be saved with these errours yet by meanes of them many are made vicious and so damn'd By them I say though not for them No godly Lay-man who is verily perswaded that there is neither impietie nor superstition in the use of your Latine service shall be damn'd I hope for being present at it yet the want of that devotion which the frequent hearing the Offices understood might happily beget in them the want of that instruction and edification which it might afford them may very probably hinder the salvation of many which otherwise might haue been saved Besides though the matter of an Errour may bee onely something profitable not necessary yet the neglect of it may be a damnable sinne As not to regard veniall sinnes is in the doctrine of your Schooles mortall Lastly as veniall sinnes you say dispose men to mortall so the erring from some profitable though lesser truth may dispose a man to errour in greater matters As for example The Beleife of the Popes infallibility is I hope not unpardonably damnable to every one that holds it yet if it be a falsehood as most certainely it is it puts a man into a very congruous disposition to beleiue Antichrist if he should chance to get into that See 8 To the Third In his distinctions of points fundamentall and not fundamentall he may seeme you say to haue touched the point but does not so indeed Because though he saies there are some points so fundamentall as that all are oblig'd to belieue them explicitely yet he tells you not whether a man may disbeleiue any other points of faith which are sufficiently presented to his understanding as Truths revealed by Almighty God Touching which matter of Sufficient Proposall I beseech you to come out of the Clouds and tell us roundly and plainely what you meane by Points of faith sufficiently propounded to a mans understanding as Truths revealed by God Perhaps you meane such as the person to whom they are propos'd understands sufficiently to be truths revealed by God But how then can he possibly choose but belieue them Or how is it not an apparent contradiction that a man should disbelieue what himselfe understands to be a Truth or any Christian what he understands or but belieues to be testified by God Dr Potter might well thinke it superfluous to tell you This is damnable because indeed it is impossible And yet one may very well think by your saying as you doe hereafter That the impietie of heresie consists in calling Gods truth in question that this should be your meaning Or doe you esteeme all those things sufficiently presented to his understanding as Divine truths which by you or any other man or any company of men whatsoever are declared to him to be so I hope you will not say so For this were to oblige a man to belieue all the Churches and all the men in the world whensoever they pretend to propose divine Revelations D. Potter I assure you from him would never haue told you this neither Or doe you meane by
sufficiently propounded as Divine Truths all that your Church propounds for such That you may not neither For the Question betweene us is this Whether your Churches Proposition be a sufficient Proposition And therefore to suppose this is to suppose the question which you knowe in Reasoning is alwaies a fault Or Lastly doe you mean for I knowe not else what possibly you can meane by sufficiently presented to his vnderstanding as revealed by God that which all things considered is so propos'd to him that he might and should and would belieue it to be true and revealed by God were it not for some voluntary and avoidable fault of his owne that interposeth it selfe betweene his understanding and the truth presented to it This is the best construction that I can make of your words and if you speake of truths thus propos'd and rejected let it be as damnable as you please to deny or disbelieue them But then I cannot but be amaz'd to heare you say That D. Potter never tells you whether there be any other points of faith besides those which we are bound to belieue explicitely which a man may deny or disbelieue though they be sufficiently presented to his understanding as truths revealed or testified by Almighty God seeing the light it selfe is not more cleare then D. Potters Declaration of himselfe for the Negatiue in this Question p. 245. 246. 247. 248. 249. 250. of his Book Where he entreats at large of this very Argument beginning his discourse thus It seemes fundamentall to the faith and for the salvation of every member of the Church that he acknowledge and belieue all such points of faith as whereof he may be convinced that they belong to the doctrine of Iesus Christ. To this conviction he requires three things Cleare Revelation Sufficient Proposition and Capacity understanding in the hearer For want of cleare Revelation he frees the Church before Christ the Disciples of Christ from any damnable errour though they believed not those things which he that should now deny were no Christian. To sufficient Proposition he requires two things 1. That the points be perspicuously laid open in themselues 2. So forcibly as may serue to remoue reasonable doubts to the contrary and to satisfie a teachable minde concerning it against the principles in which he hath been bred to the contrary This Proposition he saies is not limited to the Pope or Church but extended to all meanes whatsoever by which a man may be convinced in conscience that the matter proposed is divine Revelation which he professes to be done sufficiently not only when his conscience doth expresly beare witnesse to the truth but when it would doe so if it were not choaked and blinded by some unruly and unmortified lust in the will The difference being not great between him that is wilfully blind him that knowingly gainesaieth the Truth The third thing he requires is Capacity and Abilitie to apprehend the Proposall and the Reasons of it the want whereof excuseth fooles and madmen c. But where there is no such impediment and the will of God is sufficiently propounded there saith hee hee that opposeth is convinced of errour and he who is thus convinced is an Heretique and heresie is a work of the Flesh which excludeth from salvation he meanes without Repentance And hence it followeth that it is fundamentall to a Christians faith and necessary for his salvation that he belieue all revealed truths of God whereof he may be convinced that they are from God This is the Conclusion of Dr Potters discourse many passages whereof you take notice of in your subsequent disputations and make your advantage of them And therefore I cannot but say againe that it amazeth me to heare you say that he declines this Question and never tells you whether or no there bee any other points of faith which being sufficiently propounded as divine Revelations may be denied and disbelieved Hee tells you plainely there are none such and therefore you cannot say that he tels you not whether there be any such Againe it is almost as strange to mee why you should say this was the only thing in question Whether a man may deny or disbelieue any point of faith sufficiently presented to his understanding as a truth revealed by God For to say that any thing is a thing in question me thinks at the first hearing of the words imports that it is by some affirm'd and deni'd by others Now you affirme I grant but what Protestant ever denied that it was a sinne to giue God the lye Which is the first and most obvious sense of these words Or which of them ever doubted that to disbelieue is then a fault when the matter is so proposed to a man that he might and should and were it not for his owne fault would beleiue it Certainly he that questions either of these justly deserues to haue his wits call'd in question Produce any one Protestant that ever did so and I will giue you leaue to say it is the only thing in question But then I must tell you that your ensuing Argument viz To deny a truth witnessed by God is damnable But of two that disagree one must of necessity deny some such truth Therefore one only can be saved is built upon a ground cleane different from this postulate For though it be alwaies a fault to deny what either I doe know or should knowe to be testified by God yet that which by a cleanly conveyance you put in the place hereof To deny a truth witnessed by God simply without the circumstance of being knowne or sufficiently proposed is so farre from being certainely damnable that it may be many times done without any the least fault at all As if God should testifie something to a man in the Indies I that had no assurance of this testification should not be oblig'd to beleiue it For in such cases the Rule of the Law has place Idem est non esse non apparere not to be at all and not to appeare to me is to me all one If I had not come and spoken unto you saith our Saviour you had had no sinne 10 As little necessitie is there for that which followes That of two disagreeing in a matter of faith one must deny some such truth Whether by such you understand Testified at all by God or testified and sufficiently propounded For it is very possible the matter in controversie may be such a thing wherein God hath not at all declare himselfe or not so fully and clearely as to oblige all men to hold one way and yet be so overvalued by the parties in variance as to bee esteemed a matter of faith and one of those things of which our Saviour saies He that beleiveth not shall be damn'd Who sees not that it is possible two Churches may excommunicate and damne each other for keeping Christmasse tenne daies sooner or later as well as Victor excommunicated the
them the argument which S. Augustine opposed to the Manicheans in these words I would not believe the Gospell unlesse the authority of the Church did move me Them therefore whom I obeyeâ— saying Believe the Gospell why should I not obey saying to me Doe not believe Manichaeus Luther Calvin c. Choose what thou pleasest If thou shalt say believe the Catholiques They warne me not to give any credit to you If therefore I believe them I cannot believe thee If thou say Do not believe the Catholiques thou shalt not doe well in forcing me to the faith of Manichaeus because by the preaching of Catholiques I believed the Gospell it selfe If thou say you did well to believe them Catholiques commending the Gospell but you did not well to believe them discommending Manichaeus Dost thou think me so very foolish that without any reason at all I should believe what thou wilt and not believe what thou wilt not And doe not Protestants perfectly resemble these men to whom S. Augustine spake when they will have men to believe the Roman Church delivering Scripture but not to believe her condemning Luther and the rest Against whom when they first opposed themselves to the Roman Church S. Augustine may seem to have spoken no lesse prophetically then doctrinally when he said Why should I not most diligently inâ—uire what Christ coÌ„manded of them before all others by whose authority I was moved to believe that Christ commanded any good thing Canst thou better declare to me what he said whom I would not have thought to have been or to be if the belief thereof had been recommended by thee to mee This therefore I believed by fame strengthned with celebrity consent Antiquity But every one may see that you so few so turbulent so new can produce nothing deserving authority What madnesse is this Believe them Catholiques that we ought to believe Christ but learn of us what Christ said Why I beseech thee Surely if they Catholiques were not at all and could not teach me any thing I would more easily perswade my selfe that I were not to believe Christ then that I should learn any thing concerning him from any other then them by whom I believed him If therefore we receive the knowledge of Christ and Scriptures from the Church from her also must we take his doctrine and the interpretation thereof 19 But besides all this the Scriptures cannot be Iudge of Controversies who ought to be such as that to him not only the learned or Veterans but also the unlearned and Novices may have recourse for these being capable of salvation and endued with faith of the same nature with that of the learned there must be some universall Iudge which the ignorant may understand and to whom the greatest Clerks must submit Such is the Church and the Scripture is not such 20 Now the inconveniences which follow by referring all Controversies to Scripture alone are very clear For by this principle all is finally in very deed and truth reduced to the internall private Spirit because there is really no middle way betwixt a publiquâ— externall and a private internall voyce and whosoever refuseth the one must of necessity adhere to the other 21 This Tenet also of Protestants by taking the office of Iudicature from the Church comes to conferre it upon every particular man who being driven from submission to the Church cannot be blamed if he trust himselfe as farre as any other his conscience dictating that wittingly he meanes not to cozen himself as others malitiously may doe Which inference is so manifest that it hath extorted from divers Protestants the open Confession of so vast an absurdity Hear Luther The Governours of Churches and Pastors of Christs sheep have indeed power to teach but the sheep ought to give judgement whether they propound the voice of Christ or of Aliens Lubertus saith As we have demonstrated that all publique Iudges may be deceived in interpreting so we affirme that they may erre in judging All faithfull men are private Iudges and they also have power to judge of doctrines and interpretations Whitaker even of the unlearned saith They ought to have recourse unto the more learned but in the meane time we must be carefull not to attribute to them over-much but so that still we retaine our owne freedome Bilson also affirmeth that The people must be discerners and Iudges of that which is taught This same pernicious doctrine is delivered by Brentius Zanchius Cartwright and others exactly cited by Brerely and nothing is more common in every Protestants mouth then that he admits of Fathers Councells Church c. as farre as they agree with Scripture which upon the matter is himselfe Thus Heresy ever fals upon extreames It pretends to have Scripture alone for judge of Controversies and in the meane time sets up as many Iudges as there are men and women in the Christian world What good Statesmen would they be who should ideate or fancy such a CoÌ„mon wealth as these men haue framed to themselues a Church They verifie what S. Augustine objecteth against certaine Heretiques You see that you goe about to overthrow all authority of Scripture and that every mans minde may be to himselfe a Rule what he is to allow or disallow in every Sâ—â—ipture 22 Moreover what confusion to the Church what danger to the Common wealth this deniall of the authority of the Church may bring I leaue to the consideration of any judicious indifferent man I will only set down some words of D. Potter who speaking of the Proposition of revealed Truths sufficient to proue him that gain-saith them to be an Heretique saith thus This Proposition of revealed truths is not by the infallible determination of Pope or Church Pope Church being excluded let us heare what more secure rule he will prescribe but by whatsoever meanes a man may be convinced in conscience of divine revelation If a Preacher doe clear any point of faith to his Hearers if a private Christian doe make it appeare to his Neighbour that any conclusion or point of faith is delivered by divine revelation of Gods word if a man himselfe without any Teacher by reading the Scriptures or hearing them read be convinced of the truth of any such conclusion this is a sufficient proposition to proue him that gainsaith any such proofe to be an Heretique and obstinate opposer of the faith Behold what goodly safe Propounders of faith arise in place of Gods universall visible Church which must yeeld to a single Preacher a Neighbour a man himselfe if he can read or at least haue eares to heare Scripture read Verily I doe not see but that every well-governed Civill Commonwealth ought to concurre towards the exterminating of this doctrine whereby the Interpretation of Scripture is taken from the Church and conferred upon every man who whatsoever is pretended to the contrary may be a passionate seditious creature 23 Moreover
strongly perswaded that I belieue the Scripture as you are that you belieue the Church And if I may be deceived why may not you Againe what more ridiculous and against sense and experience then to affirme That there are not millions amongst you and us that belieue upon no other reason then their education and the authority of their Parents and Teachers and the opinion they haue of them The tendernesse of the subject and aptnesse to receiue impressions supplying the defect and imperfection of the Agent And will you proscribe from heaven all those believers of your own Creed who doe indeed lay the foundation of their Faith for I cannot call it by any other name no deeper then upon the Authority of their Father or Master or parish Priest Certainly if these haue no true faith your Church is very full of Infidels Suppose Xaverius by the holynesse of his life had converted some Indians to Christianity who could for so I will suppose haue no knowledge of your Church but from him and therefore must last of all build their Faith of the Church upon their Opinion of Xaverius Doe these remain as very Pagans after their conversion as they were before Are they brought to assent in their soules and obey in their liues the Gospell of Christ only to be Tantaliz'd and not saved and not benefited but deluded by it because forsooth it is a man and not the Church that begets faith in them What if their motiue to beleeue be not in reason sufficient Doe they therefore not belieue what they doe belieue because they doe it upon insufficient motiues They choose the Faith imprudently perhaps but yet they doe choose it Vnlesse you will haue us belieue that that which is done is not done because it is not done upoÌ„ good reason which is to say that never any man living ever did a foolish action But yet I know not why the Authority of one holy man which apparently has no ends upon me joyn'd with the goodnesse of the Christian faith might not be a far greater and more rationall motiue to me to imbrace Christianity then any I can haue to continue in Paganisme And therefore for shame if not for loue of Truth you must recant this fancie when you write again and suffer true faith to be many times where your Churches infallibility has no hand in the begetting of it And be content to tell us hereafter that we belieue not enough and not goe about to perswade us we belieue nothing for feare with telling us what we know to be manifestly false you should gain only this Not to be believed when you speak truth Some pretty sophismes you may happily bring us to make us belieue we belieue nothing but wise men know that Reason against Experience is alwaies Sophisticall And therefore as he that could not answer Zenoe's subtilities against the existence of Motion could yet confute them by doing that which he pretended could not be done So if you should giue me a hundred Arguments to perswade me because I doe not belieue Transubstantiation I doe not believe in God and the Knots of them I could not untie yet I should cut them in peeces with doing that and knowing that I doe so which you pretend I cannot doe 50 In the thirteenth division we haue again much adoe about nothing A great deal of stirre you keep in confuting some that pretend to know Canonicall Scripture to be such by the Titles of the Books But these men you doe not name which makes me suspect you cannot Yet it is possible there may be some such men in the world for Gusman de Alfarache hath taught us that the Fooles hospitall is a large place 51 In the fourteenth § we haue very artificiall jugling D. Potter had said That the Scripture hee desires to bee understood of those books wherein all Christians agree is a principle and needs not be proved among Christians His reason was because that needs no farther proofe which is believed already Now by this you say he meanes either that the Scripture is one of these first Principles and most known in all sciences which cannot be proved which is to suppose it cannot be proved by the Church and that is to suppose the Question Or hee meanes That it is not the most known in Christianity then it may be prov'd Where we see plainly That two most different things Most known in all Sciences Most known in Christianity are captiously confounded As if the Scripture might not be the first and most knowne Principle in Christianity and yet not the most knowne in all Sciences Or as if to be a First Principle in Christianity and in all Sciences were all one That Scripture is a Principle among Christians that is so received by all that it need not be proved in any emergent Controversie to any Christian but may be taken for granted I think few will deny You your selues are of this a sufficient Testimony for urging against us many texts of Scripture you offer no proofe of the truth of them presuming we will not question it Yet this is not to deny that Tradition is a Principle more knowne then Scripture But to say it is a principle not in Christianity but in Reason nor proper to Christians but common to all men 52 But it is repugnant to our practice to hold Scripture a Principle because we are wont to affirme that one part of Scripture may be knowne to be Canonicall and may be interpreted by another Where the former device is againe put in practice For to be known to be Canonicall and to be interpreted is not all one That Scripture may be interpreted by Scripture that Protestants grant and Papists doe not deny neither does that any way hinder but that this assertion Scripture is the word of God may be among Christians a common Principle But the first â—That one part of Scripture may proue another part Canonicall and need no proofe of its own being so for that you haue produc'd divers Protestants that deny it but who they are that affirme it nondum Constat 53 It is superfluous for you to proue out of S. Athanasius S. Austine that we must receiue the sacred Canon upon the credit of Gods Church Vnderstanding by Church as here you explaine your selfe The credit of Tradition And that not the Tradition of the Present Church which we pretend may deviate from the Ancient but such a Tradition which involues an evidence of Fact and from hand to hand from age to age bringing us up to the times and persons of the Apostles and our Saviour himselfe commeth to be confirm'd by all these Miracles and other Arguments whereby they convinc'd their doctrine to be true Thus you Now proue the Canon of Scripture which you receive by such Tradition and we will allow it Proue your whole doctrine or the infallibility of your Church by such a Tradition we will yeeld to you in all
above all the men and Churches of the World whereof I have already given you two very pregnant demonstrations drawn from your presumptions tying God and Salvation to your Sacraments And the efficacy of them to your Priests Qualifications and Intentions 69 Your making the Salvation of Infants depend on Baptisme a Casuall thing and in the power of man to conferre or not conferre would yeild me a Third of the same nature And your suspending the same on the Baptizer's intention a Fourth And lastly your making the Reall presence of Christ in the Eucharist depend upon the casualties of the consecrators true Priesthood and Intention and yet commanding men to believe it for certain that he is present and to adore the Sacrament which according to your Doctrine for ought they can possibly know may be nothing else but a piece of bread so exposing them to the danger of Idolatry and consequently of damnation doth offer me a Fift demonstration of the same conclusion if I thought fit to insist upon them But I have no mind to draw any more out of this Fountaine neither doe I think it charity to cloy the Reader with uniformity when the subject affords variety 70 Sixtly therefore I returne it thus The faith of Papists relyes alone upon their Churches infallibility That there is any Church infallible and that Theirs is it they pretend not to believe but only upon prudentiall motives Dependance upon prudentiall motives they confesse to be obnoxious to a possibility of erring What then remaineth but Truth Faith Salvation and all must in them rely upon a fallible and uncertain ground 71 Seventhly The faith of Papists relies upon the Church alone The Doctrine of the Church is delivered to most of them by their Parish Priest or Ghostly Father or at least by a company of Priests who for the most part sure are men and not Angels in whom nothing is more certain then a most certain possibility to erre What then remaineth but that Truth Faith Salvation and all must in them rely upon a fallible and uncertain ground 72 Eightly thus It is apparent and undeniable that many Thousands there are who believe your Religion upon no better grounds then a man may have for the beliefe almost of any Religion As some believe it because their forefathers did so and they were good People Some because they were Christened and brought up in it Some because many Learned and Religious men are of it Some because it is the Religion of their Country where all other Religions are persecuted and proscribed Some because Protestants cannot shew a perpetuall succession of Professors of all their Doctrine Some because the service of your Church is more stately and pompous magnificent Some because they find comfort in it Some because your Religion is farther spread and hath more professors of it then the Religion of Protestants Some because your Priests compasse Sea and Land to gain Proselytes to it Lastly an infinite number by chance and they know not why but only because they are sure they are in the right This which I say is a most certain experimented truth and if you will deale ingenuously you will not deny it And without question he that builds his faith upon our English Translation goes upon a more prudent ground then any of these can with reason be pretended to be What then can you alleadge but that with you rather then with us Truth and Faith and Salvation and all relies upon fallible and uncertain grounds 73 Ninthly Your Rhemish and Doway Translations are delivered to your Proselytes such I mean that are dispenâ—'d with for the reading of them for the direction of their Faith and lives And the same may be said of your Translations of the Bible into other nationall languages in respect of those that are licenc'd to read them This I presume you will confesse And moreover that these Translations came not by inspiration but were the productions of humane Industry and that not Angels but men were the Authors of them Men I say meere men subject to the same Passions and to the same possibility of erring with our Translatours And then how does it not unavoidably follow that in them which depend upon these translations for their direction Faith and Truth and Salvation and all relies upon fallible and uncertain grounds 74 Tenthly and lastly to lay the axe to the root of the tree the Helena which you so fight for your vulgar Translation though some of you believe or pretend to believe it to be in every part and particle of it the pure and uncorrupted word of God yet others among you and those as good zealous Catholiques as you are not so confident hereof 75 First for all those who have made Translations of the whole Bible or any part of it different many times in sense from the Vulgar as Lyranus Cajetan Pagnine Arias Erasmus Valla Steuchus and others it is apparent and even palpable that they never dreamt of any absolute perfection and authenticall infallibility of the Vulgar Translation For if they had why did they in many places reject it and differ from it 76 Vega was present at the Councell of Trent when that decree was made which made the Vulgar Edition then not extant any where in the world authenticall and not to be rejected upon any pretense whatsoever At the forming this decree Vega I say was present understood the mind of the Councell as well as any man and professes that he was instructed in it by the President of it the Cardinall S. Cruce And yet he hath written that the Councell in this decree meant to pronounce this Translation free not simply from all error but only from such errors out of which any opinion pernitious to faith and manners might be collected This Andradius in his defence of that Councell reports of Vega and assents to it himselfe Driedo in his book of the Translation of Holy Scripture hath these words very pregnant and pertinent to the same purpose The See Apostolike hath approved or accepted Hieroms Edition not as so wholly consonant to the Originall and so entire and pure and restored in all things that it may not be lawfull for any man either by comparing it with the Fountaine to examine it or in some places to doubt whether or no Hierome did understand the true sense of the Scripture but only as an Edition to be prefer'd before all others then extant and no where deviating from the truth in the rules of faith and good life Mariana even where he is a most earnest Advocate for the Vulgar Edition yet acknowledges the imperfection of it in these words The faults of the Vulgar Edition are not approved by the Decree of the Councell of Trent a multitude whereof we did collect from the variety of Copies And againe We maintaine that the Hebrew and Greeke were by no meanes rejected by the Trent Fathers And that the Latine edition is indeed approved yet
and Scripture and experience so you tell us out of M. Hooker to seek for the ending of them by submitting unto some Iudiciall sentence whereunto neither part may refuse to stand This is very true Neither should you need to persuade us to seek such a meanes of ending all our Controversies if we could tell where to finde it But this wee know that none is fit to pronounce for all the world a judiciall definitiue obliging sentence in Controversies of Religion but only such a Man or such a society of Men as is authoriz'd thereto by God And besides we are able to demonstrate that it hath not been the pleasure of God to giue to any Man or Society of Men any such authority And therefore though we wish heartily that all Controversies were ended as we doe that all sinne were abolisht yet we haue little hope of the one or the other till the World be ended And in the mean while think it best to content our selues with and to persuade others unto an Vnity of Charity and mutuall toleration seeing God hath authoriz'd no man to force all men to Vnity of Opinion Neither doe we think it fit to argue thus To us it seemes convenient there should be one Iudge of all Controversies for the whole world therefore God has appointed one But more modest and more reasonable to collect thus God hath appointed no such judge of Controversies therefore though it seemes to us convenient there should be one yet it is not so Or though it were convenient for us to haue one yet it hath pleased God for Reasons best known to himselfe not to allow us this convenience 86 D. Fields words which follow I confesse are somewhat more pressing and if he had been infallible and the words had not slipt unadvisedly from him they were the best Argument in your Book But yet it is evident out of his Book so acknowledg'd by some of your own That he never thought of any one company of Christians invested with such authority from God that all men were bound to receiue their Decrees without examination though they seem contrary to Scripture and Reason which the Church of Rome requires And therefore if he haue in his Preface strained too high in cōmendation of the subject he writes of as Writers very often doe in their Prefaces and Dedicatory Epistles what is that to us Besides by all the Societies of the World it is not impossible nor very improbable hee might meane all that are or haue been in the world and so include even the Primitiue Church and her Communion we shall embrace her Direction we shall follow her Iudgement we shall rest in if wee belieue the Scripture endeavour to finde the true sense of it and liue according to it 87 Ad 18. § That the true Interpretation of the Scripture ought to be receaved from the Church you need not prove for it is very easily granted by them who professe themselves very ready to receiue all Truths much more the true sense of Scripture not only from the Church but from any societie of men nay from any man whatsoever 88 That the Churches Interpretation of Scripture is alwaies true that is it which you would haue said and that in some sense may bee also admitted viz. if your speake of that Church which before you spake of in the 14. § that is of the Church of all Ages since the Apostles Vpon the Tradition of which Church you there told us We were to receiue the Scripture and to belieue it to bee the Word of God For there you teach us that our Faith of Scripture depends on a Principle which requires no other proofe And that such is Tradition which from hand to hand and age to age bringing us up to the Times and Persons of the Apostles and our Saviour himselfe commeth to be confirmed by all those Miracles and other Arguments whereby they convinced their Doctrine to be true Wherefore the Ancient Fathers avouch that wee must receiue the sacred Scripture upon the Tradition of this Church The Tradition then of this Church you say must teach us what is Scripture and we are willing to belieue it And now if you make it good unto us that the same Tradition down from the Apostles hath delivered from age to age and from hand to hand any interpretation of any Scripture we are ready to embrace that also But now if you will argue thus The Church in one sense tells us what is Scripture we belieue therefore if the Church taken in another sense tell us this or that is the meaning of the Scripture we are to belieue that also this is too transparent Sophistrie to take any but those that are willing to be taken 89 If there be any Traditiue Interpretation of Scripture produce it and proue it to be so and we embrace it But the Tradition of all ages is one thing and the authority of the present Church much more of the Roman Church which is but a Part and a corrupted Part of the Catholique Church is another And therefore though we are ready to receiue both Scripture and the sense of Scripture upon the authority of Originall Tradition yet we receiue neither the one nor the other upon the Authority of your Church 90 First for the Scripture how can wee receiue them upon the Authority of your Church who hold now those Books to be Canonicall which formerly you rejected from the Canon I instance in the Book of Macchabees and the Epistle to the Hebrews The first of these you held not to be Canonicall in S. Gregories time or else hee was no member of your Church for it is apparent He held otherwise The second you rejected from the Canon in S. Hieroms time as it is evident out of many places of his Works 91 If you say which is all you can say that Hierom spake this of the particular Roman Church not of the Roman Catholique Church I answer there was none such in his time None that was called so Secondly what he spake of the Roman Church must be true of all other Churches if your Doctrine of the necessity of the Conformity of all other Churches to that Church were then Catholique Doctrine Now then choose whether you will either that the particular Roman Church was not then beleived to be the Mistresse of all other Churches notwithstanding Ad hanc Ecclesiam necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiam hoc est omnes qui sunt undique fideles which Card. Perron and his Translatresse so often translates false Or if you say shee was you will runne into a greater inconvenience and be forced to say that all the Churches of that time rejected from the Canon the Epistle to the Hebrews together with the Roman Church And consequently that the Catholique Church may erre in rejecting from the Canon Scriptures truly Canonicall 92 Secondly How can we receive the Scripture upon the authority of the Roman
Church which hath delivered at severall times Scriptures in many places different and repugnant for Authenticall Canonicall Which is most evident out of the place of Malachie which is so quoted for the Sacrifice of the Masse that either all the ancient Fathers had false Bibles or yours is false Most evident likewise from the comparing of the story of Iacob in Genesis with that which is cited out of it in the Epistle to the Hebrewes according to the vulgar Edition But aboue all to any one who shall compare the Bibles of Sixtus and Clement so evident that the wit of man cannot disguise it 93 And thus you see what reason we haue to belieue your Antecedent That your Church it is which must declare what Books bee true Scripture Now for the consequence that certainty is as liable to exception as the Antecedent For if it were true that God had promised to assist you for the delivering of true Scripture would this oblige Him or would it follow from hence that He had oblig'd himselfe to teach you not only sufficiently but effectually and irresistibly the true sense of Scripture God is not defectiue in things necessary neither will he leave himselfe without witnesse nor the World without meanes of knowing his will and doing it And therefore it was necessary that by his Providence he should preserve the Scripture from any undiscernable corruptiō in those things which he would haue known otherwise it is apparent it had not been his will that these things should be known the only meanes of continuing the knowledge of them being perished But now neither is God lavish in superfluities and therefore having given us meanes sufficient for our direction and power sufficient to make use of these meanes he will not constraine or necessitate us to make use of these meanes For that were to crosse the end of our Creation which was to be glorified by our free obedience whereas necessity and freedome cannot stand together That were to reverse the Law which he hath prescribed to himselfe in his dealing with men and that is to set life and death before him and to leaue him in the hands of his own Counsell God gaue the Wisemen a Starre to lead them to Christ but he did not necessitate them to follow the guidance of this starre that was left to their liberty God gaue the Children of Israel a Fire to lead them by night and a Pillar of Cloud by day but he constrained no man to follow them that was left to their liberty So he giues the Church the Scripture which in those things which are to be believed or done are plain and easie to be follow'd like the Wise men's Starre Now that which he desires of us on our part is the Obedience of Faith and loue of the Truth and desire to finde the true sense of it and industry in searching it and humility in following and Constancy in professing it all which if he should work in us by an absolute irresistible necessity he could no more require of us as our duty then he can of the Sunne to shine of the Sea to ebb flowe and of all other Creatures to doe those things which by meere necessity they must doe and cannot choose Besides what an impudence is it to pretend that your Church is infallibly directed concerning the true meaning of the Scripture whereas there are thousands of places of Scripture which you doe not pretend certainly to understand and about the Interpretation whereof your own Doctors differ among themselues If your Church be infallibly directed concerning the true meaning of Scripture why doe not your Doctors follow her infallible direction And if they doe how comes such difference among them in their Interpretations 94 Again why does your Church thus put her candle under a Bushell and keep her Talent of interpreting Scripture infallibly thus long wrapt up in napkins Why sets she not forth Infallible Commentaries or Expositions upon all the Bible Is it because this would not be profitable for Christians that Scripture should be Interpreted It is blasphemous to say so The Scripture it selfe tells us All Scripture is profitable And the Scripture is not so much the Words as the Sense And if it be not profitable why does shee imploy particular Doctors to interpret Scriptures fallibly unlesse we must think that fallible Interpretations of Scripture are profitable and infallible interpretations would not be so 95 If you say the Holy Ghost which assists the Church in interpreting will move the Church to interpret when he shall think fit and that the Church will doe it when the Holy Ghost shall move her to doe it I demand whether the Holy Ghost's moving of the Church to such works as these be resistible by the Church or irresistible If resistible then the Holy Ghost may move and the Church may not be moved As certainly the Holy Ghost doth alwaies move to an action when he shewes us plainly that it would be for the good of men and honour of God As he that hath any sense will acknowledge that an infallible exposition of Scripture could not but be and there is no conceivable reason why such a work should be put off a day but only because you are conscious to your selves you cannot doe it and therefore make excuses But if the moving of the Holy Ghost be irresistible and you are not yet so mov'd to goe about this work then I confesse you are excused But then I would know whether those Popes which so long deferred the calling of a Councell for the Reformation of your Church at length pretended to be effected by the Councell of Trent whether they may excuse themselves for that they were not moved by the Holy Ghost to doe it I would know likewise as this motion is irresistible when it comes so whether it be so simply necessary to the moving of your Church to any such publique Action that it cannot possibly move without it That is whether the Pope now could not if he would seat himselfe in Cathedra and fall to writing expositions upon the Bible for the directions of Christians to the true sense of it If you say he cannot you will make your selfe ridiculous If he can then I would know whether he should be infallibly directed in these expositions or no If he should then what need he to stay for irresistible motion Why does he not goe about this noble worke presently If he should not How shall we know that the calling of the Councell of Trent was not upon his own voluntary motion or upon humane importunity and suggestion and not upon the motion of the Holy Ghost And consequently how shall we know whether he were assistant to it or no seeing he assists none but what he himselfe moves to And whether he did move the Pope to call this Councell is a secret thing which we cannot possibly know nor perhaps the Pope himselfe 96 If you say your meaning is only
That the Church shall be infallibly guarded from giving any false sense of any Scripture and not infallibly assisted positively to give the true sense of all Scripture I put to you your own Question why should we believe the Holy Ghost will stay there Or why may we not as well think he will stay at the first thing that is in teaching the Church what Bookes be true Scripture For if the Holy Ghosts assistance be promised to all things profitable then will he be with them infallibly not only to guard them from all errors but to guide them to all profitable truths such as the true senses of all Scripture would be Neither could he stay there but defend them irresistibly from all Vices Nor there neither but infuse into them irresistibly all Vertues for all these things would be much for the benefit of Christians If you say he cannot doe this without taking away their free will in living I say neither can he necessitate men to believe aright without taking away their freewill in believing and in professing their belief 97 To the place of S. Austine I answere That not the authority of the present Church much lesse of a Part of it as the Roman Church is was that which alone mov'd Saint Austine to believe the Gospell but the perpetuall Tradition of the Church of all Ages Which you your selfe have taught us to be the only Principle by which the Scripture is prov'd and which it selfe needs no proof and to which you have referred this very saying of S. Austine Ego vero Evangelio non crederem nisi c. p. 55. And in the next place which you cite out of his book De Vtil Cred. c. 14. he shewes that his motives to believe were Fame Celebrity Consent Antiquity And seeing this Tradition this Consent this Antiquity did as fully and powerfully move him not to believe Manichaeus as to believe the Gospell the Christian Tradition being as full against Manichaeus as it was for the Gospell therefore he did well to conclude upon these grounds that he had as much reason to disbelieve Manichaeus as to believe the Gospell Now if you can truly say that the same Fame Celebrity Consent Antiquity that the same Vniversall and Originall Tradition lyes against Luther and Calvin as did against Manichaeus you may doe well to apply the Argument against them otherwise it will be to little purpose to substitute their names in steade of Manichaeus unlesse you can shew the thing agrees to them as well as him 98 If you say that S. Austin speakes here of the authority of the Present Church abstracting from consent with the Ancient and therefore you seeing you have the present Church on your side against Luther and Calvin as S. Austin against Manichaeus may urge the same words against them which S. Austin did against him 99 I answer First that it is a vaine presumption of yours that the Catholique Church is of your side Secondly that if S. Austine speake here of that present Church which moved him to believe the Gospel without consideration of the Antiquity of it its both Personall and Doctrinall succession from the Apostles His argument will be like a Buskin that will serve anylegge It will serve to keepe an Arrian or a Grecian from being a Roman Catholique as well as a Catholique from being an Arrian or a Grecian In as much as the Arrians and Grecians did pretend to the title of Catholiques and the Church as much as the Papists now doe If then you should haue come to an ancient Goth or Vandall whom the Arrians converted to Christianity and should haue mov'd him to your Religion might he not say the very same words to you as S. Austin to the Manichaeans I would not beleive the Gospell unlesse the authority of the Church did move me Them therefore whom I obeyed saying beleive the Gospell why should I not obey saying to me doe not beleive the Homoousians Choose what thou pleasest if thou shalt say beleive the Arrians they warne me not to give any credit to you If therefore I beleive them I cannot beleive thee If thou say doe not beleive the Arriās thou shalt not doe well to force me to the faith of the Homoousians because by the preaching of the Arrians I beleived the Gospell it selfe If you say you did well to beleive them commending the Gospell but you did not well to beleive them discommending the Homoousians Doest thou think me so very foolish that without any reason at all I should beleive what thou wilt and not beleive what thou wilt not It were easie to put these words into the mouth of a Grecian Abyssine Georgian or any other of any Religion And I pray bethinke your selves what you would say to such a one in such a case and imagine that we say the very same to you 100 Whereas you aske Whether Protestants doe not perfectly resemble those men to whom S. Austine spake when they will have men to believe the Roman Church delivering Scripture but not to believe her condemning Luther I demand againe whether you be well in your wits to say that Protestants would have men believe the Roman Church delivering Scripture whereas they accuse her to deliver many bookes for Scripture which are not so and doe not bid men to receive any book which she delivers for that reason because she delivers it And if you meant only Protestants will have men to believe some bookes to be Scripture which the Roman Church delivers for such may not we then aske as you doe Doe not Papists perfectly resemble these men which will have men believe the Church of England delivering Scripture but not to believe her condemning the Church of Rome 101 And whereas you say S. Austine may seeme to have spoken Prophetically against Protestants when he said Why should I not most diligently enquire what Christ commanded of them before all others by whose Authority I was moved to believe that Christ Commanded any good thing I answer Vntill you can shew that Protestants believe that Christ commanded any good thing that is That they believe the truth of Christian Religion upon the Authority of the Church of Rome this place must be wholly impertinent to your purpose which is to make Protestants believe your Church to be the infallible expounder of Scriptures and judge of Controversies nay rather is it not directly against your purpose For why may not a member of the Church of England who received his baptisme education and Faith from the Ministery of this Church say just so to you as S. Austine here to the Manichees Why should I not most diligently inquire what Christ commanded of them the Church of England before all others by whose Authority I was mov'd to believe that Christ commanded any good thing Can you F. or K. or whosoever you are better declare to me what he said whom I would not have thought to have been or to be if the belief
Therefore there was then an infallible Iudge Iust as if I should say Yorke is not my way from Oxford to London therefore Bristol is Or a dogge is not a horse therefore he is a man As if God had no other waies of revealing himselfe to men but only by Scripture and an infallible Church S. Chrysostome and Isidorus Pelusiota conceaved he might use other meanes And S. Paul telleth us that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might be known by his workes and that they had the Law written in their hearts Either of these waies might make some faithfull men without either necessity of Scripture or Church 125 But D. Potter saies you say In the Iewish Church there was a living Iudge indowed with an absolute infallible direction in cases of moment as all points belonging to divine Faith are And where was that infallible direction in the Iewish Church when they should have received Christ for their Messias and refused him Or perhaps this was not a case of moment D. Potter indeed might say very well not that the high Priest was infallible â—or certainly he was not but that his determination was to be of necessity obeyed though for the justice of it there was no necessity that it should be believed Besides it is one thing to say that the living judge in the Iewish Church had an infallible direction another that he was necessitated to follow this direction This is the priviledge which you challenge But it is that not this which the Doctor attributes to the Iewes As a man may truely say the wise men had an infallible direction to Christ without saying or thinking that they were constrained to follow it and could not doâ— otherwise 126 But either the Church retaines still her infallibility or it was devested of it upon the receiving of Holy Scripture which is absurd An argument me thinkes like this Either you have hornes or you have lost them but you never lost them therefore you have them still If you say you never had hornes so say I for ought appeares by your reasons the Church never had infallibility 127 But some Scriptures were received in some places and not in others therefore if Scriptures were the Iudge of Controversies some Churches had one Iudge and some another And what great inconvenience is there in that that one part of England should have one Iudge and another another especially seeing the bookes of Scripture which were received by those that received fewest had as much of the doctrine of Christianity in them as they all had which were received by any all the necessary parts of the Gospell being contained in every one of the four Gospells as I have prov'd So that they which had all the bookes of the New Testament had nothing superfluous For it was not superfluous but profitable that the same thing should be said divers times and be testified by divers witnesses And they that had but one of the four Gospells wanted nothing necessary and therefore it is vainly infer'd by you that with months and yeares as new Canonicall Scriptures grew to be published the Church altered her rule of Faith and judge of Controversies 128 Heresies you say would arise after the Apostles time and after the writing of Scriptures These cannot be discovered condemned avoyded unlesse the Church be infallible Therefore there must be a Church infallible But I pray tell me Why cannot Heresies be sufficiently discovered condemned avoided by them which believe Scripture to be the rule of Faith If Scripture be sufficient to Informe us what is the faith it must of necessity be also sufficient to teach us what is Heresy seeing Heresy is nothing but a manifest deviation from and an opposition to the faith That which is streight will plainly teach us what is crooked and one contrary cannot but manifest the other If any one should deny that there is a God That this God is omnipotent omniscient good just true mercifull a rewarder of them that seek him a punisher of them that obstinatly offend him that Iesus Christ is the Sonne of God and the Saviour of the World that it is he by obedience to whom men must look to be saved If any man should deny either his Birth or Passion or Resurrection or Assention or sitting at the right hand of God his having all power given him in Heaven and Earth That it is he whom God hath appointed to be judge of the quick and the dead that all men shall rise again at the last day That they which believe and repent shall be sav'd That they which doe not believe or repent shall be damned If a man should hold that either the keeping of the Mosaicall Law is necessary to Salvation or that good works are not necessary to Salvation In a word if any man should obstinatly contradict the truth of any thing plainly delivered in Scripture who does not see that every one which believes the Scripture hath a sufficient meanes to discover and condemne and avoid that Heresy without any need of an infallible guide If you say that the obscure places of Scripture contain matters of Faith I answere that it is a matter of faith to believe that the sense of them whatsoever it is which was intended by God is true for he that does not doe so calls Gods Truth into question But to believe this or that to be the true sense of them or to believe the true sense of them and to avoid the false is not necessary either to Faith or Salvation For if God would have had his meaning in these places certainly known how could it stand with his wisdome to be so wanting to his own will and end as to speak obscurely or how can it consist with his justice to require of men to know certainly the meaning of those words which he himselfe hath not revealed Suppose there were an absolute Monarch that in his own absence from one of his Kingdomes had written Lawes for the government of it some very plainly and some very ambiguously and obscurely and his Subjects should keep those that were plainly written with all exactnesse and for those that were obscure use their best diligence to find his meaning in them and obey them according to the sense of them which they conceived should this King either with justice or wisdome be offended with these Subjects if by reason of the obscurity of them they mistook the sense of them and faile of performance by reason of their errour 128 But It is more usefull fit you say for the deciding of Controversies to haue besides an infallible rule to goe by a living infallible Iudge to determine them from hence you conclude that certainly there is such a Iudge But why then may not another say that it is yet more usefull for many excellent purposes that all the Patriarchs should bee infallible then that the Pope only should Another that it would bee yet more usefull that all the
of his may informe you Non enim per alios c. we have received the disposition of our Salvation from no others but from them by whom the Gospell came unto us Which Gospell truly the Apostles first preached and after wards by the will of God delivered in writing to us to be the Pillar and Foundation of our faith Vpon which place Bellarmine's two observations and his acknowledgment ensuing upon them are very considerable and as I conceive as home to my purpose as I would wish them His first Notandum is That in the Christian Doctrine some things are simply necessary for the Salvation of all men as the knowledge of the Articles of the Apostles Creed and besides the knowledg of the ten Commandements and some of the Sacraments Other things not so necessary but that a man may be saved without the explicit knowledge and belief and profession of them His Second Note is That those things which were simply necessary the Apostles were wont to preach to all men But of other things not all to all but somethings to all to wit those things which were profitable for all other things only to Prelats and Priests These things premised he acknowledgeth That all those things were written by the Apostles which are necessary for all and which they were wont openly to preach to all But that other things were not all written And therefore when Irenaeus saies that the Apostles wrot what they Preach in the World it is true saith he and not against Traditions because they preached not to the People all things but only those things which were necessary or profitable for them 145 So that at the most you can inferre from hence but only a suppositive necessity of having an infallible Guide and that grounded upon a false supposition In case we had no Scripture but an absolute necessity hereof and to them who have and believe the Scripture which is your assumption cannot with any colour from hence be concluded but rather the contrary 146 Neither because as He saies it was then easy to receive the Truth from Gods Church then in the Age next after the Apostles Then when all the ancient and Apostolike Churches were at an agreement about the Fundamentalls of Faith Will it therefore follow that now 1600 yeares after when the ancient Churches are divided almost into as many Religions as they are Churches every one being the Church to it selfe and hereticall to all other that it is as easy but extremely difficult or rather impossible to find the Church first independently of the true Doctrine and then to find the truth by the Church 147 As for the last clause of the sentence it will not any whit advantage but rather prejudice your assertion Neither will I seek to avoid the pressure of it by saying that he speaks of small Questions and therefore not of Questions touching things necessary to Salvation which can hardly be called small Questions But I will favour you so farre as to suppose that saying this of small Questions it is probable he would have said it much more of the Great but I will answere that which is most certain and evident and which I am confident you your selfe were you as impudent as I believe you modest would not deny that the ancient Apostolique Churches are not now as they were in Irenaeus's time then they were all at unity about matters of faith which unity was a good assurance that what they so agreed in came from some one common Fountaine and they had no other then of Apostolike Preaching And this is the very ground of Tertullian's so often mistaken Prescription against Heretiques Variasse debuerat Error Ecclesiarum quod autem apud multos unum est non est erratum sed traditum If the Churches had erred they could not but have varied but that which is one among so many came not by Error but Tradition But now the case is altered and the mischiefe is that these ancient Churches are divided among themselves and if we have recourse to them one of them will say this is the way to heaven another that So that now in place of receiving from them certain and cleare truths we must expect nothing but certain and cleare contradictions 148 Neither will the Apostles depositing with the Church all things belonging to truth be any proof that the Church shall certainly keep this depositum entire and syncere without adding to it or taking from it for this whole depositum was committed to every particular Church nay to every particular man which the Apostles converted And yet no man I think will say that there was any certainty that it should be kept whole and inviolate by every man and every Church It is apparent out of Scripture it was committed to Timothy and by him consigned to other faithfull men and yet S. Paul thought it not superfluous earnestly to exhort him to the carefull keeping of it which exhortation you must grant had been vain and superfluous if the not keeping of it had been impossible And therefore though Irenaeus saies The Apostles fully deposited in the Church all truth yet he saies not neither can we inferre from what he saies that the Church should alwaies infallibly keep this depositum entire without the losse of any truth and syncere without the mixture of any falshood 149 Ad § 25. But you proceed and tell us That beside all this the Doctrine of Protestants is destructive of it selfe For either they have certain and Infallible meanes not to erre in interpreting or no◠If not Scripture to them cannot be a sufficient ground for infallible faith If they have and so cannot erre in interpreting Scripture then they are able with infallibility to heare and determine all controversies of faith and so they may be and are Iudges of Controversies although they use the Scripture as a Rule And thus against their own doctrine they constitute another Iudge of Controversies beside Scripture alone And may not we with as much reason substitute Church and Papists instead of Scripture and Protestants and say unto you Besides all this the doctrine of Papists is destructive of it selfe For either they have certain and infallible meanes not to erre in the choice of the Church and interpreting her decrees or they have not If not then the Church to them cannot be a sufficient but meerely a phantasticall ground for infallible faith nor a meet Iudge of Controversies For unlesse I be infallibly sure that the Church is Infallible how can I be upon her Authority infallibly sure that any thing she saies is Infallible If they have certain infallible meanes and so cannot erre in the choice of their Church and in interpreting her decrees then they are able with Infallibility to heare examine and determine all controversies of faith although they pretend to make the Church their Guide And thus against their own Doctrine they constitute another Iudge of controversies besides the Church alone Nay
know it to be so because the Church saies so which is Infallible If I aske what meane You by your Church You can tell me nothing but the company of Christians which adhere to the Pope I demaund then lastly Why should I beleive this company to be the infallible Propounder of Divine Revelation And then you tell me that there are many Motives to induce a man to this beleife But are these Motives lastly infallible No say you but very credible Well let them passe for such because now we have not leasure to examine them Yet me thinks seeing the Motives to believe the Churches infallibility are only very credible it should also be but as credible that your Church is Infallible and as credible and no more perhaps somewhat lesse that her proposals particularly Transubstantiation are Divine Revelations And me thinks You should require only a Morall and modest assent to them and not a Divine as you call it and infallible Faith But then of these Motives to the Churches Infallibility I hope you will give us leave to consider and judge whether they be indeed Motives and sufficient or whether they be not Motives at all or not sufficient or whether these Motives or inducements to your Church be not impeached and opposed with Compulsives and enforcements from it or lastly whether these Motives which You use be not indeed only Motives to Christianity and not to Popery giue me leave for distinction sake to call your Religion so If we may not judge of these things how can my judgment be moved with that which comes not within its cognizance If I may then at least I am to be a Iudge of all these Controversies 1. Whether every one of these Motives be indeed a Motive to any Church 2. If to some whether to Yours 3. If to Yours whether sufficient or insufficient 4. Whether other Societies haue not as many and as great Motives to draw me to them 5. Whether I haue not greater reason to beleive you doe erre then that you cannot And now Sir I pray let me trouble You with a few more Questions Am I a sufficient Iudge of these Controversies or no If of these why shall I stay here why not of others Why not of all Nay doth not the true examining of these few containe and lay upon me the examination of all What other Motives to your Church have you but your Notes of it Bellarmine gives some 14. or 15. And one of these fifteene containes in it the examination of all controversies and not only so but of all uncontroverted Doctrines For how shall I or can I know the Church of Romes conformity with the Ancient Church unlesse I know first what the Ancient Church hid hold and then what the Church of Rome doth hold and lastly whether they be conformable or if in my judgment they seeme not conformable I am then to think the Church of Rome not to be the Church for want of the Note which she pretends is proper and perpetuall to it So that for ought I can see Iudges we are and must be of all sides every one for himselfe and God for us all 155 Ad § 26. I answere This assertion that Scripture alone is Iudge of all Controversies in Faith if it be taken properly is neither a Fundamentall nor Vnfundamentall point of Faith nor no point of Faith at all but a plaine falshood It is not a Iudge of Controversies but a Rule to Iudge them by and that not an absolutly perfect Rule but as perfect as a written Rule can be which must alwayes need something else which is either evidently true or evidently credible to give attestation to it and that in this case is Vniversall Tradition So that Vniversall Tradition is the Rule to judge all Controversies by But then because nothing besides Scripture comes to us with as full a streame of Tradition as Scripture Scripture alone and no unwritten Doctrine nor no Infallibility of any Church having attestation from Tradition truely Vniversall for this reason we conceive as the Apostles persons while they were liuing were the only Iudges of controversies so their Writings now they are dead are the only Rule for us to judge them by There being nothing unwritten which can goe in upon halfe so faire cards for the title of Apostolike Tradition as these things which by the confession of both Sides are not so I mean the doctrine of the Millenaries and of the necessity of the Eucharist for Infants 156 Yet when we say the Scripture is the only Rule to judge all Controversies by me thinks you should easily conceiue that wee would be understood of all those that are possible to be judg'd by Scripture and of those that arise among such as believe the Scripture For if I had a controversie with an Atheist whether there were a God or no I would not say that the Scripture were a Rule to judge this by seeing that doubting whether there be a God or no he must needs doubt whether the Scripture be the word of God or if hee does not hee grants the Question and is not the man we speak of So likewise if I had a controversie about the Truth of Christ with a lew it would be vainly done of me should I presse him which the Authority of the new Testament which he believes not untill out of some principles common to us both I had persuaded him that it is the Word of God The New Testament therefore while he remaines a Iew would not be a fit Rule to decide this Controversie In as much as that which is doubted of it selfe is not fit to determine other doubts So likewise if there were any that believed Christian Religion and yet believed not the Bible to be the Word of God though they believed the matter of it to be true which is no impossible supposition for I may believe a book of S. Austines to containe nothing but the Truth of God yet not to haue been inspired by God himselfe against such men therefore there were no disputing out of the Bible because nothing in question can be a proof to it selfe When therefore we say the Scripture is a sufficient meanes to determine all controversies we say not this either to Atheists Iewes Turks or such Christians if there be any such as believe not Scripture to be the word of God But among such men only as are already agreed upon this That the Scripture is the Word of God we say all controversies that arise about Faith are either not at all decidable consequently not necessary to be believed one way or other or they may be determined by Scripture In a Word That all things necessary to be believed are evidently contain'd in Scripture and what is not there evidently contained cannot be necessary to be believed And our reason hereof is convincing because nothing can challenge our beliefe but what hath descended to us from Christ by Originall and Vniversall
every one is obliged not to believe the contrary of any one point known to be testified by God For that were in fact to affirme that God could be deceived or would deceive which were to overthrow the whole certainty of our faith wherein the thing most principall is not the point which we believe which Divines call the Materiall Object but the chiefest is the Motive for which we believe to wit Almighty Gods infallible revelation or authority which they terme the Formall Object of our faith In two senses therefore and with a double relation points of faith may be called fundamentall and necessary to salvation The one is taken with reference to the Affirmative Precept when the points are of such quality that there is obligation to know and believe them explicitely and severally In this sense we grant that there is difference betwixt points of faith which D. Potter to no purpose laboureth to prove against his Adversary who in expresse words doth grant and explicate it But the Doctor thought good to dissemble the matter and not to say one pertinent word in defence of his distinction as it was impugned by Charity Mistaken and as it is wont to be applied by Protestants The other sense according to which points of faith may be called Fundamentall and necessary to salvation with reference to the Negative precept of faith is such that we cannot without grievous sinne and forfeiture of salvation disbelieve any one point sufficiently propounded as revealed by Almighty God And in this sense we avouch that there is no distinction in points of faith as if to reject some must bee damnable and to reject others equally proposed as Gods word might stand with salvation Yea the obligation of the Negative precept is farre more strict then is that of the Affirmative which God freely imposed and may freely release But it is impossible that he can dispense or give leave to disbelieue or deny what he affirmeth in this sense sin damnation are more inseparable from error in points not fundamentall then from ignorance in Articles fundamentall All this I shew by an example which I wish to be particularly noted for the present and for divers other occasions hereafter The Creed of the Apostles containes divers fundamentall points of faith as the Deity Trinity of Persons Incarnation Passion and Resurrection of our Saviour Christ c. It containes also some points for their matter and nature in themselves not fundamentall as under what Iudge our Saviour suffered that he was buried the circumstance of the time of his Resurrection the third day c. But yet neverthelesse whosoever once knowes that these points are contained in the Apostles Creed the deniall of them is damnable and is in that sense a fundamentall error and this is the precise point of the present question 3 And all that hitherto hath been said is so manifestly true that no Protestant or Christian if he doe but understand the termes and state of the Question can possibly deny it In so much as I am amazed that men who otherwise are endued with excellent wits should so enslave themselves to their Predecessors in Protestantismeâ— as still to harp on this distinction and never regard how impertinently untruly it was implied by them at first to make all Protestants seem to be of one fayth because forsooth they agree in fundamentall points For the difference among Protestants consists not in that some believe some points of which others are ignorant or not bound expressely to know as the distinction ought to be applied but that some of them disbelieve and directly wittingly and willingly oppose what others doe believe to be testified by the word of God wherein there is no difference between points fundamentall and not fundamentall Because till points fundamentall be sufficiently proposed as revealed by God it is not against faith to reject them or rather without sufficient proposition it is not possible prudently to believe them and the like is of points not fundamentall which assoone as they come to be sufficiently propounded as divine Truths they can no more be denyed then points fundamentall propounded after the same manner Neither will it avayle them to their other end that for preservation of the Church in being it is sufficient that she doe not erre in points fundamentall Foâ— if in the mean time she maintain any one Errour against Gods revelation be the thing in it selfe never so small her Errour is damnable and destructive of salvation 4 But D. Potter forgetting to what purpose Protestants make use of their distinction doth finally overthrow it and yields to as much as we can desire For speaking of that measure Quantity of faith without which none can be saved he sayth It is enough to believe some things by a vertuall faith or by a generall and as it were a negative faith whereby they are not denyed or contradicted Now our question is in case that divine truths although not fundamentall be denied and contradicted aad therefore even according to him all such deniall excludes salvation After he speaks more plainly It is true saith he whatsoever is revealed in Scripture or propoundid by the Church out of Scripture is in some sense fundamentall in regard of the divine authority of God and his word by which it is recommended that is such as may not be deâ—ied or contradicted without Infidelity such as every Christian is bound with humility and reverence to believe whensoever the knowledge thereof is offered to him And further Where the revealed will or word of God is sufficiently propounded there he that opposeth is convinced of error and he who is thus convinced is an Heretique and Heresie is a work of the flesh which excludeth from heaven Gal. 5. 20. 21. And hence it followeth that it is FVNDAMENTALL to a Christians FAITH and necessary for his salvation that he believe all revealed Truths of God whereof he may be convinced that they are from God Can any thing be spoken more clearly or directly for us that it is a Fundamentall error to deny any one point though never so small if once it be sufficiently propounded as a divine truth and that there is in this sense no distinction betwixt points fundamentall and not fundamentall And if any should chance to imagine that it is against the foundation of faith not to believe points Fundamentall although they be not sufficiently propounded D. Potter doth not admit of this difference betwixt points fundamentall and not fundamentall For he teacheth that sufficient proposition of revealed truth is required before a man can be convinced and for want of sufficient conviction he excuseth the Disciples from heresy although they believed not our Saviours Resurrection which is a very fundamentall point of faith Thus then I argue out of D. Potters own confession No error is damnable unlesse the contrary truth be sufficiently propounded as revealed by God Every error is
his 7. Sect. he pretendeth then he may be sure that whensoever he meetes with such points in Scripture in them it is infallibly true although it might erre in others and not only true but cleere because Protestants teach that in matters necessary to Salvation the Scripture is so cleere that all such necessary truths are either manifestly contained therein or may be cleerely deduced from it Which Doctrines being put together to wit That Scriptures cannot erre in points fundamentall that they cleerely containe all such points and that they can tell what points in particular be such I mean fundamentall it is manifest that it is sufficient for Salvation that Scripture be infallible only in points fundamentall For supposing these doctrines of theirs to be true they may be sure to find in Scripture all points necessary to Salvation although it were fallible in other points of lesse moment Neyther will they be able to avoid this impiety against holy Scripture till they renounce their other doctrines and in particular till they believe that Christs promise to his Church are not limited to points fundamentall 16 Besides from the fallibility of Christs Catholique Church in some points it followeth that no true Protestant earned or unlearned doth or can with assurance believe the universall Church in any one point of doctrine Not in points of lesser moment which they call not fundamentall because they believe that in such points she may erre Not in fundamentalls because they must know what points be fundamentall before they goe to learn of her least otherwise they be rather deluded then instructed in regard that her certain and infallible direction extends only to points fundamentall Now if before they addresse themselves to the Church they must know what points are fundamentall they learn not of her but will be as fit to teach as to be taught by her How then are all Christians so often so seriously upon so dreadfull menaces by Fathers Scriptures and our blessed Saviour himselfe counselled and commanded to seeke to hear to obey the Church S. Austine was of a very different mind from Protestants If saith he the Church through the whole world practise any of these things to dispute whether that ought to be so done is a most insolent madnesse And in another place he saith That which the whole Church holds and is not ordained by Councels but hath alwaies been kept is most rightly believed to be delivered by Apostolicall authority The same holy Father teacheth that the custome of baptizing children cannot be proved by Scripture alone and yet that it is to be believed as derived from the Apostles The custome of our Mother the Church saith he in baptizing infants iâ— in no wise to be contemned nor to be accounted superfluous nor is it at all to be believed unlesse it were an Apostolicall Tradition And elsewhere Christ is of profit to Children baptized Is he therefore of profit to persons not believing But God forbid that I should say infants doe not believe I have already said he believes in another who finned in another It is said be believes and it is of force and he is reckoned among the faithfull that are baptized This the authority of our Mother the Church hath against this strength against this invincible wall whosoever rusheth shall be crushed in pieces To this argument the Protestants in the Conference at Ratishon gaue this round answer Nos ab Augustino hac in parte libere dissentimas In this we plainly disagree from Augustine Now if this doctrine of baptizing Infants be not fundamentall in D. Potters sense then according to S. Augustine the infallibility of the Church extends to points not fundamentall But if on the other side it be a fundamentall point then according to the same holy Doctour we must rely on the authority of the Church for some fundamentall point not contained in Scripture but delivered by Tradition The like argument I frame out of the same Father about the not rebaptizing of those who were baptized by Heretiques whereof he excellently to our present purpose speaketh in this manner Wee follow indeed in this matter even the most certaine authority of Canonicall all Scriptures But how Consider his words Although verily there be brought no example for this point out of the Canonicall Scriptures yet even in this point the truth of the same Scriptures is held by us while we doe that which the authority of Scriptures doth recommend that so because the holy Scripture cannot deceaue us whosoever is afraid to be deceaved by the obscurity of this question must haue recourse to the same Church concerning it which without any ambiguity the holy Scripture doth demonstrate to us Among many other points in the aforesaid words we are to obserue that according to this holy Father when we prove some points not particularly contained in Scripture by the authority of the Church even in that case we ought not to be said to belieue such points without Scripture because Scripture it selfe recommends the Church and therefore relying on her we relye on Scripture without danger of being deceaved by the obscurity of any question defined by the Church And elsewhere he faithi Seeing this is written in no Scripture we must belieue the testimony of the Church which Christ declareth to speak the truth But it seemes D. Potter is of opinion that this doctrine about not rebaptizing such as were baptized by Heretiques is no necessary point of faith nor the contrary an heresie wherein he contradicteth S. Augustine from whom we haue now heard that what the Church teacheth is truly said to be taught by Scripture and consequently to deny this particular point delivered by the Church is to oppose Scripture it selfe Yet if he will needs hold that this point is not fundamentall we must conclude out of S. Augustine as we did concerning the baptizing of Children that the infallibility of the Church reacheth to points not fundamentall The same Father in another place concerning this very question of the validity of Baptisme conferred by Heretiques saith The Apostles indeed haue prescribed nothing of this but this Custome ought to be believed to be originally taken from their tradition as there are many things that the universall Church observeth which are therefore with good reason believed to haue been commanded by the Apostles although they be not written No lesse cleer is S. Chrysoslome for the infallibility of the Traditions of the Church For treating these words 2. Thess. 2. Stand hold the Traditions which you haue learned whether by speech or by Epistle saith Hence it is manifest that they delivered not all things by letter but many things also without writing and these also are worthy of beliefe Let us therefore account the tradition of the Church to be worthy of beliefe It is a Tradition Seek no more Which words are so plainly against Protestants that Whitaker is as plaine with S. Chrysostome
Church upon pretence of her errors haue failed even in fundamentall points and suffered shipwrack of their Salvation ought to deter all Christians from opposing her in any one doctrine or practises as to omit other both ancient and modern heresies we see that divers chiefe Protestants pretending to reform the corruptions of the Church are come to affirm that for many Ages she erred to death and wholy perished which D. Potter cannot deny to be a fundamentall Errour against that Article of our Creed I believe the Catholique Church as he aâ—â—irmeth it of the Donatists because they confined the universall Church within Africa or some other smal tract of soile Least therefore I may fall into some fundamentall errour it is most safe for me to belieue all the Decrees of that Church which cannot errâ— fundamentally especially if we adde That according to the Doctrine of Catholique Divines one errour in faith whether it be for the matter it selfe great or small dâ—stroies faith as is shewed in Charity Mistaken and consequently to accuse the Church of any one Errour is to affirm that she lost all faith and erred damnably which very saying is damnable because it leaues Christ no visible Church on earth 21 To all these arguments I adde this demonstration D. Potter teacheth that there neither â—as nor can be any iust cause to depart from the Church of Christ no more then from Christ himselfe But if the Church of Christ can erre in some points of faith men not only may but must forsake her in those unlesse D. Potter will haue them to believe one thing and professe another and if such errours and corruptions should fall out to be about the Churches Liturgy publique Service administration of Sacraments and the like they who perceive such errours must of necessity leaue her externall Communion And therefore if once we grant the Church may erre iâ— followeth that men may and ought to forsake her which is against D. Potters own words or else they are inexcusable who left the Communion of the Roman Church under pretence of Errours which they grant not to be fundumentall And if D. Potter think good to answer this argument he must remember his own doctrine to be that even the Catholique Church may erre in points not fundamentall 22 Another argument for the universall Infallibility of the Church I take out of D. Potters own words If saith he we did not dissent in some opinions from the present Roman Church we could not agree with the Church truly Catholique These words cannot be true unlesse he presuppose that the Church truly Catholique cannot erre in points not fundamentall For if she may erre in such points the Roman Church which he affirmeth to erre only in points not fundamentall may agree with the Church truly Catholique if she likewise may erre in points not fundamentall Therefore either he must acknowledge a plain contradiction in his own words or else must grant that the Church truly Catholique cannot erre in points not fundamentall which is what we intended to proue 23 If Words cannot perswade you that in all Controversies you must rely upon the infallibility of the Church at least yeeld your assent to Deeds Hitherto I haue produced Arguments drawn as it were ex naturâ rei from the Wisdome and Goodnesse of God who cannot faile to haue left some infallible meanes to determine Controversies which as we haue proved can be no other except a Visible Church infallible in all her Definitions But because both Catholiques and Protestants receive holy Scripture we may thence also proue the infallibility of the Church in all matters which concern Faith and Religion Our Saviour speaketh clearly The gates of Hell shall not prevail against her And I will aske my Father and he will giue you another Paraclete that he may abide with you for ever the Spirit of truth And But when he the Spirit of truth commeth he shall teach you all truth The Apostle saith that the Church is the Pillar and ground of Truth And He gaue some Apostles and some Prophets and other some Evangelists and other some Pastors and Doctors to the consummation of the Saints unto the work of the Ministery unto the edifying of the body of Christ untill we meet all into the unity of faith and knowleâ—ge of the Sonne of God into a perfect man into the measure of the age of the â—ulnesse of Christ that now we be not Children wavering and carried about with every winde of doctrine in the wickednesse of men in craftinesse to the circumvention of Errour All which words seem cleerly enough to proue that the Church is universally infallible without which unity of faith could not be conserved against every winde of Doctrine And yet Doctor Potter limits these promises and priviledges to fundamentall points in which he grants the Church cannot erre I urge the words of Scripture which are universall and doe not mention any such restraint I alleadge that most reasonable and receaved Rule that Scripture is to be understood literally as it soundeth unlesse some manifest absurdity force us to the contrary But all will not serue to accord our different interpretations In the mean time divers of Doctor Potters Brethren step in and reject his limitation as over large and somewhat tasting of Papistry And therefore they restrain the mentioned Texts either to the Infallibility which the Apostles and other sacred Writers had in penning of Scripture or else to the invisible Church of the Elect and to them not absolutely but with a double restriction that they shall not fall damnably and finally and other men haue as much right as these to interpose their opinion and interpretation Behold we are three at debate about the selfe same words of Scripture We conferre divers places and Text We consult the Originalls We examine Translations We endeavour to pray heartily We professe to speak sincerely To seek nothing but truth and salvation of our own soules and that of our Neighbours and finally we use all those meanes which by Protestants themselues are prescribed for finding out the true meaning of Scripture Neverthelesse we neither doe or haue any possible meanes to agree as long as we are left to our selues and when we should chance to be agreed the doubt would still remain whether the thing it selfe be a fundamentall point or no And yet it were great impiety to imagine that God the Lover of soules hath left no certaine infallible meanes to decide both this and all other differences arising about the interpretation of Scripture or upon any other occasion Our remedy therefore in these contentions must be to consult and heare God's Visible Church with submissiue acknowledgment of her Power and Infallibility in whatsoever she proposeth as a revealed truth according to that divine advice of S. Augustine in these words If at length thou seem to be sufficiently tossed and hast a desire to put an end to
why this reason will not exclude them as well as Protestants from all faith and unity therein Thus you haue fayl'd of your undertaking in your first part of your Title and that is a very ill omen especially in points of so streight mutuall dependance that we shall haue but slender performance in your second assumpt Which is That the Church is infallible in all her Definitions whether concerning points Fundamentall or not Fundamentall 25 Ad § 7. 8. The Reasons in these two paragraphs as they were alleaged before so they were before answered and thither I remit the Reader 26 Ad § 9. 10. 11. I grant that the Church cannot without damnable sinne either deny any thing to be true which she knowes to be Gods truth or propose any thing as his truth which she knowes not to be so But that she may not doe this by ignorance or mistake and so without damnable sinne that you should haue proved but haue not But say you this excuse cannot serue for if the Church bee assisted onely for points fundamentall she cannot but know that she may erre in points not fundamentall Ans. It does not follow unlesse you suppose that the Church knowes that she is assisted no farther But if being assisted only so farre she yet did conceaue by errour her assistance absolute and unlimited or if knowing her assistance restrained to fundamentalls she yet conceived by errour that she should bee guarded from proposing any thing but what was fundamentall then the consequence is apparently false But at least she cannot be certain that she cannot erre and therefore cannot be excus'd from headlong and pernicious temerity in proposing points not fundamentall to be believed by Christians as matters of faith Ans. Neither is this deduction worth any thing unlesse it bee understood of such unfundamentall points as shee is not warranted to propose by evident Text of Scripture Indeed if she propose such as matters of faith certainly true she may well be questioned Quo Warranto Shee builds without a foundation and saies thus saith the Lord when the Lord doth not say so which cannot be excus'd from rashnesse and high presumption such a presumption as an Embassadour should commit who should say in his Masters name that for which hee hath no commission Of the same nature I say but of a higher straine as much as the King of Heaven is greater then any earthly King But though she may erre in some points not fundamentall yet may shee haue certainty enough in proposing others as for example these That Abraham begat Isaac that S. Paul had a Cloak that Timothy was sick because these though not Fundamentall i. e. no essentiall parts of Christianity yet are evidently and undeniably set down in Scripture and consequently may be without all rashnes propos'd by the Church as certaine divine Revelations Neither is your Argument concluding when you say If in such things she may be deceived she must be alwaies uncertain of all such things For my sense may sometimes possibly deceiue me yet I am certain enough that I see what I see and feel what I feel Our Iudges are not infallible in their judgements yet are they certain enough that they judge aright and that they proceed according to the evidence that is given when they condemne a theef or a murtherer to the gallows A Traveller is not alwaies certain of his way but often mistaken and does it therefore follow that hee can haue no assurance that Charing crosse is his right way from the Temple to White-Hall The ground of your errour here is your not distinguishing between Actuall certainty and Absolute infallibility Geometricians are not infallible in their own science yet they are very certain of those things which they see demonstrated And Carpenters are not infallible yet certain of the straightnesse of those things which agree with their rule and square So though the Church be not infallibly certain that in all her Definitions whereof some are about disputable and ambiguous matters she shall proceed according to her Rule yet being certain of the infallibility of her rule and that in this or that thing she doth manifestly proceed according to it she may be certaine of the Truth of some particular decrees and yet not certain that shee shall never decree but what is true 27 Ad § 12. But if the Church may erre in points not fundamentall she may erre in proposing Scripture and so we cannot bee assur'd whether she haue not been deceived already The Church may erre in her Proposition or custody of the Canon of Scripture if you understand by the Church any present Church of one denomination fo◠example the Roman the Greek or so Yet haue we sufficient certainty of Scripture not from the bare testimony of any present Church but from Vniversall Tradition of which the testimony of any present Church is but a little part So that here you fall into the Fallacy à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter For in effect this is the sense of your Argument Vnlesse the Church be infallible we can haue no certainty of Scripture from the authority of the Church Therefore unlesse the Church be infallible we can have no certainty here of at all As if a man should say If the vintage of France miscarry we can have no wine from France Therefore if that Vintage miscarry we can have no Wine at all And for the incorruption of Scripture I know no other rationall assurance we can have of it then such as we have of the incorruption of other ancient Bookes that is the consent of ancient Copies such I mean for the kind though it be farre greater for the degree of it And if the spirit of God give any man any other assurance hereof this is not rationall and discursive but supernaturall and infused An assurance it may be to himselfe but no argument to another As for the infallibility of the Church it is so farre from being a proofe of the Scriptures incorruption that no proofe can be pretended for it but incorrupted places of Scripture which yet are as subject to corruption as any other and more likely to have been corrupted if it had been possible then any other and made to speak as they doe for the advantage of those men whose ambition it hath been a long time to bring all under their authority Now then if any man should prove the Scriptures uncorrupted because the Church saies so which is infallible I would demand again touching this very thing that there is an infallible Church seeing it is not of it selfe evident how shall I be assured of it And what can he answer but that the Scripture saies so in these and these places Hereupon I would aske him how shall I be assured that the Scriptures are incorrupted in thse places seeing it is possible and not altogether improbable that these men which desire to be thought infallible when they had the government of
knowledge or belief of it though it were a profitable thing yet it was not necessary I hope you will not challenge such authority over us as to oblige us to impossibilities to doe that which you cannot doe your selves It is therefore requisite that you make this command possible to be obeyed before you require obedience unto it Are you able then to instruct us so well as to be fit to say unto us Now ye know what withholdeth Or doe you your selves know that ye may instruct us Can yee or dare you say this or this was this hindrance which S. Paul here meant and all men under pain of damnatioÌ„ are to believe it Or if you cannot as I am certain you cannot goe then vaunt your Church for the only Watchfull Faithfull Infallible keeper of the Apostles Traditions when here this very Tradition which here in particular was deposited with the Thessalonians and the Primitive Church you have utterly lost it so that there is no footstep or print of it remaining which with Divine faith we may rely upon Blessed therefore be the goodnesse of God who seeing that what was not written was in such danger to be lost took order that what was necessary should be written Saint Chrysostomes counsell therefore of accounting the Churches Traditions worthy of belief we are willing to obey And if you can of any thing make it appear that it is Tradition we will seek no farther But this we say withall that we are perswaded you cannot make this appear in any thing but only the Canon of Scripture and that there is nothing now extant and to be known by us which can put in so good plea to be the unwritten word of God as the unquestioned Books of Canonicall Scripture to be the written word of God 47 You conclude this Parag. with a sentence of S. Austin's who saies The Church doth not approve nor dissemble nor doe these things which are against Faith or good life and from hence you conclude that it never hath done so nor ever can doe so But though the argumâ—â—â— hold in Logick à non posse ad non esse yet I never heard that it would hold back again à no nesse ad non posse The Church cannot doe this therefore it does it not followes with good consequence but the Church does not this therefore it shall never doe it nor can never doe it this I believe will hardly follow In the Epistle next before to the same Ianuarius writing of the same matter he hath these words It remaines that the things you enquire of must be of that third kind of things which are different in divers places Let every one therefore doe that which he findes done in the Church to which he comes for none of them is against Faith or good manners And why doe you not inferre from hence that no particular Church can bring up any Custome that is against faith or good manners Certainly this consequence has as good reason for it as the former If a man say of the Church of England what S. Austine of the Church that she neither approves nor dissembles nor does any thing against faith or good manners would you collect presently that this man did either make or think the Church of England infallible Furthermore it is observable out of this and the former Epistle that this Church which did not as S. Austine according to you thought approve or dissemble or doe any thing against faith or good life did yet tolerate and dissemble vain superstitions and humane presumptions and suffer all places to be full of them and to be exacted as nay more severely then the commandements of God himselfe This S. Austine himselfe professeth in this very Epistle This saith he I doe infinitely grieve at that many most wholsome precepts of the divine Scripture are little regarded and in the mean time all is so full of so many presumptions that he is more grievously found fault with who during his octaves toucheth the earth with his naked foot then he that shall bury his soul in drunkennesse Of these he saies that they were neither contained in Scripture decreed by Councells nor corroborated by the Custome of the Vniversall Church And though not against faith yet unprofitable burdens of Christian liberty which made the condition of the Iewes more tolerable then that of Christians And therefore he professes of them Approbare non possum I cannot approve them And ubi facult as tribuitur resecanda existimo I think they are to be cut off wheresoever we have power Yet so deeply were they rooted and spread so farre through the indiscreet devotion of the people alwaies more prone to superstition then true piety and through the connivence of the Governors who should have strangled them at their birth that himselfe though he grieved at them and could not allow them yet for fear of offence he durst not speak against them multa hujusmodi propter nonnuâ—aruÌ„ vel sanctaruÌ„ vel turbulentarum personarum scandala devitanda liberius improbare noâ— audeo Many of these things for fear of scandalizing many holy persons or provoking those that are turbulent I dare not freely dâ—sallow Nay the Catholique Church it selfe did see and dissemble and tolerate them for these are the things of which he presently saies after the Church of God and you will have him speak of the true Catholique Church placed between Chaffe Tares tolerates many things Which was directly against the command of the holy spirit given the Church by S. Paul To stand fast in that liberty wherewith Christ hath made her free and not to suffer her selfe to be brought in bondage to these servile burdens Our Saviour tels the Scribes and Pharises that in vain they worshipped God teaching for Doctrines mens Commandements For that laying aside the Commandments of God they held the Traditions of men as the washing of pots and cups and many other such like things Certainly that which S. Austine complaines of as the generall fault of Christians of his time was paralell to this Multa saith he quae in divinis libris saluberrima praecepta sunt minus curantur This I suppose I may very well render in our Saviours words The commandements of God are laid aside and then tam multis presumptionibus sic plena sunt omnia all things or all places are so full of so many presumptions and those exacted with such severity nay with Tyranny that he was more severely censur'd who in the time of his Octaves touched the earth with his naked feet then hee which drâ—wned and buried his soul in drink Certainly if this be not to teach for Doctrines mens Commandements I know not what is And therefore these superstitious Christians might be said to worship God in vain as well as Scribes and Phraises And yet great variety of superstitions of this kind were then already spread over the Church being different in divers places This is plain from these words
instruction acquaint the universall Church with my particular scruples You say the Prelates of Gods Church meeting in a lawfull generall Councel may erre damnably It remaines then that for my necessary instruction I must repaire to every particular member of the universall Church spread over the face of the earth and yet you teach that the promises which our Lord hath made unto his Church for his assistance are intended not to any particular persons or Churches but only to the Church Catholique with which as I said it is impossible for me to confer Alas O most uncomfortable Ghostly Father you driue me to desperation How shall I confer with every Christian soule man and woman by sea and by land close prisoner or at liberty c. Yet upon supposall of this miraculous Pilgrimage for Faith before I haue the faith of Miracles how shall I proceed at our meeting Or how shall I know the man on whom I may securely rely Procure will you say to knew whether he belieue all fundamentall points of faith For if he doe his faith for point of beliefe is sufficient for salvation though he erre in a hundred things of lesse moment But how shall I know whether hee hold all fundamentall points or no For till you tell me this I cannot know whether or no his beliefe be sound in all fundamentall points Can you say the Creed Yes And so can many damnable Heretiques But why doe you aske me this question Because the Creed containes all fundamentall points of faith Are you sure of that not sure I hold it very probable Shall I hazard my soule on probabilities or even wagers This yeelds a new cause of despaire But what doth the Creed contain all points necessary to be believed whether they rest in the understanding or else doe further extend to practise No. It was composed to deliver Credenda not Agenda to us Faith not Practise How then shall I know what points of beliefe which direct my practise be necessary to salvation Sâ—ll you chalk our new paths for Desperation Well are all Articles of the Creed for their nature and matter fundamentall I cannot say so How then shall I know which in particular be and which be not fundamentall Read my Answer to a late Popish Pamphlet intituled Charity Mistaken c. there you shall finde that fundamentall doctrines are such Catholique Verities as principally and essentially pertain to the Faith such as properly constitute a Church and are necessary in ordinary course to be distinctly believed by every Christian that will be saved They are those grand and capitall doctrines which make up our Faith in Christ that is that common faith which is alike precious in all being one and the same in the highest Apostle and the meanest believer which the Apostle else-where cals the first principles of the oracles of God the forme of sound words But how shall I apply these generall definitions or descriptions or to say the truth these only varied words and phrases for I understand the word fundamentall as well as the words principall essentiall grand and capitall doctrines c. to the particular Articles of the Creed in such sort as that I may be able precisely exactly particularly to distinguish fundamentall Articles from points of lesse moment You labour to tell us what fundamentall points be but not which they be and yet unlesse you doe this your Doctrine serues only either to make men despaire or else to haue recourse to those whom you call Papists and which giue one certain Rule that all points defined by Christs visible Church belong to the foundation of Faith in such sense as that to deny any one cannot stand with salvation And seeing your selfe acknowledges that these men doe not erre in points fundamentall I cannot but hold it most safe for me to joyn with them for the securing of my soule and the avoiding of desperation into which this your doctrine must cast all them who understand and belieue it For the whole discourse and inferences which here I haue made are either your own direct Assertions or evident consequences cleerly deduced from them 20 But now let us answer some few Objections of D. Potters against that which wee haue said before to avoid our argument That the Scripture is not so much as mentioned in the Creed he saith The Creed is an abstract of such necessary Doctrines as are delivered in Scripture or collected out of it and therefore needs not expresse the authority of that which it supposes 21 This answer makes for us For by giving a reason why it was needlesse that Scripture should be expressed in the Creed you grant as much as we desire namely that the Apostles judged it needlesse to expresse all necessary points of faith in their Creed Neither doth the Creed suppose or depend on Scripture in such sort as that we can by any probable consequence infer from the Articles of the Creed that there is any Canonicall Scripture at all and much lesse that such Books in particular be Canonicall Yea the Creed might haue been the same although holy Scripture had never been written and which is more the Creed even in priority of time was before all the Scripture of the new Testament except the Gospell of S. Mathew And so according to this reason of his the Scripture should not mention Articles contained in the Creed And I note in a word how little connexion D. Potters arguments haue while he tells us that the Creed is an Abstraâ—â— of such necessary doctrines as are delivered in Scripture or collected out of it therefore needs not expresse the authority of that which it supposes it doth not follow The Articles of the Creed are delivered in Scripture therefore the Creed supposeth Scripture For two distinct writings may well deliver the same truths and yet one of them not suppose the other unlesse D. Potter be of opinion that two Doctors cannot at one time speak the same truth 22 And notwithstanding that D. Potter hath now told us it was needlesse that the Creed should expresse Scripture whose Authority it supposes he comes at length to say that the Nicene Fathers in their Creed confessing that the holy Ghost spake by the Prophets doth thereby sufficiently avow the divine Authority of all Canonicall Scripture But I would ask him whether the Nicene Creed be not also an Abstract of Doctrines delivered in Scripture as he said of the Apostles Creed and thence did infer that it was needlesse to expresse Scripture whose authority it supposes Besides we doe not only belieue in generall that Canonicall Scripture is of divine authority but we are also bound under pain of damnation to belieue that such and such particular Booksâ— not mentioned in the Nicene Creed are Canonicall And lastly D. Potter in this Answer grants as much as we desire which is that all points of faith are not contained in the Apostles Creed even as it
Which answer is directly against himselfe and manifestly proues that Baptisme is an Article of faith and yet is not contained in the Apostles Creed neither explicitely nor by any necessary consequence from other Articles expressed therein If to make it an Article of faith be sufficient that it is contained in the Nicene Councell he will finde that Protestants maintain many errours against faith as being repugnant to definitions of Generall Councels as in particular that the very Councell of Nice which saith M. Whitgift is of all wise and learned men reverenced esteemed and imbraced next unto the Scriptures themselues decreed that to those who were chosen to the Ministry unmarried it was not lawfull to take any wife afterward is affirmed by Protestants And your grand Reformer Luther lib. de Conciliis part prima saith that he understand not the Holy Ghost in that Councell For in one Canon it saith that those who haue gelded themselues are not fit to be made Priests in another it forbids them to haue wiues Hath saith he the Holy Ghost nothing to doe in Councells but to binde and load his Ministers with impossible dangerous and unnecessary lawes I forbeare to shew that this very Article I confesse one Baptisme for the Remission of sinnes will be understood by Protestants in a far different sense from Catholiques yea Protestants among themselues doe not agree how Baptisme forgiues sinnes nor what grace it conferres Only concerning the Vnity of Baptisme against rebaptization of such as were once baptized which I noted as a point not contained in the Apostles Creed I cannot omit an excellent place of S. Augustine where speaking of the Donatists he hath these words They are so bold as to rebaptize Catholiques wherein they shew themselues to be the greater Heretiques since it hath pleased the universall Catholique Church not to make Baptisme void even in the very Heretiques themselues In which few words this holy Father delivereth against the Donatists these points which doe also make against Protestants That to make an Heresie or an Heretique known for such it is sufficient to oppose the definition of Gods Church That a proposition may be Hereticall though it be not repugnant to any Texts of Scripture For S. Augustine teacheth that the doctrine of rebaptization is hereticall and yet acknowledgeth it cannot be convinced for such out of Scripture And that neither the Heresie of rebaptization of those who were baptized by Heretiques nor the contrary Catholique truth being expressed in the Apostles Creed it followeth that it doth not contain all points of faith necessary to salvation And so we must conclude that to belieue the Creed is not sufficient for Vnitie of faith and Spirit in the same Church unlesse there be also a totall agreement both in beliefe of other points of faith and in externall profession and Communion also whereof we are to speak in the next Chapter according to the saying of S. Augustine You are with us in Baptisme and in the Creed but in the Spirit of Vnity and bond of peace and lastly in the Catholique Church you are not with us THE ANSVVER TO THE FOVRTH CHAPTER Wherein is shewed that the Creed containes all necessary points of meere belief 1 AD § 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Concerning the Creeds containing the Fundamentalls of Christianity this is D. Potters assertion delivered in the 207. p. of his book The Creed of the Apostles as it is explained in the latter Creeds of the Catholique Church is esteemed a sufficient summary or Catalogue of Fundamentalls by the best learned Romanists and by Antiquity 2 By Fundamentalls he understands not the Fundamentall rules of good life and action though every one of these is to be believed to come from God therefore vertually includes an Article of Faith but the Fundamentall doctrines of Faith such as though they have influence upon our lives as every essentiall doctrine of Christianity hath yet we are commanded to believe them and not to doe them The assent of our understandings is required to them but no obedience from our wills 3 But these speculative Doctrines again he distinguishes out of Aquinas Occham and Canus and others into two kinds of the first are those which are the obiects of Faith in and for themselves which by their own nature and Gods prime intention are essentiall parts of that Gospell such as the teachers in the Church cannot without Mortall sinne omit to teach the learners such as are intrinsecall to the Covenant between God and man and not only plainly revealed by God and so certain truths but also commanded to be preacht to all men and to be believed distinctly by all and so necessary truths Of the second sort are Accidentall Circumstantiall Occasionall objects of faith milliōs whereof there are in holy Scripture such as are to be believed not for themselves but because they are joyned with others that are necessary to be believed and delivered by the same Authority which delivered these Such as we are not bound to know to bee divine Revelations for without any fault we may be ignorant hereof nay believe the contrary such as we are not bound to examine whether or no they be divine Revelations such as Pastors are not bound to teach their Flock nor their Flock bound to know and remember no nor the Pastors themselves to know them or believe them or not to disbelieve them absolutely and alwaies but then only when they doe see and know them to be delivered in Scripture as divine Revelations 4 I say when they doe so and not only when they may doe For to lay an obligation upon us of believing or not disbelieving any Verity sufficient Revelation on Gods part is not sufficient For then seeing all the expresse Verities of Scripture are either to all men or at least to all learned men sufficiently revealed by God it should be a damnable sinne in any learned man actually to disbelieve any one particular Historicall verity contained in Scripture or to believe the contradiction of it though he knew it not to be there contained For though he did not yet he might have known it it being plainly revealed by God and this revelation being extant in such a Book wherein he might have found it recorded if with diligence he had perused it To make therefore any points necessary to be believed it is requisite that either we actually know them to be divine Revelations and these though they be not Articles of faith nor necessary to be believed in and for themselves yet indirectly and by accident and by consequence they are so The necessity of believing them being inforced upon us by a necessity of believing this Essentiall and Fundamentall article of Faith That all Divine Revelations are true which to disbelieve or not to believe is for any Christian not only impious but impossible Or else it is requisite that they be First actually revealed by God Secondly commanded under pain of damnation to
disease my self or my Reader with a punctuall examination of it may seeme superfluous First that which you would have and which your Arguments wholy drive at is this That the Creed doth not containe all maine and principall poynts of faith of all sorts whether they be speculacive or practicall whether they containe matter of simple beleife or whether they containe matter of practise and obedience This D. Potter grants page 215. 235. And you grant that he grants it § 8. Where your words are as even by D. Potters owne confession it the Creed doth not comprehend Agenda or things belonging to practice as Sacraments Commandements the Acts of hope and duties Charity And if you will inferre from hence that therefore C. M. hath no reason to rest in the Apostles Creed as a perfect Catalogue of Fundamentalls and a full satisfaction to his demande I haue without any offence of D. Potter granted as much if that would content you But seeing you goe on and because his assertion is not as neither is it pretended to be a totall satisfaction to the demand casheere it as impertinent and nothing towards it here I have been bold to stop your proceeding as unjust and unreasonable For as if you should request a Friend to lend you or demand of a debtor to pay you a hundred pounds and he could or should let you have but fifty this were not fully to satisfy your demand yet sure it were not to doe nothing towards it Or as this rejoynder of mine though it be not an answer to all your Bookes but only to the First considerable Part of it and so much of the Second as is materiall and falls into the first yet I hope you will not deal so unkindly with me as for this reason to condemne it of impertinence So D. Potter being demanded a Catalogue of Fundamentals of Faith and finding them of two kinds and those of one kind summ'd up to his hand in the Apostles Creed and this Creed consign'd unto him for such a summary by very great Authority if upon these considerations he hath intreated his Demander to accept of thus much in part of paiment of the Apostles Creed as a sufficient summary of these Articles of faith which are meerely Credenda me thinkes he hath little reason to complain that he hath not been fairely and squarely dealt with Especially seeing for full satisfaction by D. Potter and all Protestants he is referr'd to Scripture which we affirme containes evidently all necessary points of Faith and rules of obedience and seeing D. Potter in the very place hath subjoyned though not a Catalogue of Fundamentalls which because to some more is Fundamentall to others lesse to others nothing at all had been impossible yet such a comprehension of them as may serve every one that will make a conscionable use of it in stead of a Catalogue For thus he saies It seemes to be fundamentall to the faith and for the Salvation of every member of the Church that he acknowledge and believe all such points of faith whereof he may be sufficiently convinced that they belong to the Doctrine of Iesus Christ. This generall rule if I should call a Catalogue of Fundamentalls I should have a President for it with you above exception I mean your Self for ch 3. § 19. just such another proposition you have called by this name Yet because it were a strange figure of speech I forbear it only I will be bold to say that this Assertion is as good a Catalogue of Fundamentalls as any you will bring of your Church proposalls though you takes as much time to doe it as he that undertook to make an Asseâ—speak 20 I come now to shew that you also have requited D. Potter with a mutuall courteous acknowledgement of his assertion That the Creed is a sufficient summary of all the necessary Articles of Faith which are meerely Credenda 21 First then § 8. you haue these words That it cannot be denied that the Creed is most full and compleat to that purpose for which the holy Apostles inspired by God meant that it should serve and in that manner as they did intend it which was not to comprehend all particular points of faith but such generall heads as were most befitting and requisite for preaching the faith of Christ to Iewes and Gentiles and might be briefly and compendiously set down and easily learnt and remembred These words I say being fairely examined without putting them on the rack will amount to a full acknowledgement of D. Potters Assertion But before I put them to the question I must crave thus much right of you to grant me this most reasonable postulate that the doctrine of repentance from dead workes which S. Paul saith was one of the two only things which he preacht and the doctrine of Charity without which the same S. Paul assures us that the knowledge of all mysteries and all faith is nothing were doctrines more necessary and requisite and therefore more fit to be preacht to Iewes and Gentiles then these under what judge our Saviour suffered that he was buried and what time he rose again which you have taught us cap. 3. § 2. for their matter and nature in themselves not to be Fundamentall 22 And upon this grant I will aske no leave to conclude that whereas you say the Apostles Creed was intended for a comprehension of such heads of faith as were most befitting and requisite for preaching the faith of Christ c. You are now for fear of too much debasing those high doctrines of Repentance and Charity to restrain your assertion as D. Potter does his and though you speak indefinitely to say you meant it only of those heads of faith which are meerely Credenda And then the meaning of it if it have any must be this That the Creed is full for the Apostles intent which was to comprehend all such generall heads of faith which being points of simple belief were most fit and requisite to be preached to Iewes Gentiles and might be briefly and compendiously set down and easily learned and remembred Neither I nor you I believe can make any other sense of your words then this And upon this ground thus I subsume But all the points of belief which were necessary under pain of damnation for the Apostles to preach and for those to whom the Gospell was preached particularly to know and believe were most fit and requisite nay more then so necessary to be preached to all both Iewes and Gentiles and might be briefly and compendiously set down and easily learnt and remembred Therefore the Apostles intent by your confession was in this Creed to comprehend all such points And you say the Creed is most full and compleat for the purpose which they intended The Major of this Syllogisme is your own The Minor I should think needs no proof yet because all men may not be of my mind I will prove it by its parts and the
Creed For this he affirmes only of such speculatiue divine veriries which God hath commanded particularly to be preached to all and believed by all Now let the doctrines objected by you be well considered and let all those that are reducible to the three former heads be discarded and then of all these Instances against D. Potters Assertion there will not remain so much as one 33 First the Questions touching the conditions to bee performed by us to obtaine remission of sinnes the Sacraments the Commandements and the possibility of keeping them the necessity of imploring the Assistance of Gods Grace and Spirit for the keeping of them how farre obedience is due to the Church Prayer for the Dead The cessation of the old Law are all about Agenda and so cut off upon the first consideration 34 Secondly the Question touching Fundamentalls is profitable but not fundamentall He that belieues all Fundamentals cannot bee damned for any errour in faith though he belieue more or lesse to bee fundamental then is so That also of the procession of the holy Ghost from the Father and the Sonne of Purgatory of the Churches Visibility of the Books of the new Testament which were doubted of by a considerable part of the Primitiue Church untill I see better reason for the contrary then the bare authority of men I shall esteem of the same condition 35 Thirdly These Doctrines that Adam and the Angels sinned that there are Angels good and bad that those bookes of Scripture which were never doubted of by any considerable part of the Church are the word of God that S. Peter had no such primacy as you pretend that the Scripture is a perfect rule of faith consequently that no necessary doctrine is unwritten that there is no one Society or succession of Christians absolutely infallible These to my understanding are truths plainly revealed by God and necessary to be believed by them who know they are so But not so necessary that every man woman is bound under pain of damnation particularly to know thē to be divine Revelations and explicitely to believe them And for this reason these with innumerable other points are to be referred to the third sort of doctrines aboue mentioned which were never pretended to haue place in the Creed There remaines one only point of all that Army you mustred together reducible to none of these heads that is that God is and is a Remunerator which you say is questioned by the deniall of merit But if there were such a necessary indissoluble coherence between this point and the doctrine of merit mee thinks with as much reason and more charity you might conclude That we hold merit because we hold this point Then that we deny this point because we deny merit Besides when Protestants deny the doctrine of Merits you know right well for so they haue declared themselues a thousand times that they mean nothing else but with David that their well doing extendeth not is not truly beneficiall to God with our Saviour when they haue done all which they are commanded they haue done their duty only and no curtesie And lastly with S. Paul that all which they can suffer for God and yet suffering is more then doing is not worthy to bee compared to the glory that shall be revealed So that you must either misunderstand their meaning in denying Merit or you must discharge their doctrine of this odious consequence or you must charge it upon David and Paul and Christ himselfe Nay you must either grant their deniall of true Merit just reasonable or you must say that our good actions are really profitable to God that they are not debts already due to him but voluntary and undeserved Favours and that they are equall unto and well worthy of eternall glory which is prepar'd for them As for the inconvenience which you so much feare That the deniall of Merit makes God a Giver only not a Rewarder I tell you good Sir you feare where no feare is and that it is both most true on the one side that you in holding good Works meritorious of eternall glory make God a rewarder only not a giver contrary to plain Scripture affirming that The gift of God is eternall life And that it is most false on the other side that the doctrine of Protestants makes God a giver only and not a rewarder In as much as their doctrine is That God giues not Heaven but to those which doe something for it and so his gift is also a Reward but withall that whatsoever they doe is due unto God before hand and worth nothing to God and worth nothing in respect of Heaven and so mans work is no Merit and Gods reward is still a Gift 36 Put the case the Pope for a reward of your service done him in writing this Book had given you the honour and meanes of a Cardinall would you not not only in humility but in sincerity haue professed that you had not merited such a Reward And yet the Pope is neither your Creatour nor Redeemer nor Preserver nor perhaps your very great Benefactour sure I am not so great as God Almighty and therefore hath no such right and title to your service as God hath in respect of precedent obligations Besides the work you haue done him hath been really advantagious to him and lastly not altogether unproportionable to the fore-mentioned Reward And therefore if by the same work you will pretend that either you haue or hope to haue deserved immortall happinesse I beseech you consider well whether this be not to set a higher value upon a Cardinal's cap then a Crowne of immortall glory and with that Cardinall to prefer a part in Paris before a part in Paradise 37 In the next Paragraph you beat the ayre again and fight manfully with your own shadow The point you should haue spoken to was this That there are some points of simple beliefe necessary to bee explicitely believed which yet are not contained in the Creed Insteed hereof you trouble your selfe in vain to demonstrate That many important points of faith are not contained in it which yet D. Potter had freely granted and you your selfe take particular notice of his granting of it All this paines therefore you have imployed to no purpose saving that to some negligent Reader you may seem to have spoken to the very point because that which you speak to at the first hearing sounds somewhat neere it But such a one I must intreat to remember there be many more points of faith then there be Articles of Simple belief necessary to be explicitly believed And that though all of the former sort are not contained in the Creed yet all of the latter sort may be As for your distinction between Heresies that have been and Heresies that are and Heresies that may be I have already proved it vaine and that whatsoever may be an Heresie that is so and whatsoever is so
towards a full satisfaction of it That the Creed containes all the fundamentalls of simple Belief you take no notice of the former and pervert the latter and make him say The Creed containes all fundamentalls of faith Whereas you know and within sixe or seven lines after this confesse that he never pretended it to contain all simply but all of one sort all necessary points of simple belief Which assertion because he modestly delivers as very probable being willing to conclude rather lesse then more then his reasons require hereupon you take occasion to aske Shall I hazard my soul on probabilities or even wagers As if whatsoever is but probable though in the highest degree of probability were as likely to be false as true Or because it is but Morally not Mathematically certain that there was such a Woman as Q. Elizabeth such a man as H. the 8. that is in the highest degree probable therefore it were an even wager there were none such By this reason seeing the truth of your whole Religion depends finally upon Prudentiall motives which you doe but pretend to be very credible it will be an even wager that your Religion is false And by the same reason or rather infinitely greater seeing it is impossible for any man according to the grounds of your Religion to know himselfe much lesse another to be a true Pope or a true Priest nay to have a Morall certainty of it because these things are obnoxious to innumerable secret and undiscernable nullities it will be an even wager nay if we proportion things indifferently a hundred to one that every Consecration and Absolution of yours is void that whensoever you adore the Host you and your Assistants commit Idolatry That there is a nullity in any Decree that a Pope shall make or any Decree of a Councell which he shall confirme Particularly it will be at least an even wager that all the Decrees of the Councell of Trent are void because it is at most but very probable that the Pope which confirmed them was true Pope If you mistake these inferences then confesse you have injur'd D. Potter in this also that you have confounded and made all one Probabilities and even wagers Whereas every ordinary Gamester can informe you that though it be a thousand to one that such a thing will happen yet it is not sure but very probable 58 To make the measure of your injustice yet fuller you demand If the Creed containes only points of simple belief how shall you know what points of belief are necessary which direct our practise D. Potter would have answered you in our Saviours words search the Scriptures But you have a great minde it seemes to be a despairing and therefore having propos'd your Question will not suffer him to give you Answer but shut your eares and tell him still he chalkes out new paths for desperation 59 In the rest of your interlude I cannot but commend one thing in you that you keep a decorum and observe very well the Rule given you by the great Master of your Art Servetur adimum Qualis ab incepto processerat sibi constet One vein of scurrility and dishonesty runs clean through it from the begining to the end Your next demand then is Are all the Articles of the Creed for their nature and matter Fundamentall and the Answer I cannot say so Which Answer though it be true D. Potter no where gives it neither hath he occasion but you make it for him to bring in another question and that is How then shall I know which in particular be and which be not Fundamentall D. Potter would have answered It is a vain question believe all and you shall be sure to believe all that is Fundamentall 60 But what saies now his prevaricating Proxy What does he make him say This which followes Read my answer to a late Popish Pamphlet intituled Charity Mistaken There you shall finde that Fundamentall doctrines are such Catholique verities as principally and essentially pertain to the faith such as properly constitute a Church and are necessary in ordinary course to be distinctly believed by every Christian that will be saved They are those Grand and Capitall Doctrines which make up our Faith that is the common faith which is alike pretious in all being one and the same in the highest Apostle and the meanest believer which the Apostle elsewhere calls the first Principles of the Oracles of God and the forme of sound words 61 But in earnest Good Sir doth the Doctor in these places by you quoted make to this question this same sottish answer Or doe you think that against an Heretique nothing is unlawfull Certainly if he doth answer thus I will make bold to say he is a very foole But if he does not as indeed he does not then But I forbeare you and beseech the Reader to consult the places of D. Potters book and there he shall find that in the former halfe of these as you call them varied words and phrases he declared only what he meant by the word Fundamentall which was needfull to prevent mistakes and cavilling about the meaning of the word which is metaphoricall and therefore ambiguous and that the latter halfe of them are severall places of Scripture imployed by D. Potter to shew that his distinction of Fundamentall and not Fundamentall hath expresse ground in it Nay of these two places very pertinent unto two very good purposes you have exceeding fairely patcht together a most ridiculous answer to a question that D. Potter never dream't of But the words you will say are in D. Potters Book though in divers places and to other purposes Very true And so the words of Ausonius his obscene Fescennine are taken out of Virgil yet Virgil surely was not the Author of this Poem Besides in D. Potters book there are these words Dread Soveraigne amongst the many excellent vertues which have made your Majesties person so deare unto God c. And why now may you not say as well that in these he made Answer to your former question what points of the Creed were and what were not Fundamentalls 62 But unlesse this question may be answered his doctrine you say serves only either to make men despaire or else to have recourse to these whom we call Papists It seemes a little thing will make you despaire if you be so sullen as to doe so because men will not trouble themselves to satisfy your curious questions And I pray be not offended with me for so esteeming it because as before I told you if you will believe all the points of the Creed you cannot choose but believe all the points of it that are fundamentall though you be ignorant which are so and which are not so Now I believe your desire to know which are Fundamentalls proceeds only from a desire to be assur'd that you doe believe them which seeing you may be assured of without knowing which they
be what can it be but curiosity to desire to know it Neither may you think to mend your selfe herein one whit by having recourse to them whom we call Papists for they are as farre to seek as wee in this point which of the Articles of the Creed are for their nature and matter fundamentall and which are not Particularly you will scarce meet with any amongst their Doctors so adventurous as to tell you for a certain whether or no the conception of Christ by the Holy Ghost his being born of a Virgin his Buriall his descent into Hell and the Communion of Saints be points of their own nature and matter fundamentall Such I mean as without the distinct and explicite knowledge of them no man can be saved 63 But you will say at least they give this certain rule that all points defined by Christs visible Church belong to the foundation of faith in such sense as to deny any such cannot stand with Salvation So also Protestants give you this more certain rule That whosoever believes heartily those books of Scripture which all the Christian Churches in the world acknowledge to be Canonicall and submits himselfe indeed to this as to the rule of his belief must of necessity believe all things fundamentall and if he live according to his faith cannot fail of Salvation But besides what certainty have you that that rule of Papists is so certain By the visible Church it is plain they mean only their own and why their own only should be the Visible Church I doe not understand and as little why all points defined by this Church should belong to the foundation of faith These things you had need see well and substantially proved before you rely upon them otherwise you expose your selfe to danger of imbracing damnable errors instead of Fundamentall truth's But you will say D. Potter himselfe acknowledges that we doe not erre in Fundamentalls If he did so yet me thinkes you have no reason to rest upon his acknowledgement with any security whom you condemne of errour in many other matters Perhaps excesse of Charity to your persons may make him censure your errors more favourably then he should doe But the truth is and so I have often told you though the Doctor hope that your errors are not so unpardonably destructive but that some men who ignorantly hold them may be saved yet in themselves he professes and proclaimes them damnable and such as he feares will be certainly destructive to such as you are that is to all those who have eyes to see and will not see them 64 Ad § 20. 21. 22. 23. In the Remainder of this Chapter you promise to answer D. Potters Arguments against that which you said before But presently forgetting your selfe in stead of answering his Arguments you fall a confuting his Answers to your own The arguments objected by you which here you vindicate were two 1. The Scripture is not so much as mentioned in the Creed therefore the Creed containes not all things necessary to be believed 2. Baptisme is not contained in the Creed therefore not all things necessary To both which Arguments my Answer shortly is this that they prove something but it is that which no man here denies For D. Potter as you have also confessed never said not undertook to shew that the Apostles intended to comprize in the Creed all points absolutely which we are bound to believe or after sufficient proposall not to disbelieve which yet here and every where you are obtruding upon him But only that they purposed to comprize in it all such doctrines purely speculative all such matters of simple belief as are in ordinary course necessary to be distinctly and explicitly believed by all men Neither of these objections doe any way infringe or impeach the truth of this Assertion Not the first because according to your own doctrine all men are not bound to know explicitely what books of Scripture are Canonicall Nor the second because Baptisme is not a matter of Faith but practise not so much to be believed as to be given and received And against these Answers whether you have brought any considerable new matter let the indifferent Reader judge As for the other things which D. Potter rather glanceth at then builâ—s upon in answering these objections as the Creed's being collected out of Scripture and supposing the Authority of it which Gregory of Valentia in the place above cited seemes to me to confesse to have been the Iudgement of the Ancient Fathers and the Nicene Creed's intimating the authority of Canonicall Scripture and making mention of Baptisme These things were said ex abundanti and therefore I conceive it superfluous to examine your exceptions against them Prove that D. Potter did affirme that the Creed containes all things necessary to be believed of all sorts and then these objections will be pertinent and deserve an answer Or produce some point of simple belief necessary to be explicitly believed which is not contained either in termes or by consequence in the Creed and then I will either answer your Reasons or confesse I cannot But all this while you doe but trifle and are so farre from hitting the marke that you rove quite beside the But. 65 Ad § 23. 24. 25. Potterâ—emands â—emands How it can be necessary for any Christian to have more in his Creed then the Apostles had and the Church of their times You Answer That he trifles not distinguishing between the Apostles belief and that abridgement of some Articles of faith which we call the Apostles Creed I reply that it is you which trifle affectedly confounding what D. Potter hath plainly distinguished the Apostles belief of the whole Religion of Christ as it comprehends both what we are to doe and what we are to believe with their belief of that part of it which containes not duties of obedience but only the necessary Articles of siâ—ple â—aith Now though the Apostles Beleife be in the former sense a larger thing then that which we call the Apostles Creed yet in the latter sense of the word the Creed I say is a full comprehension of their belief which you your selfe have formerly confessed though somewhat fearfully and inconstantly and here again unwillingnesse to speak the truth makes you speak that which is hardly sense and call it an abridgement of some Articles of Faith For I demand these some Articles which you speak of which are they Those that are out of the Creed or those that are in it Those that are in it it comprehends at large and therefore it is not an abridgement of them Those that are out of it it comprehends not at all and therefore it is not an abridgement of them If you would call it now an abridgement of the Faith this would be sense and signify thus much That all the necessary Articles of the Christian faith are compriz'd in it For this is the proper duty of abridgements to leave out nothing
the Apostles Creed as not being their Creed in any sense but onely a part of it To this you answer § 2 5. Vpon the same affected ambignity c. Answ. It is very true that their whole faith was of a larger extent but that was not the Question But whether all the points of simple beliefe which they taught as necessary to be explicitely believed be not contained in it And if thus much at least of Christian Religion bee not comprized in it I again desire you to inform me how it could be call'd the Apostles Creed 74 Foure other Reasons D. Potter urges to the same purpose grounded upon the practise of the Ancient Church The last whereof you answer in the second part of your Book But to the rest drawne from the ancient Churches appointing her Infants to be instructed for matters of simple beliefe only in the Creed From her admitting Catechumens unto Baptisme and of Strangers to her Communion upon their only profession of the Creed you haue not for ought I can perceaue thought fit to make any kind of answer 75 The difficulties of the 27. and last § of this Chapter haue been satisfied So that there remaines unexamined onely the 26. Section wherein you exceed your selfe in sophistry Especially in that trick of Cavillers which is to answer objections by other objections an excellent way to make controversies endlesse D. Potter desires to be resolved Why amongst many things of equall necessity to be believed the Apostles should distinctly set down some in the Creed and bee altogether silent of others In stead of resolving him in this difficulty you put another to him and that is Why are some points not Fundamentall expressed in it rather then other of the same quality Which demand is so far from satisfying the former doubt that it makes it more intricate For upon this ground it may be demanded How was it possible that the Apostles should leave out any Articles simply necessary and put in others not necessary especially if their intention were as you say it was to deliver in it such Articles as were fittest for those times Vnlesse which were wondrous strange unnecessary Articles were fitter for those times then necessary But now to your Question the Answer is obvious These unnecessary things might be put in because they were circumstances of the necessary Pontius Pilate of Christs Passion The third day of the Resurrectiō neither doth the adding of thē make the Creed ever a whit the lesse portable the lesse fit to be understood and remembred And for the contrary reasons other unnecessary things might bee left out Besides who sees not that the addition of some unnecessary circumstances is a thing that can hardly be avoided without affectation And therefore not so great a fault nor deserving such a censure as the omission of any thing essentiall to the work undertaken and necessary to the end proposed in it 76 You demand again as it is no hard matter to multiply demands why our Saviours descent to Hell and Buriall was expressed and not his circumcision his manifestation to the three Kings and working of Miracles I answer His Resurrection Ascension and sitting at the right hand of God are very great Miracles and they are expressed Besides S. Iohn assures us That the Miracles which Christ did were done and written not for themselves that they might be believed but for a farther end that we might believe that Iesus was the Christ and believing haue eternall life He therefore that belieues this may be saved though he haue no explicite and distinct faith of any Miracle that our Saviour did His Circumcision Manifestation to the Wise men for I know not upon what grounds you call them Kings are neither things simply necessary to be known nor haue any neer relation to those that are so As for his Descent into Hell it may for ought you know be put in as a thing necessary of it selfe to be known If you ask why more then his Circumcision I refer you to the Apostles for an answer who put that in and left this out of their Creed and yet sure were not so forgetfull after the receiving of the holy Ghost as to leaue out any prime principall foundation of the faith which are the very words of your own Gordonius Huntlaeus Cont. 2. c. 10. num 10. Likewise his Buriall was put in perhaps as necessary of it selfe to be known But though it were not yet hath it manifestly so neer relation to these that are necessary his Passion Resurrection being the Consequent of the one and the Antecedent of the other that it is no marvell if for their sakes it was put in For though I verily belieue that there is no necessary point of this nature but what is in the Creed yet I doe not affirme because I cannot prove it that there is nothing in the Creed but what is necessary You demand thirdly Why did they not expresse Scriptures Sacraments and all Fundamentall points of faith tending to practise as well as those which rest in Beliefe I answer Because their purpose was to comprize in it only those necessary points which rest in beliefe which appeares because of practicall points there is not in it so much as one 77 D. Potter subjoynes to what is said aboue That as well nay better they might have given no Article but that of the Church and sent us to the Church for all the rest For in setting down others besides that and not all they make us beleeve we have all when we have not all This consequence you deny and neither give reason against it nor satisfie his reason for it which yet in my judgment is good and concluding The Proposition to be proved is this That if your Doctrine were trve this short Creed I beleeve the Roman Church to be infallible would have been better that is more effectuall to keep the beleevers of it from Heresie and in the true faith then this Creed which now we have A proposition so evident that I cannot see how either you or any of your Religion or indeed any sensible man can from his heart deny it Yet because you make shew of doing so or else which I rather hope doe not rightly apprehend the force of the Reason I will endeavour briefly to adde some light and strength to it by comparing the effects of these severall supposed Creeds 78 The former Creed therefore would certainly produce these effects in the beleevers of it An impossibility of being in any formall Heresie A necessity of being prepared in mind to come out of all Errourin faith or materiall Heresie which certainly you will not denie or if you doe you pull downe the only pillar of your Church and Religion and denie that which is in effect the only thing you labour to prove through your whole Book 79 The latter Creed which now we have is so un-effectuall for these good purposes that you your self tell
hath a single relation to another or as all concur to make one Company or Congregation which we call the Church and this is the most principall reference and Vnion of one man with another because the chiefest Vnity is that of the Whole to which the particular Vnity of Parts is subordinate This Vnity or Onenesse if so I may call it is effected by Charity uniting all the members of the Church in one Mysticall Body contrary to which is Schisme from the Greeke word signifying Scissure or Division Wherefore vpon the whole matter wee find that Schisme as the Angellicall Doctor S. Thomas defines it is A voluntary separation from the Vnity of that Charity whereby all the members of the Church are united From hence he deduceth that Schisme is a speciall and particular vice distinct from Heresy because they are opposite to two different Vertues Heresy to Faith Schisme to Charity To which purpose hee fitly alleageth S. Hierome upon these words Tit. 3. A man that is an Heretique after the first and second admonition avoide saying I conceive that there is this difference betwixt Schisme and Heresy that Heresy involves some perverse assertion Schisme for Episcopall dissention doth seperate men from the Church The same doctrine is delivered by S. Austine in these words Heretiques and Schismatiques call their Congregations Churches but Heretiques corrupt the Faith by believing of God false things but Schismatiques by wicked divisions breake from fraternall Charity although they believe what we believe Therefore the Heretique belongs not to the Church because she loves God nor the Schismatique because she loves her Neighbour And in another place he saith It is wont to be demanded How Schismatiques be distinguished from Heretiques and this difference is found that not a divers faith but the divided Society of Communion doth make Schismatiques It is then evident that Schisme is different from Heresie Neverthelesse saith S. Thomas as he who is deprived of faith must needs want Charity so every Heretique is a Schismatique but not conversively every Schismatique is an Heretique though because want of Charity disposes and makes way to the destruction of faith according to those words of the Apostle Which a good conscience some casting off have suffered shipwrack in their faith Schisme speedily degenerates to Heresy as S. Hierome after the rebearsed words teacheth saying Though Schisme in the beginning may in some sort be understood different from Heresy yet there is no Schisme which doth not faigne some heresy to it selfe that so it may seeme to have departed from the Church upon good reason Neverthelesse when Schisme proceeds originally from Heresy Heresy as being in that case the predominant quality in these two peccant humours giveth the denomination of an Heretique as on the other side we are wont especially in the beginning or for a while to call Schismatiques those men who first began with only Schisme though in processe of time they fell into some Heresy and by that meanes are indeed both Schismatiques and Heretiques 4. The reason why both Heresy and Schisme are repugnant to the being of a good Catholique is Because the Catholique or Vniversall Church signifies One Congregation or Company of faithfull people and therefore implies not only Faith to make them Faithfull believers but also Communion or Common Vnion to make them One in Charity which excludes Seperation and Division and therefore in the Apostles Creed Communion of Saints is immediatly joyned to the Catholique Church 5. From this definition of Schisme may be inferred that the guilt thereof is contracted not only by division from the Vniversall Church but also by a Separation from a particular Church or Diocesse which agrees with the Vniversall In this manner Meletius was a Schismatique but not an Heretique because as we read in S. Epiphanius he was of the right Faith for his faith was not altered at any time from the holy Catholique Church c. He made a Sect but departed not from Faith Yet because he made to himselfe a particular Congregation against S. Peter Archbishop of Alexandria his lawfull superiour and by that meanes brought in a division in that particular Church he was a Schismatique And it is well worth the noting that the Meletians building new Churches put this title upon them The Church of Martyrs and upon the antient Churches of those vvho succeeded Peter was inscribed The Catholique Church For so it is A new Sect must have a new name which though it be never so gay and specious as the Church of Martyrs the Reformed Church c. yet the Novelty sheweth that it is not the Catholique nor a true Church And that Schisme may be committed by division from a particular Church wee read in Optatus Milevitanus these remarkeable words which doe well declare who bee schismatiques brought by him to prove that not câ—cilianus but parmenianas was a Schismatique For Caecilianus went not out from Majorinus thy Grand-Father he meanes his next predecesâ—our but one in the Bishopâ—icke but Majorinus from Caecilianus neither did Caecilianus depart from the Chaire of Peter or of Cyprian who was but a particular Bishop but Majorinus in whose Chaire thou sittest which had no beginning before Majorinus himselfe Seeing it is manifestly knowne that these things were so done it evidently appeareth that you are heires both of Traditors that is of those who delivered up the holy Bible to be burned and of Schismatiques And it seemeth that this kinde of Schisme must principally be admitted by Protestants who acknowledge no one visible Head of the whole Church but hold that every particular Diocesse Church or Countrey is governed by it selfe independently of any one Person or Generall Councell to which all Christians have obligation to submit their judgements and wills 6. As for the grievousnesse or quantity of Schisme which was the second point proposed S. Thomas teacheth that amongst sinnes against our Neighbour Schisme is the most grievous because it is against the spirituall good of the multitude or Community And therefore as in a Kingdome or Common-wealth there is as great difference betweene the crime of rebellion or sedition and debates among priuate men as there is inequality betwixt one man and a whole kingdome so in the Church Schisme is as much more grievous then sedition in a Kingdome as the spirituall good of soules surpasseth the civill and politicall weale And S. Thomas addes further and they loose the spirituall Power of Iurisdiction and if they goe about to absolve from sinnes or to excommunicate their actions are invalid which he proves out of the Canon Novatianus Causa 7. quest 1. which saith He that keepeth neither the Vnity of spirit nor the peace of agreement and separates himselfe from the bond of the Church and the Colleage of Priests can neither have the Power nor dignity of a Bishop The Power also of Order for example to consecrate the Eucharist to ordaine Priests c.
any even with any little colour of common sense If then they departed from all visible Communities professing Christ it followeth that they also left the Communion of the true visible Church whichsoever it was whether that of Rome or any other of which Point I doe not for the present dispute Yea this the Lutherans doe not only acknowledge but prove and brag of If faith a learned Lutheran there had 〈◊〉 right â—elievers which went before Luther in his office there had then been no need of a Lutheran Reformation Another affirmeth it to be ridiculous to think that in the time before Luther any had the purity of Doctrine and that Luther should receive it from them and not they from Luther Another speaketh roundly and saith it is impudency to say that many learned men in Germany before Luther did hold the Doctrine of the Gospell And I adde That farre greater impudency it were to affirme that Germany did not agree with the rest of Europe and other Christian Catholique Nations and consequently that it is the greatest impudency to deny that he departed from the Communion of the visible Catholique Church spread over the whole world We have heard Calvin saying of Protestants in generall We were even forced to make a separation from the whole world And Luther of himselfe in particular In the beginning I was alone Ergo say I by your good leave you were at least a Schismatique divided from the Ancient Church and a member of no new Church For no sole man can constitute a Church and though he could yet such a Church could not be that glorious company of whose number greatnesse and amplitude so much hath been spoken both in the old Testament and in the New 13 D. Potter endeavours to avoid this evident Argument by divers evasions but by the confutation thereof I will with Gods holy assistance take occasion even out of his own Answers and grounds to bring unanswerable reasons to convince them of Schisme 14 His chief Answer is That they have not left the Church but her Corruption 15 I reply This answer may be given either by those furious people who teach that those abuses and corruptions in the Church were so enormous that they could not stand with the nature or being of a true Church of Christ Or else by those other more calme Protestants who affirme that those errors did not destroy the being but only deforme the beauty of the Church Against both these sorts of men I may fitly use that unanswerable Dilemma which S. Augustine brings against the Donatists in these concluding words Tell me whether the Church at that time when you say she entertained those who were guilty of all crimes by the contagion of those sinfull persons perished or perished not Answere whether the Church perished or perished not Make choice of what you think If then she perished what Church brought forth Dâ—natus we may say Luther But if she could not perish because so many were incorporated into her without Baptisme that is without a second baptisme or rebaptization and I may say without Luthers Reformation answer me I pray you what madnesse did moue the Sect of Donâ—tus to separate themselâ—es from her upon pretence to avoid the Communion of â—ad men I beseech the Reader to ponder every one of S. Augustines words and to consider whether any thing could haâ—e been spoken more directly against Luther and his followers of what sort soever 16 And now to answer more in particular I say to those who reach that the visible Church of Christ perished for many Ages that I can easily afford them the curâ—esie to free them from meer Schisme but all men touched with any spark of zeal to vindicate the wisedome and Goodnesse of our Saviour from blasphemous injurie cannot choose but believe and proclaim them to be superlative Arch-heretiques Neverthelesse if they will needs haue the honour of Singularity and desire to be both formall Heretiques and properly Schismatiques I will tell them that while they dream of an invisible Church of men which agree with them in Faith they will upon due reflection find themselves to be Schismatiques from those corporeall Angels or invisible men because they held externall Communion with the visible Church of those times the outward Communion of which visible Church these modern hot-spurs forsaking were thereby divided from the outward Communion of their hidden Brethren and so are Separatists from the externall Communion of them with whom they agree in faith which is Schisme in the most formall and proper signification thereof Moreover according to D. Potter these boysterous Creatures are properly Schismariques For the reason why he thinks himselfe and such as he is to be cleared from Schisme notwithstanding their division from the Roman Church is because according to his Divinity the property of Schisme is witnesse the Donatists and Luciferians to cut off from the Body of Christ and the hope of Salvation the Church from which it separates But those Protestants of whom we now speak cut off from the Body of Christ and the hope of Salvation the Church from which they separated themselues and they doe it directly as the Donatists in whom you exemplify did by affirming that the true Church had perished and therefore they cannot bee cleared from Schisme if you may be their Iudge Consider I pray you how many prime Protestants both domesticall and forraign you haue at one blow struck off from hope of Salvation and condemned to the lowest pit for the grievous sinne of Schisme And withall it imports you to consider thaâ— you also involve your selfe and other moderate Protestants in the selfe same crime and punishment while you communicate with those who according to your own principles are properly formally Schismatiques For if you held your selfe obliged under pain of damnation to forsake the Communion of the Roman Church by reason of her Errors and Corrâ—ptions which yet you confesse were not fundamentall shall it not be much more damnable for you to live in Communion and Confraternity with those who defend an errour of the fayling of the Church which in the Donatists you confesse to haue been properly hereticall against the Article of our Creed I believe the Church And I desire the Reader here to apply an authority of S. Cyprian epist. 76. which he shall finde alleaged in the next number And this may suffice for confutation of the aforesaid Answer as it might haue relation to the rigid Calvinists 17 For Confutation of these Protestants who hold that the Church of Christ had alwaies a being and cannot erre in points fundamentall and yet teach that she may erre in matters of lesse moment wherein if they forsake her they would be accounted not to leave the Church but onely her corruptions I must say that they change the state of our present Question not distinguishing between internall Faith and externall Communion nor between Schisme and
way or other but also to disbelieve that is to believe the contrary of that which Faith proposeth as the examples of innumerable Arch-heretiques can beare witnesse This obscurity of faith we learne from holy Scripture according to those words of the Apostle Faith is the substance of things to be hoped for the argument of things not appearing And We see by a glasse in a dark manner but then face to face And accordingly S. Peter saith Which you doe well attending unto as to a Candle shining in a dark place 3 Faith being then obscure whereby it differeth from naturall Sciences and yet being most certain and infallible wherein it surpasseth humane Opinion it must relie upon some motive and ground which may be able to give it certainty and yet not release it from obscurity For if this motive ground or formall Object of Faith were any thing evidently presented to our understanding and if also we did evidently know that it had a necessary connection with the Articles which we believe our assent to such Articles could not be obscure but evident which as we said is against the nature of our Faith If likewise the motive or ground of our faith were obscurely propounded to us but were not in it selfe infallible it would leave our assent in obscurity but could not endue it with certainty We must therefore for the ground of our Faith find out a motive obscure to us but most certain in it selfe that the act of faith may remaine both obscure and certain Such a motive as this can be no other but the divine authority of almighty God revealing or speaking those truths which our faith believes For it is manifest that God's infallible testimony may transfuse Certainty to our faith and yet not draw it out of obscurity because no humane discourse or demonstration can evince that God revealeth any supernaturall Truth since God had beene no lesse perfect then he is although he had never revealed any of those objects which we now believe 4 Neverthelesse because Almighty God out of his infinite wisdome and sweetnesse doth concurre with his Creatures in such sort as may be fit the temper exigence of their natures and because Man is a Creature endued with reason God doth not exact of his Will or Vnderstanding any other then as the Apostle saith rationabile obsâ—â—uium an Obedience sweetned with good reason which could not so appeare if our Vnderstanding were summoned to believe with certainty things no way represented as infallible and certain And therâ—fore Almighty God obliging us under paine of eternall damnation to believe with greatest certainty divers verities not knowne by the light of naturall reason cannot saylâ— to furnish our Vnderstanding with such inducements motives and arguments as may sufficiently perswade any mind which is not partiall or passionate that the objects which we believe proceed from an Authority so Wise that it cannot be deceived so Good that it cannot deceive according to the words of David Thy Testimonies are made credible exceedingly These inducements are by Divines called argumeÌ„ta credibilitatis arguments of credibility which though they cannot make us evidently see what we believe yet they evidently convince that in true wisdome prudence the objects of â—aith deserve credit ought to be accepted as things revealed by God For without such reasons inducemeÌ„ts our judgment of faith could not be conceived prudent holy Scripture telling us that he who soone believes is light of heart By these arguments and inducements our Vnderstanding is both satisfied with evidence of credibility and the objects of faith retaine their obscurity because it is a different thing to bee evidently credible and evidently true as those who were present at the Miracles wroughâ— by our blessed Saviour and his Apostles did not evidently see their doctrine to be true for then it had not been Faith but Science and all had been necessitated to believe which we see fell out otherwise but they were evidently convinced that the things confirmed by such Miracles were most credible and worthy to be imbraced as truths revealed by God 5. These evident Arguments of Credibility are in great abundance found in the Visible Church of Christ perpetually existing on earth For that there hath been a company of men professing such and such doctrines we have from our next Predecessours and these from theirs upward till we come to the Apostles and our Blessed Saviour which gradation is knowne by evidence of sense by reading bookes or hearing what one man delivers to another And it is evident that there was neither cause nor possibility that men so distant in place so different in temper so repugnant in private ends did or could agree to tell one and the selfe same thing if it had been but a fiction invented by themselves as ancient Tertullian well saith How is it likely that so many and so great Churches should erre in one faith Among many events there is not one issue the error of the Churches must needs have varied But that which among many is found to be One is not mistaken but delivered Dare then any body say that they erred who delivered it With this never interrupted existence of the Church are joyned the many and great miracles wrought by men of that Congregation or Church the sanctity of the persons the renowned victories over so many persecutions both of all sorts of men and of the infernall spirits and lastly the perpetuall existence of so holy a Church being brought up to the Apostles themselves she comes to partake of the same assurance of truth which They by so many powerfull wayes did communicate to their Doctrine and to the Church of their times together with the divine Certainty which they received from our Blessed Saviour himselfe revealing to Man-kind what he heard from his Fatheâ— and so we conclude with Tertullian We receive it from the Churches the Churches from the Apostles the Apostles from Christ Christ from his Father And if we once interrupt this line of succession most certainly made knowne by meanes of holy Tradition we cannot conjoyn the present Church and doctrine with the Church and doctrine of the Apostles but must invent some new meanes and arguments sufficient of themselves to find out and prove a true Church and faith independently of the preaching and writing of the Apostles neither of which can be knowne but by Tradition as is truely observed by Tertullian saying I will prescribe that there is no meanes to prove what the Apostles preached but by the same Church which they founded 6 Thus then we are to proceed By evidence of manifest and incorrupt Tradition I know that there hath alwaies been a never-interrupted Succession of men from the Apostles time believing professing and practising such and such doctrines By evident arguments of credibility as Miracles Sancâ—â—ty Vnity c. and by all those wayes whereby the Apostles and our Blessed Saviour
take from the number but one and say they were but foure against the Scripture affirming them to have been fiue he is instantly guilty of a damnable sinne Why Because by this subtraction of One he doth deprive Gods word and Testimony of all credit and infallibility For if either he could deceive or be deceived in any one thing it were but wisdome to suspect him in all And seeing eveâ—y Hereâ—y opposeth some Truth revealed by God it is no wonder that no one can be excused from deadly and damnable sinne For if voluntary Blasphemy and Periury which are opposite only to the inâ—used Morall Vertue of Religion can never be excused from mortall sinne much lesse can Heresy be excused which opposeth the Theologicall Vertue of Faith 11 If any object that Schisme may seem to be a greater sinne then Heresy because the Verâ—ue of Charity to which Schisme is opposite is greater then Faith according to the Apostle saying Now there remain Faith Hope Charity but the greatâ—r of these is Charity S. Thomas answeres in these words Charity hath two Obiects one principall to wit the 〈◊〉 Goodnesse and another secondary namely the good of our Neighbour But Schisme and other sinnes which are committed against our Neighbour are opposite to Charity in respect of this secondary good which is lesse then the obiect of Faith which is God as he is the Prime Verity on which Faith doth relie and therefore these sinnes are lesse then Infidelity He takes Infidelity after a generall manner as it comprehends Heresie and other vices against Faith 12. Having therefore sufficiently declared wherein Heresy consists Let us come to prove that which we proposed in this Chapter Where I desire it be still remembred That the visible Catholique Church cannot erre damnably as D. Potter confesseth And that when Luther appeared there was no other visible true Church of Christ disagreeing from the Roman as we have demonstrated in the next precedent Chapter 13 Now that Luther and his followers cannot be excused from formall Heresy I prove by these reasons To oppose any truth propounded by the visible true Church as revealed by God is formall Heresie as we have shewed out of the definition of Heresie But Luther Calvin and the rest did oppose divers truths propounded by the visible Church as revealed by God yea they did therefore oppose her because shee propounded as divine revealed truths things which they judged either to be fals or human inventions Therefore they committed formall Heresie 14 Moreover every Errour against any doctrine revealed by God is damnable Heresie whether the matter in it selfe be great or small as I proved before and therefore either the Protestants or the Roman Church must be guilty of formall Heresy because one of them must erre against the word testimony of God but you grant perforâ—e that the Roman Church doth not erre damnably I adde that she cannot erre damnably because she is the truly Catholique Church which you confesse cannot erre damnably Therefore Protestants must be guilty of formall Heresy 15 Besides we have shewed that the visible Church is Iudge of Controversies and therefore must be infallible in all her Proposals which being once supposed it manifestly followeth that to oppose what she delivereth as revealed by God is not so much to oppose her as God himself and therefore cannot be excused from grievous Heresy 16 Againe if Luther were an Heretique for those points wherein he disagreed from the Roman Church All they who agree with him in those very points must likewise be Heretiques Now that Luther was a formall Heretique I demonstrate in this manner To say that Gods visible true Church is not universall but confined to one only place or corner of the world is according to your owne expresse words properly Heresy against that Article of the Creed wherein we professe to beleeve the holy Catholique Church And you brand Donatus with heresy because he limited the universall Church to Africa But it is manifest and acknowledged by Luther himself aud other chief Protestants that Luthers Reformation when it first began and much more for divers Ages before was not Vniversall nor spread over the world but was confined to that compasse of ground which did contain Luthers body Therefore his Reformation cannot be excused from formall Heresy If S. Augustine in those times said to the Donatists There are innumerable testimonies of holy Scripture in which it appeareth that the Church of Christ is not only in Africa as these men with most impudent vanity doe rave but that she is spread over the whole earth much more may it be said It appeareth by innumerable testimonies of holy Scripture that the Church of Christ cannot be confined to the Ciâ—ty of Wittemberg or to the place where Luthers feet stood but must be spread over the whole world It is therefore most impudent vanity and dotage to limit her to Luthers Reformation In another place also this holy Father writes no lesse effectually against Luther then against the Donatists For having out of those words In thy â—eed all Nations shall be blessed proved that Gods Church must be universall he saith Why doe you superadde by saying that Christ remaines heire in no part of the earth except where he may have Donatus for his Coheire Give me this Vniversall Church if it be among you shew your selves to all Nations which we already shew to be blessed in this Seed Give us this Church or else laying aside all fury receive her from us But it is evident that Luther could not when he said At the beginning I was alone give us an universall Church Therefore happy had he been if he had then and his followers would now receive her from us And therefore we must conclude with the same holy Father saying in another place of the universall Church She hath this most certain mark that she cannot be bidden She is then knowne to all Nations The Sect of Donatus is unknowne to many Nations therefore that cannot be she The Sect of Luther at least when he began and much more before his beginning was unknowne to many Nations therefore that cannot be she 17 And that it may yet further appeare how perfectly Luther agreed with the Donatists It is to be noted that they never taught that the Catholique Church ought not to extend it self further then that part of Africa where their faction reigned but only that in fact it was so confined because all the rest of the Church was prophaned by communicating with Caeciliâ—â—us whom they falsly affirmed to have been ordained Bishop by those who were Traditours or gives up of the Bible to the Persecutors to be burned yea at that very time they had some of their Sect residing in Rome and sent thither one Victor a Bishop under colour to take care of the Brethren in that Citty but indeed as Baronius observeth that the world might account them Catholiques by
that although the Waldenses Wicliffe c. had agreed with Protestants in all points of doctrine yet they could not bragge of Succession from them because their doctrine hath not been free from interruption which necessarily crosseth Succession 24 And as want of Succession of Persons and Doctrine cannot stand with that Vniversality of Time which is inseparable from the Catholique Church so likewise the disagreeing Sectâ— which are dispersed throughout divers Countries and Nations cannot help towards that Vniversality of Place wherewith the true Church must be endued but rather such locall multiplication doth more more lay open their division want of Succession in Doctrine For the excellent Observation of S. Augustine doth punctually agree with all modern Heretiques wherein this holy Father having cited these words out of the Prophet Ezechiell My flocks are dispersed upon the whole face of the Earth he addes this remarkable sentence Not all Heretiques are spread over the face of the Earth and yet there are Heretiques spread over the whole face of the Earth some here some there yet they are wanting in no place they know not one another One Sect for example in Africa another Heresy in the East another in Egypt another in Mesopotamia In divers places they are divers one Mother pride hath begot them all as our own Mother the Catholique Church hath brought forth all faithfull people dispersed throughout the whole world No wonder then if Pride breed Dissention and Charity Vnion And in another place applying to Heretiques those words of the Canticles If thou know not thy selfe goe forth and follow after the steps of the flocks and feed thy kids he saith If thou know not thy selfe goe thou forth I doe not cast thee out but goe thou out that it may be said of thee They went from us but they were not of us Goe thou out in the steps of the flocks not in my steps but in the steps of the flocks nor of one flock but of divers and wandring flocks And feed thy Kids not as Peter to whom is said Feed my sheepe but seed thy Kids in the Tabernacles of the Pastors not in the Tabernacle of the Pastor where there is one flock and one Pastor In which words this holy Father doth set down the Markes of Heresy to wit going out from the Church and Want of Vnity among themselves which proceed from not acknowledging one supreme Visible Pastor and Head under Christ. And so it being Proved that Protestants having neither succession of Persons nor Doctrine nor Vniversality of Time or Place cannot avoid the just note of Heresy 25 Hitherto we have brought arguments to prove that Luther and all Protestants are guilty of Heresy against the Negative Precept of faith which obligeth us under pain of damnation not to imbrace any one errour contrary to any Truth sufficiently propounded as testified or revealed by Almighty God Which were enough to make good that among Persons who disagree many one point of Faith one part only can be saved Yet we will now prove that Whosoever erreth in any one point doth also break the Affirmative Precept of Faith whereby we are obliged positively to believe some revealed truth with an infallible and supernaturall Faith which is necessary to salvation even necessitate finis or meâ—ii as Divines speak that is so necessary that not any after he is come to the use of Reason was or can be saved without it according to the words of the Apostle Without Faith it is impossible to please God 26 In the beginning of this Chapter I shewed that to Christian Catholique faith are required Certainty Obscurtty Prudence and Supernaturality All which Conditions we will proue to bee wanting in the beliefe of Protestants even in those points which are true in themseluâ—s and to which they yeeld assent as hapeneth in all those particulars wherein they agree with us from whence it will follow that they wanting true Divine Faith want meanes absolutely necessary to salvation 27 And first that their beliefe wanteth Certainty I proue because denying the Vniversall infallibility of the Church can haue no certain grouÌ„nd to know what Objects are â—evealed or testified by God Holy Scripture is in it selfe most true and infallible but without the direction declaration of the Church we can neither haue certain means to know what Scripture is Canonicall nor what Translations be faithfull nor what is the true meaning of Scripture Every Protestant as I suppose is perswaded that his own opinions be true and that he hath used such means as are wont to be prescribed for understanding the Scripture as Prayer Conferring of divers Texts c. and yet their disagreements shew thaâ— some of them are deceaved And therefore it is cleer that they haue no one certain ground whereon to rely for understanding of Scripture And seeing they hold all the Articles of Faith even concerning fundamentall points upon the selfe same ground of Scripture interpreted not by the Churches Authority but according to some other Rules which as experience of their contradictions teach doe sometimes faile it is cleer that the ground of their faith is infallible in no point at all And albeit sometime it chance to hit on the truth yet it is likewise apt to lead them to errour As all Arch-heretiques believing some truths withall divers errours upon the same ground and motive have indeed no true divine infallible faith bâ—t only a fallible humane opinion and perswasion For if the ground upon which they rely were certain it could never produce any errour 28 Another cause of uncertainty in the faith of Protestants must rise from their distinction of points fundamentall and not fundamentall For since they acknowledge that every errour in fundamentall points destroyeth the substance of faith and yet cannot determine what points bee fundamentall it followeth that they must remain uncertain whether or no they be not in some fundamentall error and so want the substance of faith without which there can be no hope of Salvation 29 And that he who erreth against any one revealed truth as certainly some Protestants must doe because contradictory Propositions cannot both be true doth loose all Divine faith is a very true doctrine delivered by Catholique Divines with so generall a consent that the contrary is wont to be censured as temerarious The Angelicall Doctor S. Thomas proposeth this Question Whether he who denieth one Article of faith may retain faith in other Articles and resolveth that he cannot which he proveth Argumentâ— sed contra because As deadly sin is opposits to Charity so to deny one Article of faith is opposite to faith But Charity doth not remain with any one deadly sin therefore faith doth not remain after the deniall of any one Article of faith Whereof he gives this farther reason Because saith he the nature of every habit doth depend upon the formall Motiue and Obiect thereof which Motiue being taken away the
nor any thing towards it Never any error was imputed to the Arrians for denying the Authority or the infallibility of the Bishop or Church of Rome Besides what Eusebius saies he saies out of Irenaeus Neither doth or can the Cardinall deny the story to be true therefore he goes about by indirect Arts to foyle it cast a blurre upon it Lastly whensoever Eusebius saies any thing which the Cardinall thinkes for the advantage of his side he cites him and then he is no Arrian or at least hee would not take that for an answer to the arguments he drawes out of him b That Ruffinus was enemy to the Roman Church is said but not proved neither can it be c Eusebius saies the same also of caeteri omnes Episcopi all the other Bishops that they advised Victor to keepe those things that belonged to peace and unity and that they sharpely reprehended Victor for having done otherwise d This is said but no offer made of any proofe of it The Cardinall thinks we must take every thing upon his word They to whom the Tradition was delivered Polyerates and the Asian Bishops knew no such matter nay professed the contrary And who is more likely to know the Truth they which lived within two ages of the fountain of it or the Cardinall who lived sixteen ages after it e How can it make against those that object it seeing it is evident from Irenaeus his Reprehension that he thought Victor and the Roman Church no infallible nor sufficient Iudge of what was necessary to be believed and done what not what was Vniversall Tradition what not what was a sufficient ground of Excommunication and what not and consequently that there was no such necessity as is pretended that all other Churches should in matters of faith conforme themselves to the Church of Rome f This is to suppose that Excommunication is an Act or Argument or signe of Power Authority in the party excommunicating over the party excommunicated whereas it is undeniably evident out of the Church Story that it was often used by Equalls upon Equalls and by Inferiors upon Superiors if the equalls or inferiors thought their equalls or superiors did any thing which deserved it g And what is this but to confesse that they thought that a small cause of excommunication and unsufficient which Victor and his adherents thought great and sufficient And consequently that Victor and his Part declared that to be a matter of faith and of necessity which they thought not so and where was then their conformity h True you have so expounded it but not proved nor offered any proofe of your exception This also we must take upon your Authority Irenaeus speaks not one word of any other power to which he compares or before which he preferres the power of the Roman Church And it is evident out of the Councell of Chalcedon that all the Principality which it had was given it not by God but by the Church in regard it was seated in the Imperiall City Whereupon when afterwards Constantinople was the Imperiall City they decreed that that Chuch should have equall Priviledges and dignity and preheminence with the Church of Rome All the Fathers agreed in this decree saving only the Legats of the Bishop of Rome shewing plainly that they never thought of any Supremacy given the Bishops of Rome by God or grounded upon Scripture but only by the Church and therefore alterable at the Churches pleasure i This is falsely translated Convenire ad Romanam Ecclesiam every body knowes signifies no more but to resort or come to the Roman Church which then there was a necessity that men should doe because that the affaires of the Empire were transacted in that place But yet Irenaeus saies not so of every Church simply which had not been true but only of the adjacent Churches for so he expounds himselfe in saying To this Church it is necessary that every Church that is all the faithfull round about should resort With much more reason therefore we returne the Argument thus Had Irenaeus thought that all Churches must of necessity agree with the RomaÌ„ how could he all other Bishops have then pronounc'd that to be no matter of Faith no sufficient ground of Excommunication which Victor and his adherents thought to be so And how then could they have reprehended Victor so much for the ill use of his power as Cardinall Perron confesses they did seeing if that was true which is pretended in this also as well as other things it was necessary for them to agree with the Church of Rome Some there are that say but more wittily then truly that all Cardinall Bellarmines works are so consonant to themselves as if he had written them in two houres Had Cardinall Perron wrote his book in two houres sure he would not have done that here in the middle of the Book which he condemns in the beginning of it For here he urgeth a consequence drawn from the mistaken words of Irenaeus against his lively and actuall practice which proceeding there he justly condemnes of evident injustice His words are For who knowes not that it is too great an injustice to alleage consequences from passages and even those ill interpreted and misunderstood and in whose illation there is alwaies some Paralogisme hid against the expresse words and the lively actuall practise of the same Fathers from whom they are collected and that may be good to take the Fathers for Adversaries and to accuse them for want of sense or memory but not to take them for Iudges and to submit themselves to the observation of what they have believ'd and practised k This is nothing to the purpose he might choose these examples not as of greater force and authority in themselves but as fitter to be imploied against Victor as domestique examples are fitter and more effectuall then forraine and for his omitting to presse him with his own example and others to what purpose had it been to use them seeing their Letters sent to Victor from all parts wherein they reprehend his presumption shewed him sufficiently that their example was against him But besides he that reads Irenaeus his Letter shall see that in the matter of the Lent Fast and the great variety about the celebration of it which he paralels with this of Easter he presseth Victor with the example of himselfe and others not Bishops of Rome both they saith hee speaking of other Bishops notwithstanding this difference retained peace among themselves and wee also among our selves retaine it inferring from his example that Victor also ought to doe so l If the Popes proceeding was just then the Churches of Asia were indeed and in the sight of God excommunicate and out of the state of Salvation which Irenaeus and all the other ancient Bishops never thought And if they were so why doe you accouâ—t them Saints and Martyrs But the truth is that these Councells did no way shew
certainty I prove because they denying the universall Infallibility of the Church can have no certain ground to know what objects are revealed or testified by God But if there be no other ground of certainty but your Churches infallibility upon what certain ground doe you know that your Church is infallible Upon what certain ground doe you know all those things which must be known before you can know that your Church is infallible As that there is a God that God hath promised his assistance to your Church in all her Decrees that the Scripture wherein this promise is extant is the word of God that those texts of Scripture which you alleage for your infallibility are incorrupted that that which you pretend is the true sense of them When you have produc'd certain grounds for all these things I doubt not but it will appeare that we also may have grounds certain enough to believe our whole Religion which is nothing else but the Bible without dependance on the Churches infallibility Suppose you should meet with a man that for the present believes neither Church nor Scripture nor God but is ready willing to believe them all if you can shew some sufficient grounds to build his faith upon will you tell such a man there are no certain grounds by which he may be converted or there are If you say the first you make all Religion an uncertain thing If the second then either you must ridiculously perswade that your Church is infallible because it is infallible or else that there are other certain grounds besides your Churches infallibility 46 But you proceed and tell us that Holy Scripture is in it selfe most true and infallible but without the direction and declaration of the Church we can neither have certain meanes to know what Scripture is Canonicall nor what Translations be faithfull nor what is the true meaning of Scripture Answ. But all these things must be known before we can know the direction of your Church to be infallible for no other proofe of it can be pretended but only some Texts of Canonicall Scripture truly interpreted Therefore either you are mistaken in thinking there is no other meanes to know these things but your Churches infallible direction or we are excluded from all meanes of knowing her direction to be infallible 47 But Protestants though as you suppose they are perswaded their own oponions are true and that they have used such meanes as are wont to be prescribed for understanding the Scripture as Prayer conferring of Texts c. Yet by their disagreement shew that some of them are deceived Now they hold all the Articles of their faith upon this only ground of Scripture interpreted by these rules and therefore it is cleere that the ground of their faith is infallible in no point at all The first of these suppositions must needs be true but the second is apparently false I mean that every Protestant is perswaded that he hath used those means which are prescribed for understanding of Scripture But that which you collect from these suppositions is cleerely inconsequent and by as good Logick you might conclude that Logick and Geometry stand upon no certain grounds that the rules of the one and the principles of the other doe sometimes faile because the disagreement of Logicians and Geometricians shew that some of them are deceived Might not a Iew conclude as well against all Christians that they have no certain ground whereon to rely in their understanding of Scripture because their disagreements shew that some are deceived because some deduce from it the infallibility of a Church and others no such matter So likewise a Turke might use the same argument against both Iewes and Christians and an Atheist against all Religions and a Sceptick against all reason Might not the one say Mens disagreement in Religion shew that there is no certainty in any and the other that experience of their contradictions teacheth that the rules of reason doe sometimes faile Doe not you see and feele how void of reason and how full of impiety your sophistry is And how transported with zeale against Protestants you urge arguments against them which if they could not be answered would overthrow not only your own but all Religion But God be thanked the answere is easy and obvious For let men but remember not to impute the faults of men but only to men and then it will easily appear that there may be sufficient certainty in reason in Religion in the rules of interpreting Scripture though men through their faults take not care to make use of them and so run into divers errors and dissentions 48 But Protestants cannot determine what points be fundamentall and therefore must remain uncertain whether or no they be not in some fundamentall error Ans. By like reason since you acknowledge that every error in points defin'd and declared by your Church destroies the substance of faith and yet cannot determine what points be defined it followeth that you must remain uncertain whether or no you be not in some fundamentall error and so want the substance of faith without which there can be no hope of Salvation Now that you are uncertain what points are defined appeares from your owne words c. 4. § 3. of your second Part where say you No lesse impertinent is your discourse concerning the difficulty to know what is Heresy For we grant that it is not alwaies easy to determine in particular occasions whether this or that Doctrine be such because it may be doubtfull whether it be against any Scripture or divine Tradition or Definition of the Church Neither were it difficult to extort from you this confession by naming diverse Points which some of you say are defin'd others the contrary And others hang in suspense and know not what to determine But this I have done elsewhere as also I have shewed plainly enough that though we cannot perhaps say in particular thus much and no more is fundamentall yet believing all the Bible we are certain enough that we believe all that is fundamentall As he that in a receit takes twenty ingredients whereoften only are necessary though he know not which those ten are yet taking the whole twenty he is sure enough that he has taken all that are necessary 49 Ad § 29. But that he who erreth against any one revealed truth looseth all Divine Faith is a very true doctrine delivered by Catholique Divines you mean your own with so generall a consent that the contrary is wont to be censur'd as temerarious Now certainly some Protestants must doe so because they hold contradictions which cannot all be true Therefore some of them at least have no divine faith Ans. I passe by your weaknesse in urging Protestants with the authority of your Divines which yet in you might very deservedly be censur'd For when D. Potter to shew the many actuall dissentions between the Romish Doctors notwithstanding their braggs of potentiall Vnity referres
to Pappus who has collected out of Bellar their contradictions and set them down in his own words to the number of 237. to Flacius de Sect is controversiis Religionis Papisticae you making the very same use of M. Breerely against Protestants yet jeere and scorne D. Potter as if he offer'd you for a proofe the bare authority of Pappus and Flacius and tell him which is all the answer you vouchsafe him It is pretty that he brings Pappus and Flacius flat Heretiques to prove your many contradictions As if he had proved this with the bare authority the bare judgement of these men which sure he does not but with the formall words of Bellarmine faithfully collected by Pappus And why then might not we say to you Is it not pretty that you bring Breerly as flat an Heretique as Pappus or Flacius to prove the contradictions of Protestants Yet had he been so vain as to presse you with the meere authority of Protestant Divines in any point me thinkes for your own sake you should have pardon'd him who here and in many other places urge us with the judgement of your Divines as with weighty arguments Yet if the authority of your Divines were even Canonicall certainly nothing could be concluded from it in this matter there being not one of them who delivers for true doctrine this position of yours thus nakedly set down That any error against any one revealed truth destroies all divine faith For they all require not your selfe excepted that this truth must not only be revealed but revealed publiquely and all things considered sufficiently propounded to the erring Party to be one of those which God under pain of damnation commands all men to believe And therefore the contradiction of Protestants though this vaine doctrine of your Divines were supposed true is but a weak argument That any of them have no divine Faith seeing you neither have not ever can prove without begging the Question of your Churches infallibility that the truthes about which they differ are of this quality and condition But though out of curtesy wee may suppose this doctrine true yet we have no reason to grant it nor to think it any thing but a vain and groundlesse fancy and that this very weak and inartificiall argument from the authority of your Divines is the strongest pillar which it hath to support it Two reasons you alleage for it out of Thomas Aquinas the first whereof vainly supposeth against reason and experience that by the commission of any deadly sinne the habit of Charity is quite extirpated And for the second though you cry it up for an Achilles and think like the Gorgons head it will turne us all into stone and in confidence of it insult upon D. Potter as if he durst not come near it yet in very truth having considered it well I finde it a serious grave prolixe and profound nothing I could answer it in a word by telling you that it beggs without all proofe or colour of proofe the main question between us that the infallibility of your Church is either the formall motive or rule or a necessary condition of faith which you know we flatly deny and therefore all that is built upon it has nothing but wind for a foundation But to this answer I will adde a large confutation of this vain fancy out of one of the most rationall and profound Doctors of your own Church I mean Estius who upon the third of the Sent. the 23. dist the 13. § writes thus It is disputed saith he whether in him who believes some of the Articles of our faith and disbelieves others or perhaps someone there be faith properly so called in respect of that which he does believe In which question we must before all carefully distinguish between those who retaining a generall readinesse to believe whatsoever the Church believes yet erre by ignorance in some doctrine of faith because it is not as yet sufficiently declared to them that the Church does so believe and those who after sufficient manifestation of the Churches doctrine doe yet choose to dissent from it either by doubting of it or affirming the contrary For of the former the answer is easy but of these that is of Heretiques retaining some part of wholsome doctrine the question is more difficult and on both sides by the Doctors probably disputed For that there is in them true faith of the Articles wherein they doe not erre first experience seemes to convince For many at this day denying for example sake Purgatory or Invocation of Saints neverthelesse firmely hold as by divine revelation that God is Three and One that the Sonne of God was incarnate and suffered and other like things â—As anciently the Novatians excepting their peculiar error of denying reconciliation to those that fell in persecution held other things in common with Catholiques So that they assisted them very much against the Arrians as Socrates relates in his Eccl. Hist. Moreover the same thing is proved by the example of the Apostles who in the time of Christs passion being scandaliz'd lost their faith in him as also Christ after his resurrection upbraids them with their incredulity and calls Thomas incredulous for denying the Resurrection Ioh. 20. Whereupon S. Austine also in his preface upon the 96. Ps. saith That after the Resurrection of Christ the faith of those that fell was restored again And yet we must not say that the Apostles then lost the faith of the Trinity of the Creation of the world of Eternall life and such like other Articles Besides the Iewes before Christs comming held the faith of one God the Creator of Heaven and Earth who although they lost the true faith of the Messias by not receiving Christ yet we cannot say that they lost the faith of one God but still retained this Article as firmely as they did before Adde hereunto that neither Iewes nor Heretiques seeme to lye in saying they believe either the books of the Prophets or the four Gospels It being apparent enough that they acknowledge in them Divine Authority though they hold not the true sense of them to which purpose is that in the Acts. c. 20. Believest thou the Prophets I know that thou believest Lastly it is manifest that many gifts of God are found even in bad men and such as are out of the Church therefore nothing hinders but that Iewes and Heretiques though they erre in many things yet in other things may be so divinely illuminated as to believe aright So S. Austin seemes to teach in his book De Vnico Baptismo contra Peâ—ilianum c. 3. in these words When a Iew comes to us to be made a Christian we destroy not in him Gods good things but his own ill That he believes one God is to be worshipped that he hopes for eternall life that he doubts not of the Resurrection we approve and commend him we acknowledge that as he did believe these things so he
is still to believe them and as he did hold so he is still to hold them Thus he subioyning more to the same purpose in the next and again in the 26. Chapter and in his third book De Bapt. contr Donat. cap. ult and upon Psal. 64. But now this reason seems to perswade the contrary Because the formall obiect of faith seemes to be the first verity as it is manifested by the Churches Doctrine as the Divine and infallible Rule wherefore whosoever adheres not to this Rule although he assent to some matters of faith yet he embraces them not with faith but with some other kinde of assent as if a man assent to a conclusion not knowing the reason by which it is demonstrated he hath not true knowledge but an opinion only of the same conclusion Now that an Heretique adheres not to the râ—le aforesaid it is manifest Because if he did adhere to it as divine and infallible he would receive all without exception which the Church teacheth and so would not be an Heretique After this manner discourseth S. Thom. 2. 2. q. 5. art 3. From whom yet Dur and dissents upon this distinction thinking there may be in an Heretique true faith in respect of the Articles in which he doth not erre Others as Scotus and Bonaventure define not the matter plainly but seeme to choose a middle way To the authority of S. Austine and these Schoolemeâ— this may be adjoyned That it is usuall with good Christians to say that Heretiques have not the entire faith Whereby it seemes to be intimated that some part of it they doe retaine Whereof this may be another reason That if the truths which a Iew or a Heretique holds he should not hold them by faith but after some other manner to wit by his own proper will and judgement it will follow that all that excellent knowledge of God and divine things which is found in them is to be attributed not to the grace of God but the strength of Free will which is against S. Austine both elsewhere and especially in the end of his book De potentia As for the reason alleaged to the contrary We answer It is impertinent to faith by what meanes we believe the prime Verity that is by what meanes God useth to conferre upon men the gift of Faith For although now the ordinary meanes be the Testimony and teaching of the Church yet it is certain that by other meanes faith hath been given heretofore and is given still For many of the Ancients as Adam Abraham Melchisedeck Iob received faith by speciall revelation the Apostles by the Miracles and Preaching of Christ others again by the Preaching and miracles of the Apostles and Lastly others by other meanes when as yet they had heard nothing of the infallibility of the Church to little Children by Baptisme without any other help faith is infus'd And therefore it is possible that a man not adhering to the Churches doctrine as a Rule infallible yet may receive some things for the word of God which doe indeed truly belong to the faith either because they are now or heretofore have been confirm'd by miracles Or because he manifestly sees that the ancient Church taught so or upon some other inducement And yet neverthelesse we must not say that Heretiques and Iewes doe hold the Faith but only some part of the Faith For the Faith signifies an entire thing and compleat in all parts whereupon an Heretique is said to be simply an Infidell to have lost the Faith and according to the Apostle 1. Tim. 1. to have made shipwrack of it although he holds some things with the same strength of assent and readinesse of will wherewith by others are held all those points which appertaine to the Faith And thus farre Estius Whose discourse I presume may passe for a sufficient refutation of your argumeÌ„t out of Aquinas And therefore your Corollaries drawn from it That every error against faith involves opposition against Gods testimony That Protestants have no Faith no certainty and that you have all Faith must together with it fall to the ground 50 But if Protestants have certainty they want obscurity and so have not that faith which as the Apostle saith is of things not appearing This argument you prosecute in the next Paragraph But I can find nothing in it to convince or perswade me that Protestants cannot have as much certainty as is required to faith of an object not so evident as to beget science If obscurity will not consist with certainty in the highest degree then you are to blame for requiring to faith contradicting conditions If certainty and obscurity will stand together what reason can be imagin'd that a Protestant may not entertain them both as well as a Papist Your bodies souls your understandings and wills are I think of the same condition with ours And why then may not we be certain of an obscure thing as well as you And as you made this long discourse against Protestants why may not wee putting Church instead of Scripture send it back again to you And say If Papists have certainty they want obscurity and so have not that faith which as the Apostle saith is of things not appearing or not necessitating our understanding to an assent For the whole edifice of the faith of Papists is setled on these two principles These particular propositions are the propositions of the Church And the sense and meaning of them is clear and evident at least in all points necessary to salvation Now these principles being one suppos'd it clearly followeth that what Papists beleeve as necessary to salvation is evidently known by them to be true by this argument It is certain and evident that whatsoever is the word of God or Divine Revelation is true But it is certain and evident that these propositions of the Church in particular are the word of God and Divine Revelations therefore it is certain and evident that all propositions of the Church are true Which Conclusion I take for a Major in a second argument and say thus It is certain and evident that all propositions of the Church are true But it is certain and evident that such particulars for example The lawfulnesse of the halfe Communion The lawfulnesse and expedience of Latine Service the Doctrine of Transubstantiation Indulgences c. are the Propositions of the Church therefore it is certain and evident that these particular objects are true Neither will it avail you to say that the said principles are not evident by naturall discourse but only by the eye of reason clear'd by grace For supernaturall evidence no lesse yea rather more drowns and excludes obscurity then naturall evidence doth Neither can the Partie so enlightned be said voluntarily to captivate his understanding to that light but rather his understanding is by necessity made captive and forc'd not to disbeleeve what is presented by so clear a light And therefore your imaginary faith is not the
Protestants which are dissembled by you and not put into the ballance Know then Sir that when I say The Religion of Protestants is in prudence to be preferr'd before yours as on the one side I doe not understand by your Religion the doctrine of Bellarmine or Baronius or any other privat man amongst you nor the Doctrine of the Sorbon or of the Iesuits or of the Dominicans or of any other particular Company among you but that wherein you all agree or professe to agree the Doctrine of the Councell of Trent so accordingly on the other side by the Religion of Protestants I doe not understand the Doctrine of Luther or Calvin or Melancthon nor the Confession of Augusta or Geneva nor the Catechisme of Heidelberg nor the Articles of the Church of England no nor the Harmony of Protestant Confessions but that wherin they all agree and which they all subscribe with a greater Harmony as a perfect rule of their Faith and Actions that is The BIBLE The BIBLE I say The BIBLE only is the Religion of Protestants Whatsoever else they believe besides it and the plain irrefragable indubitable consequences of it well may they hold it as a matter of Opinion but as matter of Faith and Religion neither can they with coherence to their own grounds believe it themselves nor require the beliefe of it of others without most high and most Schismaticall presumption I for my part after a long and as I verily believe hope impartiall search of the true way to eternall happinesse doe professe plainly that I cannot find any rest for the sole of my foot but upon this Rock only I see plainly and with mine own eyes that there are Popes against Popes Councells against Councells some Fathers against others the same Fathers against themselves a Consent of Fathers of one age against a Consent of Fathers of another age the Church of one age against the Church of another age Traditive interpretations of Scripture are pretended but there are few or none to be found No Tradition but only of Scripture can derive it selfe from the fountain but may be plainly prov'd either to have been brought in in such an age after Christ or that in such an age it was not in In a word there is no sufficient certainty but of Scripture only for any considering man to build upon This therefore and this only I have reason to believe This I will professe according to this I will live and for this if there be occasion I will not only willingly but even gladly loose my life though I should be sorry that Christians should take it from me Propose me any thing out of this book and require whether I believe it or no and seeme it never so incomprehensible to humane reason I will subscribe it with hand and heart as knowing no demonstration can be stronger then this God hath said so therefore it is true In other things I will take no mans liberty of judgement from him neither shall any man take mine from me I will think no man the worse man nor the worse Christian I will love no man the lesse for differing in opinion from me And what measure I meat to others I expect from them again I am fully assured that God does not and therefore that men ought not to require any more of any man then this To believe the Scripture to be Gods word to endeavour to find the true sense of it and to live according to it 57 This is the Religion which I have chosen after a long deliberation and I am verily perswaded that I have chosen wisely much more wisely thē if I had guided my selfe according to your Churches authority For the Scripture being all true I am secur'd by believing nothing else that I shall believe no falshood as matter of Faith And if I mistake the sense of Scripture and so fall into error yet am I secure from any danger thereby if but your grounds be true because endeavouring to finde the true sense of Scripture I cannot but hold my error without pertinacy and be ready to forsake it when a more true and a more probable sense shall appear unto mee And then all necessary truth being as I have prov'd plainly set down in Scripture I am certain by believing Scripture to believe all necessary Truth And he that does so if his life be answerable to his faith how is it possible he should faile of Salvation 58 Besides whatsoever may be pretended to gain to your Church the credit of a Guide all that much more may be said for the Scripture Hath your Church been ancient The Scripture is more ancient Is your Church a meanes to keep men at vnity So is the Scripture to keep those that believe it and wil obey it in unity of belief in matters necessary or very profitable and in unity of Charity in points unnecessary Is your Church universall for time or place Certainly the Scripture is more universall For all the Christians in the world those I mean that in truth deserve this name doe now and alwaies have believed the Scripture to be the word of God whereas only you say that you only are the Church of God all Christians besides you deny it 59 Thirdly following the Scripture I follow that whereby you prove your Churches infallibility whereof were it not for Scripture what pretence could you have or what notion could we have and by so doing tacitely confesse that your selves are surer of the truth of the Scripture then of your Churches authority For we must be surer of the proofe then of the thing proved otherwise it is no proofe 60 Fourthly following the Scripture I follow that which must be true if your Church be true for your Church gives attestation to it Whereas if I follow your Church I must follow that which though Scripture be true may be false nay which if Scripture be true must be false because the Scripture testifies against it 61 Fiftly to follow the Scripture I have Gods expresse warrant and command and no colour of any prohibition But to believe your Church infallible I have no cōmand at all much lesse an expresse cōmand Nay I have reason to fear that I am prohibited to doe so in these words call no man Master on earth They fell by infidelity Thou standest by faith Bee not high minded but feare The spirit of truth The world cannot receive 62 Following your Church I must hold many things not only above reason but against it if any thing be against it whereas following the Scripture I shall believe many mysteries but no impossibilities many things above reason but nothing against it many things which had they not been reveal'd reason could never have discover'd but nothing which by true reason may be confuted many things which reason cannot comprehend how they can be but nothing which reason can comprehend that it cannot be Nay I shall believe nothing which reason will not
can you suppose that our ignorance of this command is not at the least probable if not all things considered plainly invincible Sure I am for my part that I have done my true endeavour to finde it true and am still willing to doe so but the more I seeke the farther I am from finding and therefore if it be true certainly my not finding it is very excusable and you have reason to be very charitable in your censures of me 2. Whereas you say That besides these things necessary because commanded there are other things which are commanded because necessary of which number you make Divine infallible faith Baptisme in Act for Children and in Desire for those who are come to the use of Reason and the Sacrament of Confession for those who have committed mortall sinne In these words you seeme to me to deliver a strange Paradoxe viz. That Faith and Baptisme and Confession are not therefore necessary for us because God appointed them but are therefore appointed by God because they were necessary for us antecedently to his appointment which if it were true I wonder what it was beside God that made them necessary and made it necessary for God to command them Besides in making faith one of these necessary meanes you seem to exclude Infants from Salvation Fo◠Faith comes by hearing and they have not heard In requiring that this Faith should be divine and infallible you cast your Credentes into infinite perplexity who cannot possibly by any sure marke discerne whether their Faith be Divine or humane or if you have any certain signe whereby they may discerne whether they believe your Churches infallibility with Divine or only with humane faith I pray produce it for perhaps it may serve us to shew that our faith is divine as well as yours Moreover in affirming that Baptisme in act is necessary for Infants and for men onely in desire You seeme to me in the latter to destroy the foundation of the former For if a desire of Baptisme will serve men instead of Baptisme then those words of our Saviour Vnlesse a man be borne again of water c. are not to be understood literally and rigidly of externall Baptisme for a desire of Baptisme is not Baptisme and so your foundation of the Absolute necessity of Baptisme is destroied And if you may glosse the Text so farre as that men may be saved by the desire without Baptisme it selfe because they cannot have it why should you not glosse it a little farther that there may be some hope of the salvation of unbaptized infants to whom it was more impossible to have a desire of Baptisme then for the former to have the thing it selfe Lastly for your Sacrament of Confession we know none such nor any such absolute necessity of it They that confesse their sinnes and forsake them shall finde mercy though they confesse them to God only and not to men They that confesse them both to God and men if they doe not effectually and in time forsake them shall not finde mercy 3. Whereas you say that supposing these meanes once appointed as absolutely necessary to salvation there cannot but arise an obligation of procuring to have them you must suppose I hope that we know them to be so appointed and that it is in our power to procure them otherwise though it may be our ill fortune to faile of the end for want of the meanes certainly we cannot be obliged to procure them For the rule of the law is also the dictate of common reason and equity That no man can be obliged to what is impossible We can be obliged to nothing but by vertue of some command now it is impossible that God should command in earnest anything which he knowes to be impossible For to command in earnest is to command with an intent to be obeyed which is not possible he should doe when he knowes the thing commanded to be impossible Lastly whosoever is obliged to doe any thing and does it not commits a fault but Infants commit no fault in not procuring to have Baptisme therefore no obligation lies upon them to procure it 4. Whereas you say that if Protestants dissent from you in the point of the necessity of Baptisme for Infants it cannot be denied but that our disagreement is in a point fundamentall If you mean a point esteemed so by you this indeed cannot be denied But if you mean a point that indeed is fundamentall this may certainly be denied for I deny it and say that it doth not appear to me any way necessary to Salvation to hold the truth or not to hold an error touching the condition of these Infants This is certain and we must believe that God will not deale unjustly with them but how in particular he will deale with them concernes not us and therefore we need not much regard it 5. Whereas you say the like of your Sacrament of Penance you only say so but your proofes are wanting Lastly whereas you say This rigour ought not to seeme strange or uniust in God but that we are rather to blesse him for ordaining us to Salvation by any meanes I answer that it is true we are not to question the known will of God of injustice yet whether that which you pretend to be Gods will be so indeed or only your presumption this I hope may be question'd lawfully without presumption and if we have occasion we may safely put you in mind of Ezekiel's commination against all those who say thus saith the Lord when they have no certain warrant or authority from him to doe so 8 Ad § 4. In the fourth Paragraph you deliver this false wicked Doctrine that for the procuring our own salvation we are allwaies bound under pain of mortall sinne to take the safest way but for avoiding sinne we are not bound to doe so but may follow the opinion of any probable Doctors though the contrary may be certainly free from sinne and theirs be doubtfull Which doctrine in the former part of it is apparētly false For though wisdome and Charity to our selves would perswade us alwaies to doe so yet many times that way which to our selves and our salvation is more full of hazard is notwithstanding not only lawfull but more charitable and more noble For example to fly from a persecution and so to avoid the temptation of it may be the safer way for a mans own salvation yet I presume no man ought to condemne him of impiety who should resolve not to use his liberty in this matter but for Gods greater glory the greater honor of truth the greater confirmation of his brethren in the faith choose to stand out the storme and endure the fiery tryall rather then avoid it rather to put his own soule to the hazard of a temptation in hope of Gods assistance to goe through with it then to baulke the opportunity of doing God and his brethren so great a service This
Doctrine of these Protestants taken altogether is not a Doctrine of Liberty not a Doctrine that turnes hope into presumptioÌ„ and carnall security though it may justly be feared that many licentious persons taking it by halfes have made this wicked use of it For my part I doe heartily wish that by publique Authority it were so ordered that no man should ever preach or print this Doctrine that Faith alone justifies unlesse he joynes this together with it that universall obedience is necessary to salvation And besides that those Chapters of S. Paul which intreat of justification by faith without the works of the Law were never read in the Church but when the 13. Chap. of the 1. Epist. to the Corinth concerning the absolute necessity of Charity should be to prevent misprision read together with them 33 Whereas you say that some Protestants doe expresly affirme the former point to be the soule of the Church c. and that therefore they must want the Theologicall vertue of Hope and that none can have true hope while they hope to be saved in their Communion I Ans. They have great reason to believe the Doctrine of Iustification by faith only a Point of great weight and importance if it be rightly understood that is they have reason to esteeme it a principall and necessary duty of a Christian to place his hope of justification and salvation not in the perfection of his own righteousnesse which if it be imperfect will not justify but only in the mercies of God through Christs satisfaction and yet notwithstanding this nay the rather for this may preserve themselves in the right temper of good Christians which is a happy mixture and sweet composition of confidence and feare If this Doctrine be otherwise expounded then I have here expounded I will not undertake the justification of it only I will say that which I may doe truly that I never knew any Protestant such a soli-fidian but that he did believe these divine truths That he must make his calling certain by good workes That he must work out his salvation with Fear and Trembling and that while he does not so he can have no well-grounded hope of Salvation I say I never met with any who did not believe these divine Truths and that with a more firme and a more unshaken assent then he does that himselfe is predestinate and that he is justified by believing himselfe justified I never met with any such who if he saw there were a necessity 〈◊〉 doe either would not rather forgoe his beliefe of these Doctrines then the former these which he sees disputed and contradicted and opposed with a great multitude of very potent Arguments then those which being the expresse words of Scripture whosoever should call into question could not with any modesty pretend to the title of Christian. And therefore there is no reason but we may believe that their full assurance of the former Doctrines doth very well qualify their perswasion of the latter and that the former as also the lives of many of them doe sufficiently testify are more effectuall to temper their hope and to keep it at a stay of a filiall and modest assurance of Gods favour built upon the conscience of his love and fear then the latter can be to swell and puffe them up into vain confidence and ungrounded presumption This reason joyn'd with our experience of the honest and religious conversation of many men of this opinion is a sufficient ground for Charity to hope well of their hope and to assure our selves that it cannot be offensive but rather most acceptable to God if notwithstanding this diversity of opinion we embrace each other with the strict embraces of love communion To you and your Church we leave it to separate Christians from the Church and to proscribe them from heaven upon triviall and trifling causes As for our selves we conceive a charitable judgement of our Brethren and their errors though untrue much more pleasing to God then a true judgement if it be uncharitable and and therefore shall alwaies choose if we doe erre to erre on the milder and more mercifull part and rather to retain those in our Communion which deserve to be ejected then eject those that deserve to be retain'd 34 Lastly whereas you say that seeing Protestants differ about the point of Iustification you must needs inferre that they want Vnity in faith and consequently all faith and then that they cannot agree what points are fundamentall I Answer to the first of these inferences that as well might you inferre it upon Victor Bishop of Rome and Poliâ—rates upon Stephen Bishop of Rome and S. Cyprian in as much as it is indeniably evident that what one of those esteemed necessary to salvation the other esteemed not so But points of Doctrine as all other things are as they are and not as they are esteemed neither can a necessary point be made unnecessary by being so accounted nor an unnecessary point be made necessary by being overvalued But as the ancient Philosophers whose different opinions about the soule of man you may read in Aristotle de Anima and Cicero's Tusculan Questions notwithstanding their divers opinions touching the nature of the soule yet all of them had soules and soules of the same nature Or as those Physitians who dispute whether the braine or heart be the principall part of a man yet all of them have braines and have hearts and herein agree sufficiently So likewise though some Protestants esteeme that Doctrine the soule of the Church which others doe not so highly value yet this hinders not but that which is indeed the soule of the Church may be in both 〈◊〉 of them and though one account that a necessary truth which 〈◊〉 account neither necessary nor perhaps true yet this notwithstanding in those truths which are truly really necessary they may all agree For no Argument can be more sophisticall then this They differ in some points which they esteeme necessary Therefore they differ in some that indeed and in truth are so â—35 Now as concerning the other inference That they cannot agree what points are fundamentall I have said and prov'd formerly that there is no such necessity as you imagin or pretend that men should certainly know what is and what is not fundamentall They that believe all things plainly delivered in Scripture believe all things fundamentall and are at sufficient Vnity in matters of faith though they cannot precisely and exactly distinguish between what is fundamentall and what is profitable nay though by error they mistake some vaine or perhaps hurtfull opinions for necessary and fundamentall Truths Besides I have shewed above that as Protestants doe not agree for you overreach in saying they cannot touching what points are fundamentall so neither doe you agree what points are defin'd so to be accounted and what are not nay nor concerning the subject in which God hath placed this pretended
the Gentleman who dealt between us to return this answer or to this effect that I believed the Doctrine of the Trinity the Deity of our Saviour and all other super-naturall verities revealed in Scripture as truly and as heartily as your self or any man and therefore herein your Charity was very much mistaken but much more and more uncharitably in conceiving me a man that was to be wrought upon with these Terribiles visu formae those carnall and base fears which you presented to me which were very proper motives for the Divell and his instruments to tempt poor spirited men out of the way of conscience and honesty but very incongruous either for Teachers of truth to make use of or for Lovers of truth in which Company I had been long agoe matriculated to hearken to with any regard But if you were indeed desirous that I should not answer Charity maintained one way there was and but one whereby you might obtain your desire and that was by letting mee know when and where I might attend you and by a fair conference to be written down on both sides convincing mine understanding who was resolv'd not to be a Recusant if I were convicted that any one part of it any one argument in it which was of moment and consequence and whereon the cause depends was indeed unanswerable This was the effect of my answer which I am well assur'd was delivered but reply from you I received none but this that you would have no conference with me but in Print and soone after finding me of proof against all these batteries and thereby I fear very much enâ—aged you tooke up the resolution of the furious Goddesse in the Poet madded with the unsuccessefulnesse of her malice Flectere si nequeâ— superos Acherontamovebo 6 For certainly those indigne contumelies that masse of portentous and execrable calumnies wherewith in your Pamphlet of Directions to N. N. you have loaded not only my person in particular but all the learned and moderate Divines of the Church of England and all Protestants in generall nay all wise men of all Religions but your own could not proceed from any other fountain 7 To begin with the last you stick not in the beginning of your first Chapter to fasten the imputation of Atheisme irreligion upon all wise and gallant men that are not of your own Religion In which uncharitable and unchristian judgment void of all colour or shadow of probability I know yet by experience that very many of the Bigots of your Faction are partakers with you God forbid I should think the like of you Yet if I should say that in your Religion there want not some temptations unto and some Principles of irreligion and Atheisme I am sure I could make my assertion much more probable then you have done or can make this horrible imputation 8 For to passe by first that which experience justifies that where and when your Religion hath most absolutely commanded there and then Atheisme hath most abounded To say nothing Secondly of your notorious and confessed forging of so many false miracles and so many lying Legends which is not unlikely to make suspitious men to question the truth of all Nor to object to you Thirdly the abundance of your weak and silly Ceremonies ridiculous observances in your Religion which in all probability cannot but beget secret contempt and scorne of it in wise and considering men and consequently Atheisme and impiety if they have this perswasion setled in them which is too rise among you and which you account a peece of Wisdome and Gallantry that if they be not of your Religion they were as good be of none at all Nor to trouble you Fourthly with this that a great part of your Doctrine especially in the points contested makes apparently for the temporall ends of the teachers of it which yet I feare is a great scandall to many Beaâ—x Esprits among you Onely I should desire you to consider attentively when you conclude so often from the differences of Protestants that they have no certainty of any part of their religion no not of those points wherein they agree whether you doe not that which so magisterially you direct me not to doe that is proceed a destructive way and object arguments against your adversaries which tend to the overthrow of all Religion And whether as you argue thus Protestants differ in many things therefore they have no certainty of any thing So an Atheist or a Sceptique may not conclude as well Christians and the Professors of all Religions differ in many things therefore they have no certainty of any thing Again I should desire you to tell me ingenuously whether it be not too probable that your portentous Doctrine of Transubstantiation joyn'd with your fore-mention'd perswasion of no Papists no Christians hath brought a great many others as well as himselfe to Averroes his resolution QuandoquideÌ„ Christiani adorant quod comedunt sit anima mea cum Philosophis Whether your requiring men upon only probable and Prudentiall motives to yield a most certaine assent unto things in humane reason impossible and telling them as you doe too often that they were as good not believe at all as believe with any lower degree of faith be not a likely way to make considering men scorne your Religion and consequently all if they know no other as requiring things contradictory and impossible to be performed Lastly whether your pretence that there is no good ground to believe Scripture but your Churches infallibility joyn'd with your pretending no ground for this but some texts of Scripture be not a faire way to make them that understand themselves believe neither Church nor Scripture 9 Your calumnies against Protestants in generall are set downe in these words Chap. 2. § 2. The very doctrine of Protestants if it bee followed closely and with coherence to it selfe must of necessity induce Socinianisme This I say confidently and evidently prove by instancing in one errror which may well be tearmed the Capitall and mother Heresy from which all other must follow at ease I mean their heresy in affirming that the perpetuall visible Church of Christ descended by a never interrupted succession from our Saviour to this day is not infallible in all that it proposeth to be believed as revealed truths For if the infallibility of such a publique Authority be once impeached what remaines but that every man is given over to his own wit and discourse And talke not here of holy Scripture For if the true Church may erre in defining what Scriptures be Canonicall or in delivering the sense and meaning thereof we are still devolved either upon the private spirit a foolery now exploâ—ed out of England which finally leaving every man to his own conceits ends in Socinianisme or else upon naturall wit and judgement for examining and determining what Scriptures contain true or false doctrine and in that respect ought to be received or rejected
that there is but one true Church that all Christians are obliged to harken to her that shee must be ever visible and infallible that to separate ones selfe from her communion is Schisme and to dissent from her doctrine is Heresie though it be in points never so few or never so small in their own nature and therefore that the distinction of points fundamentall and not fundamentall is wholy vaine as it is applied by Protestants These I say and some other generall grounds Charity Mistaken handles and out of them doth cleerely evince that any least difference in faith cannot stand with salvation on both sides and therefore since it is apparent that Catholiques and Protestants disagree in very many points of faith they both cannot hope to be saved without repentance and consequently as we hold that Protestancy unrepented destroies Salvation so must they also believe that we cannot be saved if they judge their own Religion to be true and ours to be false And whosoever disguizeth this truth is an enemy to soules which he deceives with ungrounded false hopes of salvation indifferent Faiths and Religions And this Charity Mistaken performed exactly according to that which appeares to have been his designe which was not to descend to particular disputes as D. Potter affectedly does namely Whether or no the Roman Church be the only true Church of Christ and much lesse whether Generall Councells be infallible whether the Pope may erre in his Decrees common to the whole Church whether he be above a Generall Councell whether all points of faith be contained in Scripture whether Faith be resolved into the authority of the Church as into his last formall Object and Motive and least of all did he discourse of Images Communion under both kinds publique service in an unknown Tongue Seven Sacraments Sacrifice of the Masse Indulgences and Index Expurgatorius all which and divers other articles D. Potter as I said drawes by violence into his Book and he might as well have brought in Pope Ioan or Antichrist or the Iewes who are permitted to live in Rome which are common Themes for men that want better matter as D. Potter was forced to fetch in the aforesaid Controversies that so he might dazle the eyes and distract the mind of the Reader and hinder him from perceiving that in his whole Answere he uttered nothing to the purpose and point in question which if he had followed closely I dare well say he might have dispatched his whole Book in two or three sheets of paper But the truth is he was loath to affirme plainely that generally both Catholiques and Protestants may be saved and yet seeing it to be most evident that Protestants cannot pretend to have any true Church before Luther except the Roman and such as agreed with her and consequently that they cannot hope for Salvation if they deny it to us he thought best to avoid this difficulty by confusion of language and to fill up his Book with points which make nothing to the purpose Wherein he is lesse excusable because he must graunt that those very particulars to which he digresseth are not fundamentall errors though it should be granted that they be errors which indeed are Catholique verities For since they be not fundamentall not destructive of salvation what imports it whether we hold them or no for as much as concernes our possibility to be saved 3 In one thing only he will perhaps seeme to have touched the point in question to wit in his distinction of points fundamentall and not fundamentall because some may thinke that a difference in points which are not fundamentall breakes not the Vnity of Faith and hinders not the hope of salvation in persons so disagreeing And yet in this very distinction he never speaks to the purpose indeed but only saies that there are some points so fundamentall as that all are obliged to know and believe them explicitely but never tells us whether there be any other points of faith which a man may deny or disbelieve though they be sufficiently presented to his understanding as truths revealed or testified by almighty God which was the only thing in question For if it be damnable as certainly it is to deny or disbelieve any one truth witnessed by almighty God though the thing be not in it self of any great consequence or moment and since of two disagreeing in matters of faith one must necessarily deny some such truth it clearly followes that amongst men of different Faiths or Religions one only can be saved though their difference consist of divers or but even one point which is not in his own nature fundamentall as I declare at large in divers places of my first part So that it is cleere D. Potter even in this his last refuge and distinction never comes to the point in question to say nothing that he himselfe doth quite overthrow it and plainly contradict his whole designe as I shew in the third Chapter of my first Part. 4 And as for D. Potters manner of handling those very points which are utterly beside the purpose it consists only in bringing vulgar mean objections which have been answered a thousand times yea and some of them are cleerely answered even in Charity Mistaken but he takes no knowledge at all af any such answeres and much lesse doth he apply himselfe to confute them He alleadgeth also Authors with so great corruption and fraud as I would not have believed if I had not found it by cleere and frequent experience In his second Edition he hath indeed left out one or two grosse corruptions amongst many others no lesse notorious having as it seemes been warned by some friends that they could not stand with his credit but even in this his second Edition he retracts them not at all nor declares that he was mistaken in the First and so his reader of the first Edition shall ever be deceived by him though withall he read the Second For preventing of which inconvenience I have thought it necessary to take notice of them and to discover them in my Reply 5. And for conclusion of this point I will only say that D. Potter might well have spared his paines if he had ingeniously acknowledged where the whole substance yea and sometime the very words and phrases of his book may be found in farre briefer manner namely in a Sermon of D. Vshers preached before our late soveraigne Lord King Iames the 20. of Iune 1624. at Wansted containing A Declaration of the Vniversality of the Church of Christ and the Vnity of Faith professed therein which Sermon having been roundly and wittily confuted by a Catholike Divine under the name of Paulus Veridicus within the compasse of about 4. sheets of Paper D. Potters Answere to Charity Mistaken was in effect confuted before it appeared And this may suffice for a generall Censure of his Answere to Charity Mistaken 6 For the second touching my Reply if you wonder at the Bulke
committed and which they fear they may haue In which number their being negligent or not dispassionate or not unprejudicate enough in seeking the truth and the effect thereof their errors if they be sinnes cannot but be compriz'd In a word what should hinder but that that Prayer Delicta sua quis intelligit who can understand his faults Lord cleanse thou me from my secret sinnes may be heard and accepted by God as well from a Protestant that dies in some errours as from a Papist that dies in some other sins of Ignorance which perhaps he might more easily haue discovered to bee sinnes then a Protestant could his errours to be errours As well from a Protestant that held some errour which as he conceived Gods word and his reason which is also in some sort Gods word led him unto as from a Dominican who perhaps took up his opinion upon trust not because he had reason to beleiue it true but because it was the opinion of his Order for the same man if hee had light upon another Order would in all probabilitie haue beene of the other opinion For what else is the cause that generally all the Dominicans are of one opinion and all the Iesuits of the other I say from a Dominican who took up his opinion upon trust and that such an opinion if we beleiue the writers of your Order as if it be granted true it were not a point matter what opinions any man held or what actions any man did for the best would be as bad as the worst the worst as good as the best And yet such is the partialitie of your Hypocrisie that of disagreeing Papists neither shall deny the truth testified by God but both may hope for salvation but of disagreeing Protestants though they differ in the same thing one side must deny Gods Testimony and bee incapable of salvation That a Dominican through culpable negligence living and dying in his errour may repent of it though hee knowes it not or be saued though he doe not But if a Protestant doe the very same thing in the very same point and die in his errour his case is desperate The summe of all that hath been said to this Demand is this 1. That no erring Protestant denies any truth testified by God under this formalitie as testified by him nor which they know or beleiue to be testified by him And therefore it is a horrible calumnie in you to say They call Gods Veracitie in question For Gods undoubted and unquestion'd Veracitie is to them the ground why they hold all they doe hold neither doe they hold any opiniō so stifly but they will forgoe it rather then this one That all which God saies is true 2. God hath not so clearely and plainly declared himselfe in most of these things which are in controversie between Protestants but that an honest man whose heart is right to God and one that is a true louer of God and of his truth may by reason of the conflict of contrary Reasons on both sides very easily and therefore excusably mistake and embrace errour for truth and reject truth for errour 3 If any Protestant or Papist be betrayed into or kept in any Errour by any sinne of his will as it is to be fear'd many millions are such Errour is as the cause of it sinfull and damnable yet not exclusiue of all hope of salvation but pardonable if discover'd upon a particular explicite repentance if not discover'd upon a generall and implicite repentance for all Sinnes knowne and unknowne in which number all sinfull Errours must of necessity be contained 17 To the 9. To the nineteenth Wherein you are so urgent for a partilar Catalogue of Fundamentalls I answer almost in your owne words that we also constantly urge and require to haue a particular Catalogue of your Fundamentals whether they be written Verities or unwritten Traditions or Church Definitions all which you say integrate the materiall Object of your Faith In a word of all such points as are defin'd and sufficiently proposed so that whosoever denies or doubts of any of them is certainly in the state of damnation A Catalogue I say in particular of the Proposals and not only some generall definition or description under which you lurke deceitfully of what and what only is sufficiently proposed wherein yet you doe not very well agree For many of you hold the Popes proposall Ex Cathedra to be sufficient and obligeing Some a Councel without a Pope Some of neither of them severally but only both together Some not this neither in matter of manners which Bellarmine acknowledges tells us it is all one in effect as if they denied it sufficient in matter of faith Some not in matter of faith neither think this proposall infallible without the acceptation of the Church universall Some deny the infallibility of the Present Church and only make the Tradition of all ages the infallible Propounder Yet if you were agreed what and what only is the Infallible Propounder this would not satisfie us nor yet to say that All is fundamentall which is propounded sufficiently by him For though agreeing in this yet you might still disagree whether such or such a Doctrine were propounded or not or if propounded whether sufficiently or only unsufficiently And it is so knowne a thing that in many points you doe so that I assure my selfe you will not deny it Therefore we constantly urge and require a particular and perfect Inventory of all these Divine Revelations which you say are sufficiently propounded that such a one to which all of your Church will subscribe as neither redundant nor deficient which when you giue in with one hand you shall receiue a particular Catalogue of such Points as I call Fundamentall with the other Neither may you think mee unreasonable in this demand seeing upon such a particular Catalogue of your sufficient Proposalls as much depends as upon a particular Catalogue of our Fundamentalls As for example Whether or no a man doe not erre in some point defined and sufficiently proposed and whether or no those that differ among you differ in Fundamentalls which if they doe One Heaven by your owne Rule cannot receiue them All. Perhaps you will here complaine that this is not to satisfie your demand but to avoid it and to put you off as the Areopagites did hard causes ad diem longissimum and bid you come againe a hundred yeares hence To deale truly I did so intend it should be Nether can you say my dealing with you is injurious seeing I require nothing of you but that what you require of others you should shew it possible to be done and just and necessary to be required For for my part I haue great reason to suspect it is neither the one nor the other For whereas the Verities which are delivered in Scripture may be very fitly divided into such as were written because they were necessary to be beleived
light which makes us leave the works of darknesse and walk as children of the light They exact a certainty of Faith above that of sence or science God desires only that we believe the conclusion as much as the premises deserve that the strength of our Faith be equall or proportionable to the credibility of the motives to it Now though I have and ought to have an absolute certainty of this Thesis All which God reveales for truth is true being a proposition that may be demonstrated or rather so evident to any one that understands it that it needs it not Yet of this Hypothesis That all the Articles of our Faith were reveal'd by God we cannot ordinarily have any rationall and acquired certainty more then morall founded upon these considerations First that the goodnesse of the precepts of Christianity and the greatnesse of the promises of it shewes it of all other Religions most likely to come from the fountain of goodnesse And then that a constant famous and very generall Tradition so credible that no wise man doubts of any other which hath but the fortieth part of the credibility of this such and so credible a Tradition tell us that God himselfe hath set his Hand and Seale to the truth of this Doctrine by doing great and glorious and frequent miracles in confirmation of it Now our faith is an assent to this conclusion that the Doctrine of Christianity is true which being deduc'd from the former Thesis which is Metaphysically certain and from the former Hypothesis whereof we can have but a Morall certainty we cannot possibly by naturall meanes be more certain of it then of the weaker of the premises as a River will not rise higher then the fountaine from which it flowes For the conclusion alwaies followes the worser part if there be any worse and must be Negative Particular Contingent or but Morally certain if any of the Propositions from whence it is deriv'd be so Neither can we be certain of it in the highest degree unlesse we be thus certain of all the principles whereon it is grounded As a man cannot goe or stand strongly if either of his leggs be weak Or as a building cannot be stable if any one of the necessary pillars thereof be infirme and instable Or as If a message be brought me from a man of absolute credit with me but by a messenger that is not so my confidence of the truth of the Relation cannot but be rebated and lessened by my diffidence in the Relatour 9 Yet all this I say not as if I doubted that the spirit of God being implor'd by devout and humble prayer and syncere obedience may and will be degrees advance his servants higher and give them a certainty of adherence beyond their certainty of evidence But what God gives as a reward to believers is one thing and what he requires of all men as their duty is another and what he will accept of out of grace and favour is yet another To those that believe and live according to thir faith he gives by degrees the spirit of obsignation and confirmation which makes them know though how they know not what they did but believe And to be as fully and resolutely assur'd of the Gospell of Christ as those which heard it from Christ himselfe with their eares which saw it with their eyes which looked upon it and whose hands handled the word of life He requires of all that their Faith should be as I have said proportionable to the motives and Reasons enforcing to it he will accept of the weakest and lowest degree of Faith if it be living and effectuall unto true obedience For he it is that will not quench the smoaking flaxe nor break the bruised reed He did not reject the prayer of that distressed man that cryed unto him Lord I believe Lord help my unbelief He commands us to receive them that are weak in faith and thereby declares that he receives them And as nothing availes with him but Faith which worketh by love So any faith if it be but as a grain of mustard seed if it work by love shall certainly avail with him and be accepted of him Some experience makes mee fear that the faith of considering and discoursing men is like to be crack't with too much straining And that being possessed with this false Principle that it is in vain to believe the Gospell of Christ with such a kind or degree of assent as they yeeld to other matters of Tradition And finding that their faith of it is to them undiscernable from the belief they give to the truth of other Stories are in danger either not to believe at all thinking not at all as good as to no purpose or else though indeed they doe believe it yet to think they doe not and to cast themselves into wretched agonies and perplexities as fearing they have not that without which it is impossible to pleas God and obtain eternall happinesse Consideration of this advantage which the Divell probably may make of this Phancy made me willing to insist somewhat largely upon the Refutation of it 10 I returne now thither from whence I have digressed and assure you concerning the grounds afore-laid which were that there is a Rule of Faith whereby controversies may be decided which are necessary to be decided and that this rule is universally infallible That notwithstanding any opinion I hold touching Faith or any thing else I may and doe believe them as firmely as you pretend to doe And therefore you may build on in Gods name for by Gods helpe I shall alwaies imbrace whatsoever structure is naturally and rationally laid upon them whatsoever conclusion may to my understanding be evidently deduced from them You say out of them it undeniably followes That of two disagreeing in matter of Faith the one cannot be saved but by repentance or ignorance I answere by distinction of those termes two dissenting in a matter of Faith For it may bee either in a thing which is indeed a matter of Faith in the strictest sense that is something the Beliefe whereof God requires under paine of damnation And so the conclusion is true though the Consequence of it from your former premisses either is none at all or so obscure that I can hardly discerne it Or it may be as it often falls out concerning a thing which being indeed no matter of Faith is yet overvalued by the Parties at variance and esteemed to be so And in this sense it is neither consequent nor true The untruth of it I haue already declared in my examination of your Preface The inconsequence of it is of it selfe evident for who ever heard of a wilder Collection then this God hath provided meanes sufficient to decide all Controversies in Religion necessary to be decided This meanes is universally infallible Therefore of two that differ in anything which they esteeme a matter of Faith one cannot be saved He that can finde any
and Charity collect thus They only erre damnably who oppose what they know God hath testified But Protestants sure doe not oppose what they knowe God hath testified at least we cannot with Charity say they doe Therefore they either doe not erre damnably or with charity we cannot say they doe so 13 Ad § 17. Protestants you say according to their own grounds must hold that of Persons contrary in whatsoever point of beleife one part only can be saved therefore it is strangely done of them to charge Papists with want of Charity for holding the same The consequence I acknowledge but wonder much what it should be that laies upon Protestants any necessity to doe so You tell us it is their holding Scripture the sole Rule of Faith for this you say obligeth them to pronounce them damn'd that oppose any least point delivered in Scripture This I grant If they oppose it after sufficient declaration so that either they know it to be contain'd in Scripture or have no just probable Reason and which may moue an honest man to doubt whether or no it be there contained For to oppose in the first case in a man that beliues the Scripture to be the word of God is to giue God the lye To oppose in the second is to be obstinate against Reason and therefore a sinne though not so great as the former But then this is nothing to the purpose of the necessity of damning all those that are of contrary beliefe and that for these Reasons First because the contrary beliefe may be touching a point not at all mentioned in Scripture and such points though indeed they be not matters of Faith yet by men in variance are often over-valued and esteem'd to be so So that though it were damnable to oppose any point contain'd in Scripture yet Persons of a contrary beliefe as Victor and Polycrates S. Cyprian and Stephen might both be saved because their contrary beliefe was not touching any point contained in Scripture Secondly because the contrary beliefe may be about the sense of some place of Scripture which is ambiguous and with probabilitie capable of diverse senses and in such cases it is no marvell and sure no sinne if severall men goe severall waies Thirdly because the contrary beliefe may bee concerning points wherein Scripture may with so great probabilitie bee alleaged on both sides which is a sure note of a point not necessary that men of honest and upright hearts true lovers of God and of truth such as desire aboue all things to know Gods will and to doe it may without any fault at all some goe one way and some another some those as good men as either of the former suspend their judgements and expect some Elias to solue doubts and reconcile repugnancies Now in all such Questions one side or other which soever it is holds that which indeed is opposite to the sense of the Scripture which God intended for it is impossible that God should intend Contradictions But then this intended sense is not so fully declared but that they which oppose it may verily belieue that they indeed maintaine it and haue great shew of reason to induce them to belieue so and therefore are not to be damn'd as men opposing that which they either knowe to be a truth delivered in Scripture or haue no probable Reason to belieue the contrary but rather in Charity to be acquitted and absolv'd as men who endeavour to finde the Truth but fayle of it through humane frailty This ground being laid the Answer to your ensuing Interrogatories which you conceiue impossible is very obvious easie 14 To the first Whether it be not in any man a grievous sinne to deny any one Truth containd'd in holy Writ I answer Yes if he knewe it to be so or haue no probable Reason to doubt of it otherwise not 15 To the second Whether there be in such deniall any distinction between Fundamētall not Fundamētall sufficient to excuse from Heresie I answer Yes There is such a Distinction But the Reason is because these points either in themselues or by accident are Fundamentall which are evidently contain'd in Scripture to him that knowes them to be so Those not Fundamentall which are there-hence deducible but probably only not evidently 16 To the third Whether it be not impertinent to alleage the Creed as containing all Fundamentall points of Faith as if believing it alone wee were at Libertie to deny all other Points of Scripture I answer It was never alleag'd to any such purpose but only as a sufficient or rather more then a sufficient Summarie of those points of Faith which were of necessity to be believed actually and explicitely and that onely of such which were meerely and purely Credenda and not Agenda 17 To the fourth drawn as a Corollary from the former Whether this be not to say that of Persons contrary in beliefe one part only can bee saved I answer By no meanes For they may differ about points not contain'd in Scripture They may differ about the sense of some ambiguous Texts of Scripture They may differ about some Doctrines for and against which Scriptures may be alleadged with so great probability as may justly excuse either Part from Haeresie and a selfe condemning obstinacy And therefore though D. Potter doe not take it ill that you believe your selves may be sav'd in your Religion yet notwithstanding all that hath yet been pretended to the contrary hee may justly condemne you and that out of your own principles of uncharitable presumption for affirming as you doe that no man can be saved out of it CHAP. II. What is that meanes whereby the revealed truths of God are conveyed to our Vnderstanding and which must determine Controversies in Faith and Religion OF our estimation respect and reverence to holy Scripture even Protestants themselves doe in fact give testimony while they possesse it from us and take it upon the integrity of our custody No cause imaginable could avert our will from giving the function of supreme and sole Iudge to holy writ if both the thing were not impossible in it selfe and if both reason and experience did not convince our understanding that by this assertion Contentions are increased and not ended We acknowledge holy Scripture to be a most perfect rule for as much as a writing can be a Rule We only deny that it excludes either divine Tradition though it be unwritten or an externall Iudge to keep to propose to interpret in a true Orthodoxe and Catholique sense Every single book every Chapter yea every period of holy Scripture is infallibly true and wants no due perfection But must we therefore inferre that all other Books of Scripture are to be excluded least by addition of them we may seem to derogate from the perfection of the former When the first Bookes of the old and new Testament were written they did not exclude unwritten Traditions nor the Authority of
the Church to decide Controversies and who hath then so altered their nature and filled them with such jealousies as that now they cannot agree for fear of mutuall disparagement What greater wrong is it for the written Word to be compartner now with the unwritten then for the unwritten which was once alone to be afterward joyned with the written Who ever heard that sto commend the fidelity of a Keeper were to disauthorize the thing committed to his custody Or that to extoll the integrity and knowledge and to avouch the necessity of a Iudge in suits of Law were to deny perfection in the Law Are there not in Common wealths besides the Lawes written unwritten customes Iudges appointed to declare both the one the other as severall occasions may require 2 That the Scripture alone cannot be Iudge in Controversies of faith we gather very cleerly From the quality of a writing in generall From the nature of holy Writ in particular which must be beheved as true and infallible From the Editions and translations of it From the difficulty to understand it without hazard of Errour From the inconveniences that must follow upon the ascribing of sole Iudicature to it and finally from the Confessions of our Adversaries And on the other side all these difficulties ceasing and all other qualities requisite to a Iudge concurring in the visible Church of Christ our Lord we must conclude that she it is to whom in doubts concerning Faith and Religion all Christians ought to have recourse 3 The name notion nature and properties of a Iudge cannot in common reason agree to any meere writing which be it otherwise in its kind never so highly qualified with sanctity and infallibility yet it must ever be as all writings are deaf dumb and inanimate By a Iudge all wise men understand a Person endued with life and reason able to hear to examine to declare his mind to the disagreeing parties in such sort as that each one may know whether the sentence be in favour of his cause or against his pretence and he must be appliable and able to doe all this as the diversity of Controversies persons occasions and circumstances may require There is a great and plain distinction betwixt a Iudge and a Rule For as in a Kingdome the Iudge hath his rule to follow which are the received Lawes and Customes so are not they fit or able to declare or be Iudges to themselves but that office must belong to a living Iudge The holy Scripture may be and is a Rule but cannot be a Iudge because it being alwaies the same cannot declare it selfe any one time or upon any one occasion more particularly then upon any other and let it be read over an hundred times it will be still the same and no more fit alone to terminate controversies in faith then the Law would be to end suits if it were given over to the phancy and glosse of every single man 4 This difference betwixt a Iudge and a Rule D. Potter perceived when more then once having stiled the Scripture a Iudge by way of correcting that terme he addes or rather a Rule because he knew that an inanimate writing could not be a Iudge From hence also it was that though Protestants in their begining affirmed Scripture alone to be the Iudge of Controversies yet upon a more advised reflection they changed the phrase and said that not Scripture but the Holy Ghost speaking in Scripture is Iudge in Controversies A difference without a disparity The holy Ghost speaking only in Scripture is no more intelligible to us then the Scripture in which he speaks as a man speaking only Latin can be no better understood then the tongue wherein he speaketh And therefore to say a Iudge is necessary for deciding controversies about the meaning of Scripture is as much as to say he is necessary to decide what the Holy Ghost speakes in Scripture And it were a conceyt equally foolish and pernitious if one should seek to take away all Iudges in the Kingdome upon this nicety that albeit Lawes cannot be Iudges yet the Law-maker speaking in the Law may performe that Office as if the Law-maker speaking in the Law were with more perspicuity understood then the Law whereby he speaketh 5 But though some writing were granted to have a priviledge to declare it selfe upon supposition that it were maintained in being and preserved entire from corruptions yet it is manifest that no writing can conserve it selfe nor can complaine or denounce the falsifier of it and therefore it stands in need of some watchfull and not erring eye to guard it by meanes of whose assured vigilancy we may undoubtedly receive it syncere and pure 6 And suppose it could defend it selfe from corruption how could it assure us that it selfe were Canonicall and of infallible verity By saying so Of this very affirmation there will remain the same Question still how it can prove it selfe to be infallibly true Neither can there ever be an end of the like multiplied demands till we rest in the externall Authority of some person or persons bearing witnes to the world that such or such a book is Scripture and yet upon this point according to Protestants all other Controversies in faith depend 7 That Scripture cannot assure us that it selfe is Canonicall Scripture is acknowledged by some Protestants in expresse words and by all of them in deeds M. Hooker whom D. Potter ranketh among men of great learning and Iudgement saith of things necessary the very chiefest is to know what books we are to esteem holy which point is confessed impossible for the Scripture it selfe to teach And this he proveth by the same argument which we lately used saying thus It is not the word of God which doth or possibly can assure us that we doe well to think it his word For if any one book of Scripture did give testimony of all yet still that Scripture which giveth testimony to the rest would require another Scripture to give credit â—nto it Neither could we come to any pause whereon to rest unlesse besides Scripture there were something which might assure us c. And this he acknowledgeth to be the Church By the way If Of things necessary the very chiefest cannot possibly be taught by Scripture as this man of so great learning and judgement affirmeth and demonstratively proveth how can the Protestant Clergy of England subscribe to their sixt Article Wherein it is said of the Scripture Whatsoever is not read therein nor may be proved thereby is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an Article of the faith or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation and concerning their belief and profession of this Article they are particularly examined when they be ordained Priests and Bishops With Hooker his defendant Covell doth punctually agree Whitaker likewise confesseth that the question about Canonicall Scriptures is defined to us
of the New Testament they giue a farre different rule saying All the Books of the New Testament as they are commonly received we doe receiue and account them Canonicall This I say is a rule much different from the former Of whose authority was NEVER any doubt in the Church For some Books might be said to be Commonly received although they were sometime doubted of by some If to be Commonly received passe for a good rule to know the Canon of the New Testament why not of the Old Aboue all we desire to know upon what infallible ground in some Bookes they agree with us against Luther and divers principall Lutherans and in others jump with Luther against us But seeing they disagree among themselues it is evident that they haue no certaine rule to know the Canon of Scripture in assigning whereof some of them must of necessity erre because of contradictory propositions both cannot be true 10 Moreover the letters syllables words phrase or matter contained in holy Scripture haue no necessary or naturall connection with divine Revelation or Inspiration and therefore by seeing reading or understanding them we cannot inferre that they proceed from God or be confirmed by divine authoritie as because Creatures involve a necessary relation connection and dependance on their Creator Philosophers may by the light of naturall reason demonstrate the existence of one prime cause of all things In Holy Wrâ—â— there are innumerable truths not surpassing the spheare of humane wit which are or may be delivered by Pagan Writers in the selfe same words and phrase as they are in Scripture And as for some truths peculiar to Christians for Example the mystery of the blessed Trinitie c. The only setting them down in Writing is not enough to be assured that such a Writing is the undoubted word of God otherwise some sayings of Plato Trisâ—egistus Sybils Ovid c. must be esteemed Canonicall Scripture because they fall upon some truths proper to Christian Religion The internall light and inspiration which directed and moved the Authors of Canonicall Scriptures is a hidden Qualitie infused into their understanding and will and hath no such particular sensible influence into the externall Writing that in it we can discover or from it demonstrate any such secret light and inspiration and therefore to be assured that such a Writing is divine we cannot know from it selfe alone but by some other extrinsecall authority 11 And here we appeale to any man of judgement whether it be not a vaine brag of some Protestants to tell us that they wot full well what is Scripture by the light of Scripture it selfe or as D. Potter words it by that glorious beame of divine light which shines therein even as our eye distinguisheth light from darknesse without any other help then light it selfe and as our eare knowes a voice by the voice it selfe alone But this vanity is refuted by what we said even now that the externall Scripture hath no apparent or necessary connection with divine inspiration or revelation Will D. Poiter hold all his Bretheren for blinde men for not seeing that glorious beam of divine light which shines in Scripture about which they cannot agree Corporall light may be discerned by it selfe alone as being evident proportionate and connaturall to our faculty of seeing That Scripture is Divine and inspired by God is a truth exceeding the naturall capacity and compasse of mans understanding to us obscure and to be believed by divine faith which according to the Apostle is argumentum non apparentium an argument or conviction of things not evident and therefore no wonder if Scripture doe not manifest it selfe by it selfe alone but must require some other meanes for applying it to our understanding Neverthelesse their own similitudes and instances make against themselues For suppose a man had never read or heard of Sunne Moone Fire Candle c. and should bee brought to behold a light yet in such sort as that the Agent or Cause efficient from which it proceeded were kept hidden from him could such a one by only beholding the light certainly know whether it were produced by the Sunne or Moone c. Or if one heare a voice and had never known the speaker could he know from whom in particular that voice proceeded They who look upon Scripture may well see that some one wrote it but that it was written by divine inspiration how shall they know Nay they cannot so much as know who wrote it unlesse they first know the writer and what hand he writes as likewise I cannot know whose voice it is which I heare unlesse I first both know the person who speakes and with what voice he useth to speak and yet even all this supposed I may perhaps be deceaved For there may be voices so like and Hand so counterfeited that men may be deceaved by them as birds were by the grapes of that skilfull Painter Now since Protestants affirme knowledge concerning God as our supernaturall end must be taken from Scripture they cannot in Scripture alone discerne that it is his voice or writing because they cannot know from whom a writing or vioce proceeds unlesse first they know the person who speakeâ— ' or writeth Nay I say more By Scripture alone they cannot so much as know that any person doth in it or by it speak any thing at all because one may write without intent to signifie or affirme any thing but onely to set downe or as it were paint such characters syllables and words as men are wont to set copies not caring what the signification of the words imports or as one transcribes a writing which himselfe understands not or when one writes what another dictates and in other such cases wherein it is cleare that the writer speakes or signifies nothing in such his writing and therefore by it we cannot heare or understand his voice With what certainty then can any man affirme that by Scripture it selfe they can see that the writers did intend to signifie any thing at all that they were Apostles or other Canonicall Authors that they wrote their own sense and not what was dictated by some other man and finally and especially that they wrote by the infallible direction of the Holy Ghost 12 But let us be liberall and for the present suppose not grant that Scripture is like to corporall light by it selfe alone able to determine and moue our understanding to assent yet the similitude proues against themselues For light is not visible except to such as haue eyes which are not made by the light but must be presupposed as produced by some other cause And therefore to hold the similitude Scripture can be cleare onely to those who are endued with the eye of faith or as D. Potter aboue cited saith to all that haue eyes to discerne the shining beames thereof that is to the believer as immediatly after he speaketh Faith then must not originally proceed from Scripture but
retractation of it for both cannot possibly stand together For if you will stand to what you have granted That Scripture is as perfect a rule of Faith as a writing can be you must then grant it both so Compleat that it needs no addition and so evident that it needs no interpretation For both these properties are requisite to a perfect rule and a writing is capable of both these properties 6 That both these Properties are requisite to a perfect rule it is apparent Because that is not perfect in any kind which wants some parts belonging to its integrity As he is not a perfect man that wants any part appertaining to the Integrity of a Man and therefore that which wants any accession to make it a perfect rule of it selfe is not a perfect Rule And then the end of a râ—le is to regulate and direct Now every instrument is more or lesse perfect in its kinde as it is more or lesse fit to attain the end for which it is ordained But nothing obscure or unevident while it is so is fit to regulate and direct them to whom it is so Therefore it is requisite also to a rule so farre as it is a Rule to be evident otherwise indeed it is no rule because it cannot serve for direction I conclude therefore that both these properties are required to a perfect Rule both to be so compleat as to need no Addition and to be so evident as to need no Interpretation 7 Now that a writing is capable of both these perfections it is so plain that I am even ashamed to prove it For he that denies it must say That something may be spoken which cannot be written For if such a compleat and evident rule of faith may be delivered by word of mouth as you pretend it may and is and whatsoever is delivered by word of mouth may also be written then such a compleat and evident rule of faith may also be written If you will have more light added to the Sunne answer me then to these Questions Whether your Church can set down in writing all these which she pretends to be divine unwritten Traditions and adde them to the verities already written And whether she can set us down such interpretations of all obscurities in the Faith as shall need no farther interpretations If shee cannot then she hath not that power which you pretend she hath of being an Infallible teacher of all divine verities and an infallible interpreter of obscurities in the faith for she cannot teach us all divine verities if she cannot write them down neither is that an interpretation which needs again to be interpreted If she can Let her doe it and then we shall have a writing not only capable of but actually endowed with both these perfections of being both so compleat as to need no Addition and so evident as to need no Interpretation Lastly whatsoever your Church can doe or not doe no man can without Blasphemy deny that Christ Iesus if he had pleas'd could have writ us a rule of Faith so plaine and perfect as that it should have wanted neither any part to make up its integrity nor any cleerenesse to make it sufficiently intelligible And if Christ could have done this then the thing might have been done a writing there might have been indowed with both these properties Thus therefore I conclude a writing may be so perfect a Rule as to need neither Addition nor Interpretation But the Scripture you acknowledge a perfect Rule for as much as a writing can be a Rule therefore it needs neither Addition nor Interpretation 8 You will say that though a writing be never so perfect a Rule of Faith yet it must be beholding to Tradition to give it this Testimony that it is a Rule of Faith and the Word of God I answere First there is no absolute necessity of this For God might if he thought good give it the attestation of perpetuall miracles Secondly that it is one thing to be a perfect Rule of Faith another to be proved so unto us And thus though a writing could not be proved to us to be a perfect rule of Faith by its own saying so for nothing is prov'd true by being said or written in a book but only by Tradition which is a thing credible of it selfe yet it may be so in it selfe and containe all the materiall objects all the particular articles of our Faith without any dependance upon Tradition even this also not excepted that this writing doth containe the rule of Faith Now when Protestants affirme against Papists that Scripture is a perfect Rule of Faith their meaning is not that by Scripture all things absolutely may be proved which are to be believed For it can never be prov'd by Scripture to a gainsayer that there is a God or that the book called Scripture is the word of God For he that will deny these Assertions when they are spoken will believe them never a whit the more because you can shew them written But their meaning is that the Scripture to them which presuppose it Divine and a Rule of Faith as Papists and Protestants doe containes all the materiall objects of Faith is a compleat and totall and not only an imperfect and a partiall Rule 9 But every Book and Chapter and Text of Scripture is infallible and wants no due perfection and yet excludes not the Addition of other bookes of Scripture Therefore the perfection of the whole Scripture excludes not the Addition of unwritten Tradition I answere Every Text of Scripture though it have the perfection belonging to a Text of Scripture yet it hath not the perfection requisite to a perfect Rule of Faith and that only is the perfection which is the subject of our discourse So that this is to abuse your Reader with the ambiguity of the word Perfect In effect as if you should say A text of Scripture may be a perfect Text though there be others beside it therefore the whole Scripture may be a perfect Rule of Faith though there be other parts of this Rule besides the Scripture and though the Scripture be but a part of it 10 The next Argument to the same purpose is for Sophistry cosen german to the former When the first bookes of Scripture were written they did not exclude unwritten Tradition Therefore now also that all the bookes of Scripture are written Traditions are not excluded The sense of which argument if it have any must be this When only a part of the Scripture was written then a part of the divine doctrine was unwritten Therefore now when all the Scripture is written yet some part of the divine doctrine is yet unwritten If you say your conclusion is not that it is so but without disparagement to Scripture may be so without disparagement to the truth of Scripture I grant it but without disparagement to the Scriptures being a perfect Rule I deny it And now the Question is not
of the Truth but the perfection of it which are very different things though you would faine confound them For Scripture might very well be all true though it containe not all necessary Divine Truth But unlesse it doe so it cannot be a perfect Rule of Faith for that which wants any thing is not perfect For I hope you doe not imagine that we conceive any antipathy between Gods word written and unwritten but that both might very well stand together All that we say is this that we have reason to believe that God de Facto hath ordered the matter so that all the Gospell of Christ the whole covenant between God and man is now written Whereas if he had pleas'd he might so have disposed it that part might have been written and part unwritten but then he would have taken order to whom we should have had recourse for that part of it which was not written which seeing he hath not done as the progresse shall demonstrate it is evident he hath left no part of it unwritten We know no man therefore that saies It were any injury to the written Word to be joyn'd with the unwritten if there were any wherewith it might be joyn'd but that we deny The fidelity of a Keeper may very well consist with the authority of the thing committed to his custody But we know no one â—ociety of Christians that is such a faithfull Keeper as you pretend The Scripture it selfe was not kept so faithfully by you but that you suffered infinite variety of Readings to creep into it all which could not possibly be divine and yet in severall parts of your Church all of them untill the last Age were so esteem'd The interpretations of obscure places of Scripture which without Question the Apostles taught the Primitive Christians are wholy lost there remaines no certainty scarce of any one Those Worlds of Miracles which our Saviour did which were not written for want of writing are vanished out of the memory of men And many profitable things which the Apostles taught and writ not as that which S. Paul glances at in his second Epistle to the Thessalon of the cause of the hindrance of the comming of Antichrist are wholly lost and extinguished So unfaithfull or negligent hath been this keeper of Divine verities whose eyes like the keepers of Israell you say have never flumbred nor slept Lastly we deny not but a Iudge and a Law might well stand together but we deny that there is any such Iudge of Gods appointment Had he intended any such Iudge he would have nam'd him least otherwise as now it is our Iudge of controversies should be our greatest controversy 11 Ad § 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. In your second Paragraph you summe up those arguments wherewith you intend to prove that Scripture alone cannot be Iudge in controversies Wherein I professe unto you before hand that you will fight without an Adversary For though Protestants being warranted by some of the Fathers have called Scripture the Iudge of Controversies and you in saying here That Scripture alone cannot be Iudge imply that it may be called in some sense a Iudge though not alone Yet to speak properly as men should speak when they write of Controversies in Religion the Scripture is not a Iudge of Controversies but a Rule only and the only Rule for Christians to judge them by Every man is to judge for himselfe with the Iudgement of Discretion and to choose either his Religion first and then his Church as we say or as you his Church first and then his Religion But by the consent of both sides every man is to judge and choose and the Rule whereby he is to guide his choyce if he be a naturall man is Reason if he be already a Christian Scripture which we say is the Rule to judge controversies by Yet not all simply but all the Controversies of Christians of those that are already agreed upon This first Principle that the Scripture is the word of God But that there is any man or any company of men appointed to be judge for all men that we deny and that I believe you will never prove The very truth is we say no more in this matter then evidence of Truth hath made you confesse in plain termes in the beginning of this chapter viz. That Scripture is a perfect Rule of faith for as much as a writing can be a rule So that all your reasons whereby you labour to dethrone the Scripture from this office of Iudgeing we might let passe as impertinent to the conclusion which we maintaine and you have already granted yet out of curtesy we will consider them 12 Your first is this a Iudge must be a person fit to end controversies but the Scripture is not a person nor fit to end controversies no more then the Law would be without the Iudges therefore though it may be a Rule it cannot be a Iudge Which conclusion I have already granted Only my request is that you will permit Scripture to have the properties of a Rule that is to be fit to direct every one that will make the best use of it to that end for which it was ordained And that is as much as we need desire For as if I were to goe a journey and had a guide which could not erre I needed not to know my way so on the other side if I know my way or have a plain rule to know it by I shall need no guide Grant therefore Scripture to be such a Rule and it will quickly take away all necessity of having an infallible guide But without a living Iudge it will be no fitter you say to end Controversies then the Law alone to end suits I answere if the Law were plain and perfect and men honest and desirous to understand aright and obey it he that saies it were not fit to end controversies must either want understanding himself or think the world wants it Now the Scripture we pretend in things necessary is plain perfect and men we say are oblig'd under pain of Damnation to seek the true sense of it and not to wrest it to their preconceived Phansies Such a law therefore to such men cannot but be very fit to end all controversies necessary to be ended For others that are not so they will end when the world ends and that is time enough 12 Your next encounter is with them who acknowledging the Scripture a Rule only and not a Iudge make the holy Ghost speaking in Scripture the judge of Controversies Which you disprove by saying That the holy Ghost speaking only in Scripture is no more intelligible to us then the Scripture in which he speakes But by this reason neither the Pope nor a Councell can be a Iudge neither For first denying the Scriptures the writings of the Holy Ghost to be judges you will not I hope offer to pretend that their decrees the writings of men are more capable of
that these controversies about Scripture are not decidable by Scripture and have shewed that your deduction from it that therefore they are to be determin'd by the authority of some present Church is irrationall and inconsequent I might well forbeare to tire my selfe with an exact and punctuall examination of your premises 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which wether they be true or false is to the Question disputed wholly impertinent Yet because you shall not complaine of tergiverâ—ation I will runne over them and let nothing that is materiall and considerable passe without some stricture or animadversion 30 You pretend that M. Hooker acknowledgeth that That whereon we must rest our assurance that the Scripture is Gods word is the Church and for this acknowledgement you referre us to l. 3. Sect. 8. Let the Reader consult the place and he shall finde that he and M. Hooker have been much abused both by you here and by M. Breerly and others before you and that M. Hooker hath not one syllable to your pretended purpose but very much directly to the contrary There he tells us indeed that ordinarily the first introduction and probable motive to the belief of the verity is the Authority of the Church but that it is the last Foundation whereon our belief hereof is rationally grounded that in the same place he plainly denies His words are Scripture teacheth us that saving Truth which God hath discovered unto the world by Revelation and it presumeth us taught otherwise that it selfe is divine and sacred The Question then being by what meanes we are taught this some answere that to learne it we have no other way then tradition As namely that so we believe because we from our Predecessors and they from theirs have so received But is this enough That which all mens experience teacheth them may not in any wise be denied and by experience we all know that the first outward motive leading men to esteeme of the Scripture is the Authority of Gods Church For when we know the whole Church of God hath that opinion of the Scripture we judge it at the first an impudent thing for any man bred and brought up in the Church to be of a contrary minde without cause Afterwards the more we bestow our labour upon reading or hearing the mysteries thereof the more we find that the thing it self doth answer our received opinion concerning it so that the former inducement prevailing somewhat with us before doth now much more prevaile when the very thing hath ministred farther reason If Infidels or Atheists chance at any time to call it in question this giveth us occasion to sift what reason there is whereby the testimony of the Church concerning Scripture and our own perswasion which Scripture it selfe hath setled may be proved a truth infallible In which case the ancient Fathers being often constrained to shew what warrant they had so much to rely upon the Scriptures endeavoured still to maintaine the Authority of the bookes of God by arguments such as the unbelievers themselves must needs think reasonable if they judge thereof as they should Neither is it a thing impossible or greatly hard even by such kinde of proofes so to manifest and cleare that point that no man living shall be able to deny it without denying some apparent principle such as all men acknowledge to be true By this time I hope the reader sees sufficient proofe of what I said in my Reply to your Preface that M. Breerelies great ostentation of exactnesse is no very certain argument of his fidelity 31 But seeing the beliefe of the Scripture is a necessary thing and cannot be prov'd by Scripture how can the Church of England teach as she doth Art 6. That all things necessary are contain'd in Scripture 32 I have answered this already And here again I say That all but cavillers will easily understand the meaning of the Article to be That all the Divine verities which Christ revealed to his Apostles and the Apostles taught the Churches are contained in Scripture That is all the materiall objects of our faith whereof the Scripture is none but only the meanes of conveying them unto us which we believe not finally and for it selfe but for the matter contained in it So that if men did believe the doctrine contained in Scripture it should no way hinder their salvation not to know whether there were any Scripture or no. Those barbarous nations Irenaeus speaks of were in this case and yet no doubt but they might be saved The end that God aimes at is the beliefe of the Gospell the covenant between God and man the Scripture he hath provided as a meanes for this end and this also we are to believe but not as the last object of our faith but as the instrument of it When therefore we subscribe to the 6. Art you must understand that by Articles of Faith they mean the finall and ultimate objects of it and not the meanes and instrumentall objects and then there will be no repugnance between what they say and that which Hooker and D. Covell and D. Whitaker and Luther here say 33 But Protestants agree not in assigning the Canon of holy Scripture Luther and Illyricus reject the Epistle of S. Iames. Kemnitius and other Luth. the second of Peter the second and third of Iohn The Epist. to the Heb. the Epist. of Iames of Iude and the Apocalyps Therefore without the Authority of the Church no certainty can be had what Scripture is Canonicall 34 So also the Ancient Fathers and not only Fathers but whole Churches differed about the certainty of the authority of the very same bookes and by their difference shewed they knew no necessity of conforming themselves herein to the judgement of your or any Church For had they done so they must have agreed all with that Church and consequently among themselves Now I pray tell me plainly Had they sufficient certainty what Scripture was Canonicall or had they not If they had not it seemes there is no such great harme or danger in not having such a certainty whether some books be Canonicall or no as you require If they had why may not Protestants notwithstanding their differences have sufficient certainty hereof as well as the Ancient Fathers and Churches notwithstanding theirs 35 You proceed And whereas the Protestants of England in the 6. Art have these words In the name of the Holy Scripture we doe vnderstand those Bookes of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church you demaund what they meane by them Whether that by the Churches consent they are assured what Scriptures be Canonicall I Answer for them Yes they are so And whereas you inferre from hence This is to make the Church Iudge I haue told you already That of this Controversie we make the Church the Iudge but not the present Church much lesse the present Roman Church but the consent and testimony of the
you in some and with you against Luther in others And I also demand upon what infallible ground you hold your Canon agree neither with us nor Luther For sure your differing from us both is of it selfe no more apparently reasonable then our agreeing with you in part and in part with Luther If you say your Churches infallibility is your ground I demand againe some infallible ground both for the Churches infallibility and for this that Yours is the Church and shall never cease multiplying demands upon demands untill you settle me upon a Rock I mean giue such an Answer whose Truth is so evident that it needs no further evidence If you say This is Vniversall Tradition I reply your Churches infallibility is not built upon it and that the Canon of Scripture as we receiue it is For wee doe not professe our selues so absolutely and and undoubtedly certain neither doe we urge others to be so of those Books which haue been doubted as of those that never haue 46 The Conclusion of your Tenth § is That the Divinity of a writing cannot be known from it selfe alone but by some extrinsecall authority Which you need not proue for no wise man denies it But then this authority is that of Vniversall Tradition not of your Church For to me it is altogether as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Gospell of Saint Mathew is the word of God as that all which your Church saies is true 47 That Believers of the Scripture by considering the divine matter the excellent precepts the glorious promises contained in it may be confirmed in their faith of the Scriptures divine Authority that among other inducements and inforcements hereunto internall arguments haue their place and force certainly no man of understanding can deny For my part I professe if the doctrine of the Scripture were not as good and as fit to come from the fountain of goodnesse as the Miracles by which it was confirm'd were great I should want one main pillar of my faith and for want of it I feare should be much stagger'd in it Now this and nothing else did the Doctor mean in saying The Belieuer sees by that glorious beam of divine light which shines in Scripture and by many internall Arguments that the Scripture is of Divine Authority By this saith he he sees it that is hee is moved to and strengthned in his beliefe of it and by this partly not wholly by this not alone but with the concurrence of other Arguments He that will quarrell with him for saying so must finde fault with the Master of the Sentences and all his Schollers for they all say the same The rest of this Paragraph I am as willing it should be true◠as you are to haue it and so let it passe as a discourse wherein we are wholy unconcern'd You might haue met with an Answerer that would not haue suffred you to haue said so much Truth together but to me it is sufficient that it is nothing to the purpose 48 In the next Division out of your liberality you will suppose that Scripture like to a corporall light is by it selfe alone able to determine and moue our understanding to assent yet notwithstanding this supposall Faith still you say must goe before Scripture because as the light is visible only to those that haue eyes so the Scripture onely to those that haue the Eye of Faith But to my understanding if Scripture doe moue and determine our Vnderstanding to assent then the Scripture and its moving must be before this assent as the cause must bee before its own effect now this very assent is nothing else but Faith and Faith nothing else then the Vnderstanding's assent And therefore upon this supposall Faith doth and must originally proceed from Scripture as the effect from its proper cause and the influence and efficacy of Scripture is to be presuppos'd before the assent of faith unto which it moues and determines and consequently if this supposition of yours were true there should need no other meanes precedent to Scripture to beget Faith Scripture it selfe being able as here you suppose to determine and moue the understanding to assent that is to belieue them and the Verities contained in them Neither is this to say that the eyes with which we see are made by the light by which we see For you are mistaken much if you conceiue that in this comparison Faith answers to the Eye But if you will not pervert it the Analogie must stand thus◠Scripture must answer to light The eye of the soule that is the Vnderstanding or the faculty of assenting to the bodily eye And lastly assenting or believing to the act of seeing As therefore the light determining the Eye to see though it presupposes the Eye which it determines as every Action doth the object on which it is imployed yet it selfe is presuppos'd and antecedent to the act of seeing as the cause is alwaies to its effect So if you will suppose that Scripture like light moues the understanding to assent The Vnderstanding that 's the eye and object on which it works must bee before this influence upon it But the Assent that is the beliefe whereto the Scripture moues and the understanding is mov'd which answers to the act of seeing must come after For if it did assent already to what purpose should the Scripture doe that which was done before Nay indeed how were it possible it should be so any more then a Father can beget a Sonne that he hath already Or an Architect build an house that is built already Or then this very world can bee made againe before it be unmade Transubstantiation indeed is fruitfull of such Monsters But they that haue not sworne themselues to the defence of Errour will easily perceiue that I am factum facere and Factum infectum facere are equally impossible But I digresse 49 The close of this Paragraph is a fit cover for such a dish There you tell us That if there must be some other meanes precedent to Scripture to beget faith this can be no other then the Church By the Church we know you doe and must understand the Roman Church so that in effect you say no man can haue faith but he must bee mou'd to it by your Churches Authority And that is to say that the King and all other Protestants to whom you write though they verily think they are Christians belieue the Gospell because they assent to the truth of it and would willingly dye for it yet indeed are Infidels and belieue nothing The Scripture tells us The heart of man knoweth no man but the spirit of man which is in him And who are you to take upon you to make us belieue that we doe not belieue what we know we doe But if I may think verily that I belieue the Scripture and yet not belieue it how know you that you belieue the Roman Church I am as verily and as
every one makes himselfe a chooser of his own Religion and of his own sense of the Churches decrees which very thing in Protestants they so highly condemne and so in judging others condemne themselves 150 Neither in saying thus haue I only cry'd quittance with you but that you may see how much you are in my debt I will shew unto you that for your Sophisme against our way I haue given you a Demonstration against yours First I say your Argument against us is a transparent fallacy The first part of it lyes thus Protestants haue no meanes to interpret without errour obscure and ambiguous places of Scripture therefore plain places of Scripture cānot be to thē a sufficiēt ground of Faith But though we pretend not to certain meanes of not erring in interpreting all Scripture particularly such places as are obscure and ambiguous yet this me thinks should be no impediment but that we may have certain meanes of not erring in and about the sense of those places which are so plain and cleer that they need no Interpreters and in such we say our Faith is contain'd If you aske me how I can be sure that I know the true meaning of these places I aske you again can you be sure that you understand what I or any man else saies They that heard our Saviour and the Apostles preach could they haue sufficient assurance that they understood at any time what they would have them doe if not to what end did they heare them If they could why may we not be as well assured that we understand sufficiently what we conceive plaine in their writings 151 Againe I pray tell us whether you doe certainly know the sense of these Scriptures with which you pretend you are led to the knowledge of your Church If you doe not how know you that there is any Church Infallible and that these are the notes of it that this is the Church that hath these notes If you doe then give us leave to haue the same meanes and the same abilities to know other plain places which you have to know these For if all Scripture be obscure how come you to know the sense of these places If some places of it be plain why should we stay here 152 And now to come to the other part of your dilemma in saying If they have certain meanes and so cannot erre mee thinkes you forget your selfe very much and seeme to make no difference between having certain meanes to doe a thing and the actuall doing of it As if you should conclude because all men have certain meanes of Salvation therefore all men certainly must be saved and cannot doe otherwise as if whosoever had a horse must presently get up and ride Whosoever had meanes to find out a way could not neglect those meanes and so mistake it God be thanked that we have sufficient meanes to be certain enough of the truth of our Faith But the Priviledge of not being in possibility of erring that we challenge not because we have as little reason as you to doe so and you have none at all If you aske seeing we may possibly erre how can we be assured we doe not I ask you again seeing your eye-fight may deceive you how can you be sure you see the Sunne when you doe see it Perhaps you may be in a dream and perhaps you and all the men in the World have been so when they thought they were awake and then only awake when they thought they dreamt But this I am sure of as sure as that God is good that he will require no impossibilities of us not an Infallible nor a certainly unerring belief unlesse he hath given us certain meanes to avoid error and if we use those which we have will never require of us that we use that which we have not 153 Now from this mistaken ground that it is all one to have meanes of avoiding errour and to be in no danger nor possibility of errour You inferre vpon us as an absurd conclusion That we make our selves able to determine Controversies of faith with Infallibility and Iudges of Controversies For the latter part of this inference we acknowledge and imbrace it We doe make our selves Iudges of controversies that is we doe make use of our own understanding in the choice of our Religion But this if it be a crime is common to us with you as I have proved above and the difference is not that wee are choosers and you not choosers but that we as we conceive choose wisely but you being wilfully blind choose to follow those that are so too not remembring what our Saviour hath told you when the blind lead the blind both shall fall into the ditch But then again I must tell you you have done ill to confound together Iudges and infallible Iudges unlesse you will say either that we have no Iudges in our Courts of Civill judicature or that they are all Infallible 154 Thus haue we cast off your dilemma and broken both the hornes of it But now my retortion lies heavy upon you and will not be turned off For first you content not your selves with a morall certainty of the things you beleive nor with such a degree of assurance of them as is sufficient to produce obedience to the condition of the new Covenant which is all that we require Gods Spirit if he please may work more a certainty of adherence beyond a certainty of evidence But neither God doth nor man may require of us as our dutie to give a greater assent to the conclusion then the premises deserue to build an infallible Faith upon Motives that are only highly credible and not infallible as it were a great and heavy building upon a foundation that hath not strength proportionable But though God require not of us such unreasonable things You doe and tell men they cannot be saved unlesse they beleive your proposals with an infallible Faith To which end they must beleive also your Propounder your Church to be simply Infallible Now how is it possible for them to give a rationall assent to the Churches infallibility unlesse they have some infallible meanes to know that she is infallible Neither can they infallibly know the infallibility of this meanes but by some other and so on for ever unlesse they can dig so deep as to come at length to the Rock that is to settle all upon something evident of it selfe which is not so much as pretended But the last resolution of all is into Motives which indeed upon examination will scarce appeare probable but are not so much as avouched to be any more then very credible For example if I aske you why you doe beleive Transubstantiatiō What can you answer but because it is a Revelation of the Prime Verity I demaund again how can you assure your selfe or me of that being ready to embrace it if it may appeare to be so And what can you say but that you
truth 164 To the Argument wherewith you conclude I Answere That though the visible Church shall alwaies without faile propose so much of Gods revelation as is sufficient to bring men to Heaven for otherwise it will not be the visible Church yet it may sometimes adde to this revelation things superfluous nay hurtfull nay in themselves damnable though not unpardonable and sometimes take from it things very expedient and profitable and therefore it is possible without siâ—ne to resist in some things the Visible Church of Christ. But you presse us farther and demand what visible Church was extant when Luther began whether it were the Roman or Protestant Church As if it must of necessity either be Protestant or Roman or Roman of necessity if it were not Protestant yet this is the most usuall fallacy of all your disputers by some specious Arguments to perswade weak men that the Church of Protestants cannot be the true Church and thence to inferre that without doubt it must be the Roman But why may not the Roman be content to be a part of it and the Grecian another And if one must be the whole why not the Greek Church as well as the Roman there being not one Note of your Church which agrees not to her as well as to your own unlesse it be that she is poor and oppressed by the Turk and you are in glory and splendor 165 Neither is it so easy to be determined as you pretend That Luther and other Protestants opposed the whole visible Church in matters of Faith neither is it so evident that the Visible Church may not fall into such a state wherein she may be justly opposed And lastly for calling the distinction of points into Fundamentall and not Fundamentall an evasion I believe you will find it easier to call it so then to prove it so But that shall be the issue of the Controversy in the next Chapter CHAP. III. That the distinction of points fundamentall and not fundamentall is neither pertinent nor true in our present Controversie And that the Catholike Visible Church cannot erre in either kinde of the said points THIS distinction is abused by Protestants to many purposes of theirs and therefore if it be either untrue or impertinent as they understand and apply it the whole edifice built thereon must be ruinous and false For if you object their bitter and continued discords in matters of faith without any means of agreement they instantly tell you as Charity mistaken plainly shewes that they differ only in pâ—ints not fundamentall If you convince them even by their own Confessions that the ancient Fathers taught divers points held by the Roman Church against Protestants they reply that those Fathers may neverthelesse be saved because those errours were not fundamentall If you will them to remember that Christ must alwaies haue a visible Church on earth with administration of Sacraments and succession of Paâ—stors and that when Luther appeared there was no Church distinct from the Roman whose Communion and doctrine Luther then forâ—ook and for that cause must be guilty of Schisme and Herosie they haue an Answer such as it is that the Catholike Church cannot perish yet may erre in points not fundamentall and therefore Luther and other Protestants were obliged to forsake her for such errors under paine of Damnation as if forsooth it were Damnable to hold an error not Fundamentall nor Damnable If you wonder how they can teach that both Catholiques and Protestants may be saved in their severall professions they salve this contradiction by saying that we both agree in all fundamentall points of faith which is enough for salvation And yet which is prodigiously strange they could never be induced to give a Catalogue what points in particular be fundamentall but only by some generall description or by referring us to the Apostles Creed without determining what points therein be fundamentall or not fundamentall for the matter and in what sense they be or be not such and yet concerning the meaning of divers points contained or reduced to the Creed they differ both from us and among themselves And indeed it being impossible for them to exhibit any such Catalogue the said distinction of points although it were pertinent and true cannot serve them to any purpose but still they must remaine uncertaine whether or not they disagree from one another from the ancient Fathers and from the Catholique Church in points fundamentall which is to say they have no certainty whether they enjoy the substance of Christian Faith without which they cannot hope to be saved But of this more heerafter 2 And to the end that what shall be said concerning this distinction may be better understood wee are to observe that there be two precepts which concerne the vertue of faith or our obligation to believe divine truths The one is by Divines called Affirmative whereby we are obliged to have a positive explicite belief of some chief Articles of Christian faith The other is â—ermed Negative which strictly binds us not not to disbelieve that is not to believe the contrary of any one point sufficiently represented to our understanding as revealed or spoken by Almighty God The said Affirmative Precept according to the nature of such commands injoynes some act to be performed but not at all times nor doth it equally bind all sorts of persons in respect of all objects to be believed For objects we grant that some are more necessary to be explicitely and severall believed then other either because they are in themselves more great and weighty or els in regard they instruct us in some necessary Christian duty towards God our selves or our Neighbour For persons no doubt but some are obliged to know distinctly more then others by reason of their office vocation capacity or the like For times we are not obliged to be still in act of exercising acts of faith but according as severall occasions permit or require The second kind of precept called Negative doth according to the nature of all such commands oblige universally all persons in respect of all objects and at all times seâ—per pro semper as Divines speak This generall doctrine will be more cleere by examples I am not obliged to be alwaies helping my Neighbour because the Affirmative precept of Charity bindeth only in some particular cases But I am alwaies bound by a Negative precept never to doe him any hurt or wrong I am not alwaies bound to utter what I know to be true yet I am obliged never to speak any one least untruth against my knowledge And to come to our present purpose there is no Affirmative precept commanding us to be at all times actually believing any one or all Articles of faith But we are obliged never to exercise any act against any one truth known to be revealed All sorts of persons are not bound explicitely and distinctly to know all things testified by God either in Scripture or otherwise but
saying I answer that this is an inconsiderate speech and unworthy so great a Father But let us conclude with S. Augustine that the Church cannot approue any errour against faith or good manners The Church saith he being Placed between much chaffe and cockle doth tollerate many things but yet she doth not approue nor dissemble nor doe those things which are against faith or good life 17 And as I haue proved that Protestants according to their grounds cannot yeeld infallibls assent to the Church in any one point so by the same reason I prove that they cannot rely upon Scripture it selfe in any one point of faith Not in points of lesser moment or not fundamentall because in such points the Catholique Church according to D. Potter and much more any Protestant may erre and thinke it is contained in Scripture when it is not Not in points fundamentall because they must first know what points be fundamentall before they can bee assured that they cannot erre in understanding the Scripture and consequently independantly of Scripture they must foreknow all fundamentall points of faith and therefore they doe not indeed rely upon Scripture either for fundamentall or not fundamentall points 18 Besides I mainly urge D. Potter and other Protestants that they tell us of certain points which they call fundamentall and we cannot wrest from them a list in particular of such points without which no man can tell whether or no he erre in points fundamentall and be capable of salvation And which is most lamentable insteed of giving us such a Catalogue they fall to wrangle among themselves about the making of it 19 Calvin holds the Popes Primacy Invocation of Saints Free will and such like to bee fundamentall errours overthrowing the Gospell Others are not of his minde as Melancthou who saith in the opinion of himselfe and other his Brethren That the Monarchy of the Bishop of Rome is of use or profit to this end that Consent of Doctrine may be retained An agreement therefore may easily be established in this Article of the Popes Primacy if other Articles could be agreed upon If the Popes Primacy be a meanes that consent of Doctrine may be retained first submit to it and other articles will be easily agreed upon Luther also saith of the Popes Primacy it may be borne withall And why then O Luther did you not beare with it And how can you and your followers be excused from damnable Schisme who chose rather to devide Gods Church then to beare with that which you confesse may be borne withall But let us goe forward That the doctrine of freewill Prayer for the dead worshipping of Images Woâ—ship and Invocation of Saints Reall presence Transubstantiation Receaving under one kinde Satisfaction and Ment of works and the Masse be not fundamentall Errours is taught respective by divers Protestants carefully alleaged in the Protestants Apologie c. as namely by Perkins Cartwright Frith Fulle Spark Goade Luther Reynolds Whitaker Tindall Franci Iohnson with others Contrary to these is the Confession of the Christian faith so called by Protestants which I mentioned heretofore wherein we are damned unto unquenchable fire for the doctrine of Masse Prayer to Saints and for the dead Freewill Presence at Idol-service Mans merit with such like Iustification by faith alone is by some Protestants affirmed to be the soule of the Church The only principall origen of Salvation of all other points of doctrine the chiefest and weightiest Which yet as we haue seen is contrary to other Protestants who teach that meâ— of good works is not a fundamentall Errour yea divers Protestants defend merit of good works as may bee seen in Breereley One would think that the Kings Supremacy for which some blessed men lost their lives was once among Protestants held for a Capitall point but now D. Andrewes late of Winchester in his book against Bellarmime tells us that it is sufficient to reckon it among true Doctrines And Woâ—ton denies that Protestants hold the Kings Supremacy to be an essentiall point of faith O freedome of the new Gospell Hold with Catholiques the Pope or with Protestants the King or with Puritanes neither Pope nor King to be Head of the Church all is one you may be saved Some as Castalio and the whole Sect of the Academicall Protestants hold that doctrines about the Supper Baptisme the state and office of Christ how he is one with his Father the Trinity Predestination and divers other such questions are not necessary to Salvation And that you may observe how ungrounded and partiall their Assertions be Perkins teacheth that the Reall presence of our Saviours Body in the Sacrament as it is believed by Catholiques is a fundamentall errour and yet affirmeth the Consubstantiation of Lutherans not to be such notwithstanding that divers chiefe Lutherans to their Consubstantiation joyne the prodigious Heresie of Vbiquitation D. Vsher in his Sermon of the Vnity of the Catholique faith grants Salvation to the Aethiopians who yet with Christian Baptisme joyne Circumcision D. Potter cites the doctrine of some whom he termeth men of great learning and judgement that all who professe to loue and honour IES VS CHRIST are in the visible Christian Church and by Catholiques to be reputed Brethren One of these men of great learning and judgement is Thomas Morton by D. Potter cited in his Margent whose love and honour to Iesus-Christ you may perceive by his saying that the Churches of Arians who denied our Saviour Christ to be God are to be accounted the Church of God bâ—cause they doe hold the foundation of the Gospell which is Faith in Iesus-Christ the Sonne of God and Saviour of the world And which is more it seemeth by these charitable men that for being a member of the Church it is not necessary to believe one only God For D. Potter among the arguments to proue Hookers and Mortons opinion brings this The people of the ten Tribes after their defection notwithstanding their grosse corruptions Idolatry remained still a true Church We may also as it seemeth by these mens reasoning deny the Resurrection and yet be members of the true Chruch For a learned man saith D. Potter in behalfe of Hookers and Mortons opinion was anciently made a Bishop of the Catholique Church though he did professedly doubt of the last Resurreâ—tion of our bodies Deere Saviour What times doe we behold If one may be a member of the true Church and yet deny the Trinity of the Persons the Godhead of our Saviour the necessity of Baptisme if we may use Circumcision and with the worship of God joyne Idolatry wherein doe we differ from Turks and Iews or rather are we not worse then eyther of them If they who deny our Saviours divinity might be accounted the Church of God how will they deny that favour to those ancient Heretiques who denied our Saviours true humanity and so
thy paines follow the way of the Catholique Discipline which from Christ himselfe by the Apostles hath come down even to us and from us shall descend to all posterity And though I conceave that the distinction of points fundamentall and not fundamentall hath now been sufficiently confuted yet that no shadow of difficulty may remain I will particularly refell a common saying of Protestants that it is sufficient foe salvation to belieue the Apostles Creed which they hold to be a Summary of all fundamentall points of Faith THE ANSVVER TO THE THIRD CHAPTER Wherein it is maintained That the distinction of points Fundamentall and not Fundamentall is in this present Controversie good and pertinent And that the Catholique Church may erre in the latter kinde of the said points THis distinction is imployed by Protestants to many purposes and therefore if it be pertinent and good as they understand and apply it the whole edifice built thereon must be either firme and stable or if it be not it cannot be for any default in this distinction 2 If you obiect to them discords in matter of faith without any meanes of agreement They will answer you that they want not good and solid meanes of agreement in matters necessary to salvation viz. Their beliefe of all those things which are plainly and undoubtedly delivered in Scripture which who so belieues must of necessity belieue all things necessary to salvation and their mutuall suffering one another to abound in their severall sense in matters not plainly and undoubtedly there delivered And for their agreement in all Controversies of Religion either they haue meanes to agree about them or not If you say they haue why did you before deny it If they haue not meanes why doe you finde fault with them for not agreeing 3 You will say that their fault is that by remaining Protestants they exclude themselues from the meanes of agreement which you haue and which by submission to your Church they might haue also But if you haue meanes of agreement the more shame for you that you still disagree For who I pray is more inexcusably guilty for the omission of any duty they that either haue no meanes to doe it or else know of none they haue which puts them in the same case as if they had none or they which professe to haue an easie and expedite means to doe it and yet still leaue it undone If you had been blind saith our Saviour to the Pharisees you had had no sinne but now you say you see therefore your sinne remaineth 4 If you say you doe agree in matters of Faith I say this is ridiculous for you define matters of faith to be those wherein you agree So that to say you agree in matters of faith is to say you agree in those things wherein you doe agree And do not Protestants doe so likewise Doe not they agree in those things wherein they doe agree 5 But you are all agreed that only those things wherein you doe agree are matters of faith And Protestants if they were wise would doe so too Sure I am they haue reason enough to doe so seeing all of them agree with explicite faith in all those things which are plainly and undoubtedly delivered in Scripture that is in all which God hath plainly revealed and with an implicite faith in that sense of the whole Scripture which God intended whatsoever it was Secondly That which you pretend is false for else why doe some of you hold it against faith to take or allow the Oath of Allegiance others as learned and honest as they that it is against Faith and unlawfull to refuse it and allow the refusing of it Why doe some of you hold that it is de Fide that the Pope is Head of the Church by divine Law others the contrary Some hold it de Fide that the blessed Virgin was freefrom Actuall sinne others that it is not so Some that the Popes Indirect power over Princes in Temporalties is de Fide Others the contrary Some that it is Vniversall Tradition and consequently de Fide that the Virgin Mary was conceived in originall sinne others the contrary 6 But what shall we say now if you be not agreed touching your pretended meanes of agreement how then can you pretend to Vnity either Actuall or Potentiall more then Protestants may Some of you say the Pope alone without a Councell may determine all Controversies But others deny it Some that a Generall Councell without a Pope may doe so Others deny this Some Both in conjunction are infallible determiners Others againe deny this Lastly some among you hold the Acceptation of the decrees of Councells by the Vniversal Church to be the only way to decide Controversies which others deny by denying the Church to be Infallible And indeed what way of ending Controversies can this be when either part may pretend that they are part of the Church and they receiue not the decree therefore the whole Church hath not received it 7 Againe Meanes of agreeing differences are either Rationall and well grounded and of Gods appointment or voluntary and taken up at the pleasure of men Meanes of the former nature we say you haue as little as we For where hath God appointed that the Pope or a Councell or a Councell confirm'd by the Pope or that Society of Christians which adhere to him shall be the Infallible Iudge of Controversies I desire you to shew any one of these Assertions plainely set down in Scripture as in all Reason a thing of this nature should be or at least delivered with a full consent of Fathers or at least taught in plain tearmes by any one Father for foure hundred yeares after Christ. And if you cannot doe this as I am sure you cannot and yet will still be obtruding your selues upō us for our Iudges who will not cry out perisse frontem de rebus 8 But then for meanes of the other kinde such as yours are we haue great abūdance of them For besides all the waies which you haue devised which we may make use of when wee please we haue a great many more which you yet haue never thought of for which we haue as good colour out of Scripture as you haue for yours For first wee could if we would try it by Lots whose doctrine is true and whose false And you know it is written The Lot is cast into the lap but the whole disposition of it is from the Lord. 2. We could referre them to the King and you know it is written A Divine sentence is in the lips of the King his mouth transgresseth not in judgement The Heart of the King is in the hand of the Lord. We could referre the matter to any assembly of Christians assembled in the the name of Christ seeing it is written where two or three are gathered together in my name there am I in the midst of them We may referre it to any Priest
Truth and will not use them they conceive though their case be dangerous yet if they dye with a generall repentance for all their sinnes knowne and unknowne their Salvation is not desperate The Truths which they hold of Faith in Christ and Repentance being as it were an antidote against their errors and their negligence in seeking the Truth Especially seeing by confession of both sides we agree in much more thē is simply indispēsably necessary to salvatiō 13 But seeing we make such various use of this distinction is it not prodigiously strange that we will never be induc'd to give in a particular Catalogue what points be fundamentall And why I pray is it so prodigiously strange that we give no answer to an unreasonable demand God himself hath told us That where much is given much shall be required where litle is given litle shall be required To Infants Deafe-men Mad-men nothing for ought wee knowe is given and if it bee so of them nothing shall be required Others perhaps may have meanes only given them to beleive That God is and that he is a rewarder of them that seeke him and to whom thus much only is given to them it shall not be damnable that they beleive but only thus much Which methinks is very manifest from the Apostle in the Epist. to the Heb where having first said that without faith it is impossible to please God he subjoynes as his reason for whosoever commeth unto God must beleive that God is and that he is a rewarder of them that seeke him Where in my opinion this is plainly intimated that this is the minimum quòd sic the lowest degree of Faith wherewith in men capable of Faith God will be pleased and that with this lowest degree he will be pleased where meanes of rising higher are deficient Besides if without this beliefe that God is and that he is a rewarder of them that seeke him God will not be pleased then his will is that we should beleive it Now his will it cannot be that we should beleive a falshood It must be therefore true that he is a rewarder of them that seeke him Now it is possible that they which never heard of Christ may seek God therefore it is true that even they shall please him and be rewarded by him I say rewarded not with bringing them immediatly to salvation without Christ but with bringing them according to his good pleasure first to faith in Christ and so to salvation To which beleife the story of Cornelius in the 10. chap. of the Acts of the Apostles and S. Peter's words to him are to me a great inducement For first it is evident he beleeved not in Christ but was a meer Gentile one that knew not but men might be worshipped and yet we are assured that his prayers and almes even while he was in that state came up for a memoriall before God That his prayer was heard and his Almes had in remembrance in the sight of God v. 4. that upon his Then fearing God and working righteousnesse such as it was he was accepted with God But how accepted Not to be brought immediatly to salvation but to be promoted to a higher degree of the knowledge of Gods will For so it is in the 4. 5. v. Call for Simon whose sirname is Peter he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to doe and at the 33. vers We are all here present before God to heare all things that are cōmanded thee of God So that though even in his Gentilisme he was accepted in his present state yet if he had continued in it refused to beleive in Christ after the sufficient revelation of the Gospell to him and Gods will to have him beleive it he that was accepted before would not have continued accepted still for then that condemnation had come upon him that light was come unto him and he loved darknesse more then light So that to proceed a step farther to whom faith in Christ is sufficiently propounded as necessary to Salvation to them it is simply necessary Fundamentall to believe in Christ that is to expect remission of sinnes and Salvation from him upon the performance of the conditions he requires among which conditions one is that we believe what he has revealed when it is sufficiently declared to have been revealed by him For by doing so we set to our seale that God is true and that Christ was sent by him Now that may be sufficiētly declared to one all things considered which all things considered to another is not sufficiently declared and consequently that may be Fundamentall and necessary to one which to another is not so Which variety of circumstances makes it impossible to set down an exact Catalogue of Fundamentalls and proves your request as reasonable as if you should desire us according to the Fable to make a coat to fit the Moon in all her changes or to giue you a garment that will fit all statures Or to make you a dyall to serve all meridians or to designe particularly what provision will serve an army for a year whereas there may be an army of ten thousand there may be of 100000. And therefore without seting downe a catalogue of Fundamentalls in particular because none that can be given can universally serve for all men God requiring more of them to whom he gives more and lesse of them to whom he gives lesse we must content our selves by a generall description to tell you what is Fundamentall And to warrant us in doing so we have your own example § 19. where being engaged to giue us a catalogue of Fundamentalls in stead thereof you tell us only in generall that all is fundamentall and not to be disbeleeved under pain of damnation which the Church hath defin'd As you therefore think it enough to say in generall that all is Fundamentall which the Church has defined without setting down in particular a compleat-Catalogue of all things which in any age the Church has defined which I believe you will not undertake to doe and if you doe it will be contradicted by your Fellowes So in reason you might think it enough for us also to say in generall that it is sufficient for any mans salvation to believe that the Scripture is true and containes all things necessary for salvation and to doe his best endeavour to find and believe the true sense of it without delivering any particular catalogue of the Fundamentalls of Faith 14 Neither doth the want of such a catalogue leave us in such a perplexed uncertainty as you pretend For though perhaps we cannot exactly distinguish in the Scripture what is revealed because it is necessary from what is necessary consequently and accidentally meerely because it is revealed yet we are sure enough that all that is necessary any way is there and therefore in believing all that is there we are sure to believe all that is necessary And if we
erre from the true and intended sense of some nay of many obscure or ambiguous texts of Scripture yet we may be sure enough that we erre not damnably because if we doe indeed desire and endeavour to finde the Truth we may be sure we doe so and as sure that it cannot consist with the revealed goodnesse of God to damne him for error that desires and indeavours to find the Truth 15 Ad § 2. The effect of this Paragraph for as much as concernes us is this that for any man to deny belief to any one thing be it great or small known by him to be revealed by almighty God for a truth is in effect to charge God with falshood for it is to say that God affirmes that to be Truth which he either knowes to be not a Truth or which he doth not know to be a Truth and therefore without all controversy this is a damnable sinne To this I subscribe with hand and heart adding withall that not only he which knowes but he which believes nay though it be erroneously any thing to be revealed by God and yet will not believe it nor assent unto it is in the same case and commits the same sinne of derogation from Gods most perfect and pure Veracity 16 Ad § 3. I said purposely known by himselfe and belieues himselfe For as without any disparagement of a mans honesty I may believe something to be false which he affirmes of his certain knowledge to be true provided I neither know nor believe that he has so affirmed So without any the least dishonour to Gods eternall never-failing veracity I may doubt of or deny some truth revealed by him if I neither know nor believe it to be revealed by him 17 Seeing therefore the crime of calling Gods veracity into question and consequently according to your grounds of erring Fundamentally is chargeable upon those only that believe the contrary of any one point known not by others but themselves to be testified by God I cannot but fear though I hope otherwise that your heart condemned you of a great calumny and egregious sophistry in imputing fundamentall and damnable error to disagreeing Protestans Because forsooth some of them disbelieve and directly wittingly and willingly oppose what others doe believe to be testified by the word of God The sophistry of your discourse will be apparent if it be contrived into a syllogisme Thus therefore in effect you argue Whosoever disbelieves any thing known by himselfe to be revealed by God imputes falshood to God and therefore errs fundamentally But Some Protestants disbelieve these things which Others believe to be testified by God Therefore they impute falshood to God and erre Fundamentally Neither can you with any colour pretend that in these words known to be testified by God you meant not by himselfe but by any other Seeing he only in fact affirmes that God does deceive or is deceived who denyes some things which himselfe knowes or believes to be revealed by God as before I have demonstrated For otherwise if I should deny beleefe to some which God had revealed secretly to such a man as I had never heard of I should be guilty of calling Gods veracity into Question which is euidently false Besides how can it be avoided but the Iesuits and Dominicans the Dominicans and Franciscans must upon this ground differ Fundamentally and one of them erre damnably seeing the one of them disbelieves and willingly opposes what the others believe to be the word of God 18 Whereas you say that the difference among Protestants consists not in this that some believe some points of which others are ignorant or not bound expresly to know I would gladly know whether you speak of Protestants differing in profession only or in opinion also If the first why doe you say presently after that some disbelieve what others of them believe If they differ in opinion then sure they are ignorant of the truth of each other's opinions it being impossible and contradictious that a man should know one thing to be true and believe the contrary or know it and not believe it And if they doe not know the truth of each others opinions then I hope you will grant they are ignorant of it If your meaning were they were not ignorant that each other held these Opinions or of the sense of the opinions which they held I Answere this is nothing to the convincing of their understandings of the truth of them and these remaining unconvinced of the truth of them they are excusable if they doe not believe 9 But ignorance of what we are expresly bound to know is it selfe a fault and therefore cannot be an excuse and therefore if you could shew the Protestants differ in those points the truth whereof which can be but one they were bound expresly to know I should easily yeeld that one side must of necessity be in a mortall crime But for want of proofe of this you content your selfe only to say it and therefore I also might be contented only to deny it yet I will not but give a reason for my deniall And my reason is because our obligation expresly to know any divine Truth must arise from Gods manifest revealing of it and his revealing unto us that he has revealed it and that his will is we should believe it Now in the points controverted among Protestants he hath not so dealt with us therefore he hath not laid any such obligation upon us The major of this syllogisme is evident and therefore I will not stand to prove it The minor also will be evident to him that considers that in all the Controversies of Protestants there is a seeming conflict of Scripture with Scripture Reason with Reason Authority with Authority which how it can consist with the manifest revealing of the truth of either Side I cannot well understand Besides though we grant that Scripture Reason and Authority were all on one side and the apparences of the other side all answerable yet if we consider the strange power that education and prejudices instilled by it haue over even excellent understandings wee may well imagine that many truths which in themselues are revealed plainly enough are yet to such or such a man prepossest with contrary opinions not revealed plainly Neither doubt I but God who knows whereof we are made and what passions we are subject unto will compassionate such infirmities and not enter into judgement with us for those things which all things considered were unavoidable 20 But till Fundamentalls say you be sufficiently proposed as revealed by God it is not against Faith to reject them or rather it is not possible prudently to belieue them And points unfundamentall being thus sufficiently proposed as divine Truths may not be denied Therefore you conclude there is no difference between them Ans. A Circumstantiall point may by accident become Fundamentall because it may bee so proposed that the deniall of it will draw after it
the deniall of this Fundamentall truth that all which God saies is true Notwithstanding in themselues there is a main difference between them Points fundamentall being those onely which are revealed by God and commanded to bee preacht to all and believed by all Points circumstantiall being such as though God hath revealed them yet the Pastors of the Church are not bound under paine of damnation particularly to teach them unto all men every where and the people may be securely ignorant of them 21 You say Not erring in points Fundamentall is not sufficient for the preservation of the Church because any Errour maintained by it against Gods revelation is destructive I answer If you mean against Gods Revelation known by the Church to be so it is true but impossible that the Church should doe so for ipso Facto in doing it it were a Church no longer But if you mean against some Revelation which the Church by errour thinks to bee no Revelation it is false The Church may ignorantly disbelieue such a Revelation and yet continue a Church which thus I proue That the Gospell was to be preached to all Nations was a Truth revealed before our Saviours Ascention in these words Goe and teach all Nations Mat. 29. 19. Yet through prejudice or inadvertence or some other cause the Church disbelieved it as it is apparent out of the 11. and 12. Chap. of the Acts untill the conversion of Cornelius and yet was still a Church Therefore to disbelieue some divine Revelation not knowing it to be so is not destructive of salvation or of the being of the Church Again It is a plaine Revelation of God that the Sacrament of the Eucharist should be administred in both kindes and that the publique Hymnes and Prayers of the Church should be in such a language as is most for edification yet these Revelations the Church of Rome not seeing by reason of the veile before their eyes their Churches supposed infallibility I hope the deniall of them shall not be laid to their charge no otherwise then as building hay and stubble on the Foundations not overthrowing the Foundation it selfe 22 Ad § 2. In the beginning of this Paragraph wee haue this Argument against this Distinction It is enough by D. Potters confession to belieue some things negatiuely i. e. not to deny them Therefore all deniall of any divine truth excludes Salvation As if you should say One Horse is enough for a man to goe a journey Therefore without a horse no man can goe a journey As if some Divine Truthes viâ— Those which are plainly revealed might not be such as of necessity were not to be denied and others for want of sufficient declaration deniable without danger Indeed if D. Potter had said there had been no divine Truth declared sufficiently or not declared but must upon pain of damnation be believed or at least not denied then might you justly haue concluded as you doe but now that some may not be denied and that some may be denied without damnation why they may not both stand together I doe not yet understand 23 In the Remainder you in ferre out of D. Potters words That all errours are alike damnable if the manner of propounding the contrary Truths be not different which for ought I know all Protestants and all that haue sense must grant Yet I deny your illation from hence That the distinction of points into fundamentall and unfundamentall is vaine and uneffectuall for the purpose of Protestants For though being alike propos'd as divine truths they are by accident alike necessary yet the reall difference still remaines between them that they are not alike necessary to be proposed 24 Ad § 5. The next Paragraph if it be brought out of the clouds will I belieue haue in it these Propositions 1. Things are distinguished by their different natures 2. The Nature of Faith is taken not from the matter believed for then they that believed different matters should haue different Faiths but from the Motive to it 3. This Motiue is Gods Revelation 4. This Revelation is alike for all obiects 5. Protestants disagree in things equally revealed by God Therefore they forsake the formall motiue of faith and therefore haue no faith nor unity therein Which is truly a very proper and convenient argument to close up â— weak discourse wherein both the Propositions are false for matter confused and disordered for the forme and the conclusion utterly inconsequent First for the second Proposition who knowes not that the Essence of all Habits therefore of Faith among the rest is taken from their Act and their Object If the Habit be generall from the Act and Object in generall if the Habit be speciall from the Act and Object in speciall Then for the motiue to a thing that it cannot be of the Essence of the thing to which it moues who can doubt that knows that a motiue is an efficient cause and that the efficient is alwaies extrinsecall to the effect For the fourth that Gods Revelation is alike for all objects It is ambiguous and if the sense of it be that his Revelation is an equall Motive to induce us to belieue all objects revealed by him it is true but impertinent If the sense of it be that all objects revealed by God are alike that is alike plainly and undoubtedly revealed by him it is pertinent but most untrue Witnesse the great diversity of Texts of Scripture whereof some are so plain and evident that no man of ordinary sense can mistake the sense of them Some are so obscure and ambiguous that to say this or this is the certain sense of them were high presumption For the 5. Protestants disagree in things equally revealed by God! In themselues perhaps but not equally to them whose understandings by reason of their different Educations are fashioned and shaped for the entertainment of various opinions and consequently some of them more enclined to belieue such a sense of Scripture others to belieue another which to say that God will not take into his consideration in judging mens opinions is to disparage his goodnesse But to what purpose is it that these things are equally revealed to both as the light is equally revealed to all blind men if they be not fully revealed to either The sense of this Scripture Why are they then baptiz'd for the dead and this He shall bee saved yet so as by fire and a thousand others is equally revealed to you and to another interpreter that is certainly to neither Hee now conceiues one sense of them and you another and would it not be an excellent inference if I should conclude now as you doe That you forsake the formall motiue of faith which is Gods revelation and consequently loose all faith and unity therein So likewise the Iesuites and Dominicans the Franciscans and Dominicans disagree about things equaâ—ly revealed by Almighty God and seeing they doe so I beseech you let me understand
Traditions as in defining emergent controversies Again it followes not because the Churches Authority is warrant enough for us to believe some doctrine touching which the Scripture is silent therefore it is Warrant enough to believe these to which the Scripture seemes repugnant Now the Doctrines which S. Austine received upon the Churches Authority were of the first sort the Doctrines for which we deny your Churches infallibility are of the second And therefore though the Churches authority might be strong enough to bear the weight which S. Austine laid upon it yet happily if may not be strong enough to bear that which you lay upon it Though it may support some Doctrines without Scripture yet surely not against it And last of all to deal ingeniously with you and the World I am not such an Idolater of S. Austine as to think a thing proved sufficiently because he saies it nor that all his sentences are oracles and particularly in this thing that whatsoever was practised or held by the Vniversall Church of his time must needs have come from the Apostles Though considering the neerenesse of his time to the Apostles I think it a good probable way and therefore am apt enough to follow it when I see no reason to the contrary Yet I professe I must have better satisfaction before I can induce my selfe to hold it certain and infallible And this not because Popery would come in at this dore as some have vainly feared but because by the Church Vniversall of some time and the Church Vniversall of other times I see plain contradictions held and practised Both which could not come from the Apostles for then the Apostles had been teachers of falshood And therefore the belief or practise of the present Vniversall Church can be no infallible proof that the Doctrine so beleived or the custome so practised came from the Apostles I instance in the doctrine of the Millenaries and the Eucharists necessity for infants both which Doctrines have been taught by the consent of the eminent Fathers of some ages without any opposition from any of their Contemporaries and were delivered by them not as Doctors but as Witnesses not as their own opinions but as Apostolike Traditions And therefore measuring the doctrine of the Church by all the Rules which Cardinall Perron gives us for that purpose both these Doctrines must be acknowledged to have been the doctrines of the Ancient Church of some age or ages And that the contrary Doctrines were Catholique at some other time I believe you will not think it needfull for me to prove So that either I must say the Apostles were fountaines of contradictious doctrines or that being the Vniversall Doctrine of the present Church is no sufficient proof that it came originally from the Apostles Besides who can warrant us that the Vniversall Traditions of the Church were all Apostolicall seeing in that famous place for Traditions in Tertullian Quicunque traditor any author whatsoever is founder good enough for them And who can secure us that Humane inventions and such as came à quocunque Traditore might not in a short time gain the reputation of Apostolique Seeing the direction then was Precepta maâ—orum Apostolicas Traditiones quisque existimat 45 No lesse you say is S. Chrysost. for the infallible Traditions of the Church But you were to prove the Church infallible not in her Traditions which we willingly grant if they be as universall as the Tradition of the undoubted books of Scripture is to be as infallible as the Scripture is for neither does being written make the word of God the more infallible nor being unwritten make it the lesse infallible Not therefore in her universall Traditions were you to prove the Church infallible but in all her Decrees and definitions of Controversies To this point when you speak you shall have an answer but hitherto you doe but wander 46 But let us see what S. Chrysostome saies They the Apostles delivered not all things in writing who denies it but many things also without writing who doubts of it and these also are worthy of belief Yes if we knew what they were But many things are worthy of belief which are not necessary to be believed As that Iulius Caesar was Emperour of Rome is a thing worthy of belief being so well testified as it is but yet it is not necessary to be believed a man may be saved without it Those many workes which our Saviour did which S. Iohn supposes would not have been contained in a world of bookes if they had been written or if God by some other meanes had preserv'd the knowledge of them had been as worthy to be believed and as necessary as those that are written But to shew you how much a more faith full keeper Records are then report those few that were written are preserved believed those infinitly more that were not written are all lost and vanished out of the memory of men And seeing God in his providence hath not thought fit to preserve the memory of them he hath freed us from the obligation of believing them for every obligation ceases when it becomes impossible Who can doubt but the Primitive Christians to whom the Epistles of the Apostles were written either of themselves understood or were instructed by the Apostles touching the sense of the obscure places of them These Traditive interpretations had they been written and dispersed as the Scriptures were had without question been preserved as the Scriptures are But to shew how excellent a keeper of the Tradition the Church of Rome hath been or even the Catholique Church for want of writing they are all lost nay were all lost within a few ages after Christ. So that if we consult the ancient Interpreters we shall hardly find any two of them agree about the sense of any one of them Cardinall Perron in his discourse of Traditions having alleaged this place for them Hold the Traditions c. tells us we must not answer that S. Paul speaks here only of such Traditions which though not in this Epist. to the Thess. yet were afterwards written and in other bookes of Scripture because it is upon occasion of Tradition touching the cause of the hinderance of the comming of Antichrist which was never written that he laies this iniunction upon them to hold the Traditions Well let us grant this Argument good and concluding and that the Church of the Thessalonians or the Catholique Church for what S. Paul writ to one Church he writ to all were to hold some unwritten Traditions and among the rest what was the cause of the hinderance of the comming of Antichrist But what if they did not performe their duty in this point but suffered this Tradition to be lost out of the memory of the Church Shall we not conclude that seeing God would not suffer any thing necessary to salvation to be lost and he has suffered this Tradition to be lost therefore the
such a one damnable But if I be guilty of none of these faults but be desirous to know the Truth and diligent in seeking it and advise not at all with flesh bloud about the choice of my opinions but only with God that Reason that he hath given me if I be thus qualifi'd and yet through humane infirmity fall into errour that errour cannot be damnable Again the party erring may be conceived either to dye with contrition for all his sins known and unknown or without it If he dye without it this errour in it selfe damnable will bee likewise so unto him If he dye with contrition as his errour can bee no impediment but he may his errour though in it selfe damnable to him according to your doctrine will not proue so And therefore some of those Authors whom you quote speaking of Errours whereunto men were betrayed or wherein they were kept by their Fault or Vice or Passion as for the most part men are Others speaking of them as errours simply and purely involuntary and the effects of humane infirmity some as they were retracted by Contrition to use your own phrase others as they were not no marvell though they haue past upon them some a heavier some a milder some an absolving some a condemning sentence The best of all these errours which here you mention having malice enough too frequently mixed with it to sink a man deep enough into hell and the greatest of them all being according to your Principles either no fault at all or very Veniall where there is no malice of the will conjoyn'd with it And if it be yet as the most malignant poyson will not poison him that receives with it a more powerfull Antidote so I am confident your own Doctrine will force you to confesse that whosoever dies with Faith in Christ and Contrition for all sinnes known and unknown in which heap all his sinfull errours must be compriz'd can no more be hurt by any the most malignant and pestilent errour then S. Paul by the viper which he shook of into the fire Now touching the necessity of Repentance from dead works and Faith in Christ Iesus the Sonne of God and Saviour of the World they all agree and therefore you cannot deny but they agree about all that is simply necessary Moreover though if they should goe about to choose out of Scripture all these Propositions Doctrines which integrate and make up the body of Christian Religion peradventure there would not be so exact agreement amongst them as some say there was between the 70. Interpreters in translating the Old Testament yet thus far without controversie they doe all agree that in the Bible all these things are contained and therefore that whosoever does truly and sincerely believe the Scripture must of necessity either in hypothesi or at least in thesi either formally or at least virtually either explicitely or at least implicitely either in Act or at least in preparation of minde belieue all things Fundamentall It being not Fundamentall nor required of Almighty God to belieue the true sense of Scripture in all places but only that we should endeavour to doe so be prepar'd in minde to doe so whensoever it shall be sufficiently propounded to us Suppose a man in some disease were prescribed a medicine consisting of twenty ingredients and he advising with Physitians should finde them differing in opinion about it some of them telling him that all the ingredients were absolutely necessary some that only some of them were necessary the rest only profitable and requisite ad melius esse lastly some that some only were necessary some profitable and the rest superfluous yet not hurtfull Yet all with one accord agreeing in this That the whole receipt had in it all things necessary for the recovery of his health and that if hee made use of it hee should infallibly finde it successefull what wise man would not think they agreed sufficiently for his direction to the recovery of his health lust so these Protestant Doctors with whose discords you make such Tragedies agreeing in Thesi thus far that the Scripture evidently containes all things necessary to Salvation both for matter of Faith and of practise and that whosoever believes it and endeavours to finde the true sense of it and to conform his life unto it shall certainly performe all things necessary to salvation and undoubtedly be saved agreeing I say thus farre what matters it for the direction of men to salvation though they differ in opinion touching what points are absolutely necessary and what not What Errours absolutely repugnant to Salvation and what not Especially considering that although they differ about the Question of the necessity of these Truths yet for the most part they agree in this that Truths they are and profitable at least though not simply necessary And though they differ in the Question whether the contrary Errours be destructive of salvation or no yet in this they consent that Errours they are hurtful to Religion though not destructive of Salvation Now that which God requires of us is this That we should belieue the Doctrines of the Gospell to bee Truths not all necessary Truths for all are not so and consequently the repugnant Errours to be falshoods yet not all such falshoods as unavoidably draw with them damnation upon all that hold them for all doe not so 53 Yea but you say it is very requisite we should agree upon a particular Catalogue of Fundamentall points for without such a Catalogue no man can be assured whether or no he hath faith sufficient to salvation This I utterly deny as a thing evidently false and I wonder you should content your selfe magisterially to say so without offering any proof of it I might much more justly think it enough barely to deny it without refutation but I will not Thus therefore I argue against it Without being able to make a Catalogue of Fundamentals I may be assured of the Truth of this Assertion if it be true That the Scripture containes all necessary points of faith and know that I belieue explicitely all that is exprest in Scripture and implicitely all that is contained in them Now he that belieues all this must of necessity believe all things necessary Therefore without being able to make a Catalogue of Fundamentals I may be assured that I belieue all things necessary and consequently that my faith is sufficient I said of the truth of this Assertion if it be true Because I will not here enter into the Question of the truth of it it being sufficient for my present purpose that it may be true and may be believed without any dependance upon a Catalogue of Fundamentalls And therefore if this be all your reason to demand a particular Catalogue of Fundamentalls we cannot but think your demand unreasonable Especially having your selfe expressed the cause of the difficulty of it and that is Because Scripture doth deliver Divine Truths
§ 20. At the first entrance into this Parag. from our own Doctrine That the Church cannot erre in Points necessary it is concluded if we are wise we must for sake it is nothing least we should for sake it in something necessary To which I answer First that the supposition as you understand it is falsely impos'd upon us and as we understand it will doe you no service For when we say that there shall be a Church alwaies some where or other unerring in Fundamentalls our meaning is but this that there shall be alwaies a Church to the very being whereof it is repugnant that it should erre in fundamentals for if it should doe so it would want the very essence of a Church and therefore cease to be a Church But we never annexed this privilege to any one Church of any one Denomination as the Greek or the Roman Church which if we had done and set up some setled certain Society of Christians distinguishable from all others by adhering to such a Bishop for our Guide in fundamentals then indeed and then only might you with some colour though with no certainty haue concluded that we could not in wisdome forsake this Church in any point for feare of forsaking it in a necessary point But now that we say not this of any one determinate Church which alone can perform the office of Guide or Director but indefinitely of the Church meaning no more but this That there shall be alwaies in some place or other some Church that erres not in Fundamentalls will you conclude from hence that we cannot in wisdome forsake this or that the Roman or the Greek Church for feare of erring in Fundamentalls 56 Yea but you may say for I will make the best I can of all your Arguments That this Church thus unerring in Fundamentalls when Luther arose was by our confession the Roman and therefore wee ought not in wisdome to haue departed from it in any thing I answer First that we confesse no such thing that the Church of Rome was then this Church but only a Part of it and that the most corrupted and most incorrigible Secondly that if by adhering to the church we could haue been thus far secured this Argument had some shew of reason But seeing wee are not warranted thus much by any privilege of that Church that She cannot erre fundamentally but only from Scripture which assures us that she doth erre very haynously collect our hope that the Truths she retaines the practise of them may proue an Antidote to her against the Errors which she maintaines in such Persons as in simplicity of heart follow this Absalom wee should then doe against the light of our conscience and so sinne damnably if we should not abandon the profession of her Errours though not Fundamentall Neither can we thus conclude we may safely hold with the church of Rome in all her points for she cannot erre damnably For this is false she may though perhaps she does not But rather thus These points of Christianity which have in thē the nature of Antidotes against the poyson of all sinnes and errours the Church of Rome though otherwise much corrupted still retaines therefore wee hope shee erres not fundamentally but still remaines a Part of the Church But this can be no warrant to us to think with her in all things seeing the very same Scripture which puts us in hope she erres not fundamentally assures us that in many things and those of great moment she erres very grievously And these Errours though to them that believe them wee hope they will not be pernicious yet the professing of them against conscience could not but bring to us certain damnation As for the feare of departing from some fundamentall truths withall while we depart from her errours Happily it might work upon us if adhering to her might secure us from it and if nothing else could But both these are false For first adhering to her in all things cannot secure us from erring in Fundamentals Because though de facto we hope shee does not erre yet we know no privileges she has but she may erre in them herselfe and therefore we had need haue better security hereof then her bare Authority Then secondly without dependance on her at all we may be secured that we doe not erre fundamentally I meane by believing al those things plainly set down in Scripture wherein all things necessary and most things profitable are plainly delivered Suppose I were travelling to London and knew two waies thither the one very safe and convenient the other very inconvenient and dangerous but yet a way to London and that I overtook a Passenger on the way who himselfe believed and would fain perswade me there was no other way but the worse and would perswade me to accompany him in it because I confessed his way though very inconvenient yet a way so that going that way we could not faile of our journies end by the consent of both parties but he believed my way to be none at all therefore I might justly feare least out of a desire of leaving the worst way I left the true and the only way If now I should not bee more secure upon my own knowledge then frighted by this fallacy would you not beg me for a fool Iust so might you think of us if we would bee frighted out of our own knowledge by this bugbeare For the only the main reason why we believe you not to erre in Fundamentalls is your holding the Doctrines of faith in Christ and Repentance which knowing we hold as well as you notwithstanding our departure from you we must needs know that we doe not erre in Fundamentalls as well as we know that you doe not erre in some Fundamentals therefore cannot possibly feare the contrary Yet let us be more liberall to you and grant that which can never be proved that God had said in plain tearmes The Church of Rome shall never destroy the Foundation but with all had said that it might and would lay much hay and stubble upon it That you should never hold any Errour destructive of salvation but yet many that were prejudiciall to Edification I demand might we haue dispensed with our selves in the believing and professing these Errours in regard of the smalnesse of them Or had it not been a damnable sinne to doe so though the Errours in themselves were not damnable Had we not had as plain direction to depart frō you in some things profitable as to adhere to you in things necessary In the beginning of your Book when it was for your purpose to haue it so the greatnesse or smalnesse of the matter was not considerable the Evidence of the Revelation was all in all But here wee must erre with you in small things for feare of loosing your direction in greater and for feare of departing too far from you not goe from you at all even where we
the infallible guide of Faith You will confesse I presume he doth not and will pretend it was not necessary Yet if the King should tell us the Lord Keeper should judge such and such causes but should either not tell us at all or tell us but doubtfully who should be Lord Keeper should we be any thing the neerer for him to an end of contentions Nay rather would not the dissentions about the Person who it is increase contentions rather then end them Iust so it would have been if God had appointed a Church tobe judge of Controversies and had not told us which was that Church Seeing therefore God does nothing in vain and seeing it had been in vain to appoint a judge of Controversies and not to tell us plainly who it is and seeing lastly he hath not told us plainly no not at all who it is is it not evident he hath appointed none Ob. But you will say perhaps if it be granted once that some Church of one denomination is the infallible guide of faith it will be no difficult thing to prove that yours is the Church seeing no other Church pretends to be so Ans. Yes the Primitive and the Apostolique Church pretends to be so That assures us that the spirit was promised and given to them to lead them into all saving truth that they might lead others Ob. But that Church is not now in the world and how then can it pretend to be the guide of Faith Ans. It is now in the world sufficiently to be our guide not by the Persons of those men that were members of it but by their Writings which doe plainly teach us what truth they were led into and so lead us into the same truth Ob. But these writings were the writings of some particular men and not of the Church of those times how then doth that Church guide us by these writings Now these places shew that a Church is to be our guide therefore they cannot be so avoided Ans. If you regard the conception and production of these writings they were the writings of particular men But if you regard the Reception and approbation of them they may be well called the writings of the Church as having the attestation of the Church to have been written by those that were inspired and directed by God As a statute though pen'd by some one man yet being ratified by the Parliament is called the Act not of that man but of the Parliament Ob. But the words seem cleerly enough to prove that the Church the Present Church of every Age is Vniversally infallible Ans. For my part I know I am as willing and desirous that the Bishop or Church of Rome should be infallible provided I might know it as they are to be so esteemed But he that would not be deceived must take heed that he take not his desire that a thing should be so for a reason that it is so For if you look upon Scripture through such spectacles as these they will appeare to you of what colour pleases your fancies best and will seem to say not what they doe say but what you would have them As some say the Manna wherewith the Israelites were fed in the Wildernesse had in every mans mouth that very tast which was most agreeable to his palate For my part I professe I have considered them a thousand times and have looked upon them as they say on both sides and yet to me they seeme to say no such matter 70 Not the First For the Church may erre and yet the gates of Hell not prevail against her It may erre and yet continue still a true Church and bring forth Children unto God and send soules to Heaven And therefore this can doe you no service without the plain begging of the point of Question viz. That every errour is one of the gates of Hell Which we absolutely deny and therefore you are not to suppose but to prove it Neither is our denyall without reason For seeing you doe and must grant that a particular Church may hold some errour and yet be still a true member of the Church why may not the Vniversall Church hold the same errour and yet remain the true Vniversall 71 Not the Second or Third For the spirit of Truth may be with a Man or a Church for ever and teach him all Truth And yet he may fall into some errour if this all be not simply all but all of some kind which you confesse to be so unquestioned and certain that you are offended with D. Potter for offering to prove it Secondly he may fall into some errour even contrary to the truth which is taught him if it be taught him only sufficiently and not irresistibly so that he may learne it if he will not so that he must and shall whether he will or no. Now who can ascertain me that the spirits teaching is not of this nature Or how can you possibly reconcile it with your doctrine of free-will in believing if it be not of this nature Besides the word in the Originall is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies to be a guide and director only not to compell or necessitate Who knowes not that a guide may set you in the right way and you may either negligently mistake or willingly leave it And to what purpose doth God complain so often and so earnestly of some that had eyes to see and would not see that stopped their eares and closed their eyes least they should hear and see Of others that would not understand least they should doe good that the light shined and the darknesse comprehended it not That he came unto his own and his own received him not That light came into the world and men loved darknesse more then light To what purpose should he wonder so few believed his report and that to so few his arme was revealed And that when he comes he should find no faith upon earth If his outward teaching were not of this nature that it might be followed and might be resisted And if it be then God may teach and the Church not learn God may lead and the Church be refractory and not follow And indeed who can doubt that hath not his eyes vailed with prejudice that God hath taught the Church of Rome plain enough in the Ep. to the Corinthians that all things in the Church are to be done for edification and that in any publique Prayers or Thanks-givings or Hymnes or Lessons of instruction to use a language which the assistants generally understand not is not for edification Though the Church of Rome will not learne this for feare of confessing an errour and so overthrowing her Authority yet the time will come when it shall appeare that not only by Scripture they were taught this sufficiently and commanded to believe but by reason and common sense And so for the Communion in both kindes who can deny but they are taught it by our Saviour Iohn
of faith was needlesse since we grant it in manner aforesaid But Doctor Potter cannot in his conscience believe that Catholique Divines or the Councell of Trent and the holy Fathers did intend that all points in particular which we are obliged to believe are contained explicitely in the Creed he knowing well enough that all Catholiques hold themselves obliged to believe all those points which the said Councell defines to be believed under an Anathema and that all Christians believe the commandements Sacraments c. which are not expressed in the Creed 11. Neither must this seeme strange For who is ignorant that Summaries Epitomes and the like briefe Abstracts are not intended to specifie all particulars of that Science or Subject to which they belong For as the Creed is said to containe all points of Faith so the Decalogue comprehends all Articles as I may terme them which concerne Charity and good life and yet this cannot be so understood as if we were disobliged froÌ„ performance of any duty or the eschewing of any vice unlesse it be expressed in the ten Commandements For to omit the precepts of receaving Sacraments which belong to practise or manners and yet are not contained in the Decalogue there are many sinnes even against the law of nature and light of reason which are not contained in the tenne Commandements except only by similitude analogy reduction or some such way For example we find not expressed in the Decalogue either divers sinnes as Gluttony Drunkennesse Pride Sloth Covetousnesse in desiring either things superfluous or with too much greedinesse or diuers of our chiefe obligations as Obedience to Princes and all Superiours not only Ecclesiasticall but also Civill whose lawes Luther Melancthon Calvin and some other Protestants doe dangerously affirme not to oblige â—n conscience and yet these men thinke they know the ten Commandements as likewise divers Protestants defend Vsury to be lawfull and the many Treatises of Civilians Canonists and Casuists are witnesses that divers sinnes against the light of reason and Law of nature are not distinctly expressed in the ten Commandements although when by other diligences they are found to be unlawfull they may be reduced to some of the Commandements and yet not so evidently and particularly but that divers doe it in divers manners 12. My third Observation is That our present question being whether or no the Creed containe so fully all fundamentall points of faith that whosoever doe not agree in all and every one of those fundamentall Articles cannot have the same substance of faith nor hope of Salvation if I can produce one or more points not contained in the Creed in vvhich if two doe not agree both of them cannot expect to be saved I shall have performed as much as I intend and D. Potter must seeke our some other Catalogue for points fundamentall then the Creed Neither is it materiall to the said purpose whether such fundamentall points rest only in knowledge and speculation or beliefe or else be farther referred to work and practise For the habit or vertue of Faith which inclineth and enableth us to believe both speculative and practicall verities is of one and the selfe same nature and essence For example by the same Faith whereby I speculatively believe there is a God I likewise believe that he is to be adored served and loved which belong to practise The reason is because the Formall Object or motive for which I yeild assent to those different sorts of materiall objects is the saiâ—â— in both to wit the revelation or word of God Where by the way I note that if the Vnity or Distinction and nature of faith were to be taken from the diversity of things revealed by one faith I should believe speculative verities and by another such as tend to practise which I doubt whether D. Potter himselfe will admit 13 Hence it followeth that whosoever denieth any one main practicall revealed truth is no lesse an Heretique then if he should deny a Point resting in belief alone So that when D. Potter to avoid our argument that all fundamentall points are not contained in the Creed because in it there is no mention of the Sacraments which yet are points of so main importance that Protestants make the due administration of them to be necessary and essentiall to constitute a Church answereth that the Sacraments are to be reckoned rather among the Agenda of the Church then the Credenda they are rather divine rites and ceremonies then Doctrines he either grants what we affirme or in effect saies Of two kinds of revealed truths which are necessary to be believed the Creed containes one sort only ergo it containes all kind of revealed truths necessary to be believed Our question is not de nomine but re not what be called points of faith or of practise but what points indeed be necessarily to be believed whether they be termed Agenda or Credenda especially the chiefest part of Christian perfection consisting more in Action then in barren Speculation in good works then bare belief in doing then knowing And there are no lesse contentions concerning practicall then speculative truths as Sacraments obtaining remission of sinne Invocation of Saints Prayers for dead Adoration of Christ in the Sacrament and many other all which doe so much the more import as on them beside righâ— belief doth also depend our practise and the ordering of our life Though D. Potter could therefore give us as he will never be able to doe a minute and exact Catalogue of all truths to be believed that would not make me able enough to know whether or no I have faith sufficient for salvation till he also did bring in a particular List of all believed truths which tend to practise declaring which of them be fundamentall which not that so every man might know whether he be not in some Damnable Errour for some Article of faith which farther might give influence into Damnable works 14 These Observations being premised I come to prove that the Creed doth not contain all points of Faith necessary to be known and believed And to omit that in generall it doth noâ— tell us what points be fundamentall or not fundamentall which in the way of Protestants is most necessary to be known in particular there is no mention of the greatest evills from which mans calamity proceeded I mean the sinne of the Angels of Adam and of Originall sinne in us nor of the greatest good from which we expect all good to wit the necessity of Grace for all works tending to piety Nay there is no mention of Angels good or bad The meaning of that most generall head Oporter accedentem c. It behoves him that comes to God to believe that he is and is a remunerator is questioned by the deniall of Merit which makes God a Giver but not a Rewarder It is not expressed whether the Article of Remission of sinnes be understood by faith alone or else
may admit the efficiency of Sacraments There is no mention of Ecclesiasticall Apostolicall Divine Traditions one way or other or of holy Scriptures in generall and much lesse of every book in particular nor of the Name Nature Number Effects Matter Forme Minister Intention Necessity of Sacraments and yet the due Administration of Sacraments is with Protestants an essentiall Note of the Church There is nothing for Baptisme of Children nor against Rebaptization There is no mention in favour or against the Sacrifice of the Masse of Power in the Church to institute Rites Holy daies c. and to inflict Excommunication or other Censures of Priesthood Bishops and the whole Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy which are very fundamentall points of S. Peters Primacy which to Calvin seemeth a fundamentall errour nor of the possibility or impossibility to keep Gods commandements of the procession of the holy Ghost from the Father and the Sonne of Purgatory or Prayer for the dead in any sense And yet D. Potter doth not deny but that Aerius was esteemed an Heretique for denying all sort of Commemoration for the dead Nothing of the Churches Visibility or Invisibility Fallibility or Infallibility nor of other points controverted betwixt Protestants themseves and between Protestants and Catholiques which to D. Potter seem so hainous corruptions that they cannot without damnation joyne with us in profession thereof There is no mention of the Cessation of the Old Law which yet is a very main point of faith And many other might be also added 15. But what need we labour to specify particulars There are as many important points of faith not expressed in the Creed as since the worlds begining now and for all future times there have been are and may be innumerable grosse damnable Heresies whose contrary truths are not contained in the Creed For every fundamentall Error must have a contrary fundamentall truth because of two contradictory propositions in the same degree the one is false the other must be true As for example if it be a damnable error to deny the Bâ— Trinity or the Godhead of our Saviour the belief of them must be a truth necessary to Salvation or rather if we will speak properly the Error is damnable because the opposite Truth is necessary as death is frightfull because life is sweet and according to Philosophy the Privation is measured by the Forme to which it is repugnant If therefore the Creed contain in particular all fundamentall points of faith it must explicitely or by cleer consequence comprehend all truths opposite to innumerable Heresies of all ages past present and to come which no man in his wits will affirme it to doe 16 And here I cannot omit to signify how you applaud the saying of D. Vsher. That in those propositions which without all controversy are universally received in the whole Christian world so much truth is contained as being joyned with holy Obedience may be sufficient to bring a man to everlasting salvation neither have we cause to doubt but that as many as walk according to this Rule neither overthrowing that which they have builded by superinducing any damnable heresies thereupon nor otherwise vitiating their holy faith with a lewd and wicked conversation peace shall be upon them and upon the Israel of God Now D Potter knowes that the Mystery of the B. Trinity is not universally received in the whole Christian world as appeares in very many Heretiques in Polony Hungary and Transilvania and therefore according to this Rule of D. Vsher approved by D. Potter the deniall of the B. Trinity shall not exclude Salvation 17 Let me note by the way that you might easily have espied a foul contradiction in the said words of D. Vsher by you recited and so much applauded For he supposeth that a man agrees with other Churches in belief which joyned with holy Obedience may bring him to everlasting salvation and yet that he may superinduce damnable heresies For how can he superinduce damnable heresies who is supposed to believe all Truths necessary to salvation Can there be any damnable heresy unlesse it contradict some necessary truth which cannot happen in one who is supposed to believe all necessary Truths Besides if one believing all fundamentall Articles in the Creed may superinduce damnable heresies it followeth that the fundamentall truths contrary to those damnable heresies are not contained in the Creed 18 According to this Modell of D. Potters foundation consisting in the agreement of scarceone point of faith what a strange Church would he make of men concurring in some one of few Articles of belief who yet for the rest should be holding conceits plainly contradictory so patching up a Religion of men who agree only in the Article that Christ is our Saviour but for the rest are like to the parts of a Chimaera having the head of a man the neck of a horse the shoulders of an Oxe the foot of a Lion c. I wrong them not herein For in good Philosophy there is greater repugnancy between assent and dissent affirmation and negation est est non non especially when all these contradictories pretend to rely upon one and the selfe same Motive the infallible Truth of Almighty God then between the integrall parts as head neck c. of a man horse lion c. And thus Protestants are farre more bold to disagree even in matters of faith then Catholique Divines in questions meerely Philosophicall or not determined by the Church And whâ—e thus they stand only upon fundamentall Articles they doe by their own confession destroy the Church which is the house of God For the foundation alone of a house is not a house nor can they in such an imaginary Church any more expect Salvation then the foundation alone of a house is fit to afford a man habitation 19 Moreover it is most evident that Protestants by this Chaos rather then Church doe giue unavoidable occasion of desperation to poore soules Let some one who is desirous to save his soule repaire to D. Potter who maintaines these grounds to know upon whom he may rely in a matter of so great consequence I suppose the Doctors answer will be Vpon the truely Catholique Church She cannot erre damnably What understand you by the Catholique Church Cannot generall Councells which are the Church representatiue erre Yes they may weakly or wilfully misaply or misunderstand or neglect Scripture and so erre damnably To whom then shall I goe for my particular instruction I cannot confer with the united body of the whole Church about my particular difficulties as your selfe affirmes that the Catholique Church cannot be told of private iniuries Must I then consult with every particular person of the Catholique Church So it seemes by what you write in these words The whole militant Church that is all the members of it cannot possibly erre either in the whole faith or any necessary Article of it You say M. Doctour I cannot for my
is explained by other Creeds For these words who spake by the Prophets are no waies contained in the Apostles Creed and therefore contain an Addition not an Explanation thereof 23 But how can it be necessary saith D. Potter for any Christian to haue more in his Creed then the Apostles had and the Church of their times I answer You trifle not distinguish between the Apostles beliefe and that abridgment of some Articles of faith which we call the Apostles Creed and withall you beg the question by supposing that the Apostles believed no more then is contained in their Creed which every unlearned person knowes and belieues and I hope you will not deny but the Apostles were endued with greater knowledge then ordinarie persons 24 Your pretended proof out of the Acts that the Apostles revealed to the Church the whole counsell of God keeping back nothing with your glosse needfull for our salvation is no proofe unlesse you still beg the question and doe suppose that whatsoever the Apostles revealed to the Church is contained in the Creed And I wonder you doe not reflect that those words were by S Paul particularly directed to Pastors and Governours of the Church as is cleere by the other words He called the Ancients of the Church And afterward Take heed to your selues and to the whole flock wherein the holy Ghost hath placed you Bishops to rule the Church And your selfe say that more knowledge is necessary in Bishops and Priests to whom is committed the government of the Church and the care of soules then in vulgar Laicks Doe you think that the Apostles taught Christians nothing but their Creed Said they nothing of the Sacraments Commandements Duties of Hope Charity c. 25 Vpon the same affected ambiguity is grounded your other objection To say the whole faith of those times is not contained in the Apostles Creed is all one as if a man should say this is not the Apostles Creed but a part of it For the faith of the Apostles is not all one with that which we commonly call their Creed Did not I pray you S. Mathew and S. Iohn belieue their writings to be Canonicall Scripture and yet their writings are not mentioned in the Creed It is therefore more then cleere that the Faith of the Apostles is of larger extent then the Apostles Creed 26 To your demand why amongst many things of equall necessity to be believed the Apostles should so diâ—tinctly set down some and be altogether silent of others I answer That you must answer your own demand For in the Creed there be divers points in their nature not fundamentall or necessary to be explicitely and distinctly believed 〈◊〉 aboue wee shewâ—d why are these points which are not fundamentall expressed rather then other 〈◊〉 the same quality Why our Saviours descent to Hell and Buriall expressed and not his Circumcision his Manifestation to the three Kings working of Miracles c. Why did they not expresse Scriptures Sacraments and all fundamentall points of Faith tending to practise as well as those which rest in beliefe Their intention was particularly to deliver such Articles as were fittest for those times concerning the Deity Trinity and Messias as heretofore I haue declared leaving many things to be taught by the Catholique Church which in the Creed we all professe to belieue Neither doth it follow as you infer That as well nay better they might have given no Article but that of the Church sent us to the Church for all the rest For in setting down others besides that and not all they make us believe we haue all when we haue not all For by this kind of arguing what may not be deduced One might quite contrary to your inference say If the Apostles Creed contain all points necessary to salvation what need we any Church to teach us and consequently what need of the Article concerning the Church What need we the Creeds of Nice Constantinople c. Superfluous are your Catechismes wherein besides the Articles of the Creed you adde divers other particulars These would be poore consequences and so is yours But shall I tell you newes For so you are pleased to esteem it We grant your inference thus far That our Saviour Christ referred us to his Church by her to be taught and by her alone For she was before the Creed and Scriptures And she to discharge this imposed office of instructing us hath delivered us the Creed but not it alone as if nothing else were to be believed We haue besides it holy Scripture we haue unwritten Divine Apostolicall Ecclesiasticall Traditions It were a childish argument The Creed containes not all things which are necessary to be believed Ergo it is not profitable Or The Church alone is sufficient to teach us by some convenient meanes Ergo she must teach us without all meanes without Creeds without Councels without Scripture c. If the Apostles had expressed no Article but that of the Catholique Church she must have taught us the other Articles in particular by Creeds or other meanes as in fact we have even the Apostles Creed from the Tradition of the Church If you will believe you have all in the Creed when you have not all it is not the Apostles or the Church that makes you so believe but it is your owne errour whereby you will needs believe that the Creed must contain all For neither the Apostles nor the Church nor the Creed it selfe tell you any such matter and what necessity is there that one meanes of instruction must involve whatsoever is contained in all the rest Wee are not to recite the Creed with anticipated perswasion that it must contain what we imagin it ought for better maintaining some opinions of our own but we ought to say and belieue that it containes what we finde in it of which one Article is to belieue the Catholique Church surely to be taught by her which presupposeth that we need other instruction beside the Creed and in particular we may learn of her what points be contained in the Creed what otherwise and so we shall not be deceaved by believing we haue all in the Creed when we have not all and you may in the same manner say As well nay better the Apostles might haue given us no Articles at all as haue left out Articles tending to practise For in setting down one sort of Articles and not the others they make us belieue we haue all when we haue not all 27 To our argument that Baptisme is not contained in the Creed D. Potter besides his answer that Sacraments belong rather to practise then faith which I haue already confuted and which indeed maketh against himselfe and serveth only to shew that the Apostles intended not to comprize all points in the Creed which we are bound to belieue adds that the Creed of Nice expressed Baptisme by name confesse one Baptisme for the remission of sinnes
the main Question in this businesse is not what divine Revelations are necessary to be believed or not rejected when they are sufficiently proposed for all without exception all without question are so But what Revelations are simply and absolutely necessary to be proposed to the beliefe of Christians so that that Society which does propose and indeed believe them hath for matter of Faith the essence of a true Church that which does not has not Now to this question though not to yours D. Potter's assertion if it be true is apparently very pertinent And though not a full and totall satisfaction to it yet very effectuall and of great moment towards it For the main question being what points are necessary to Salvation and points necessary to Salvation being of two sorts some of simple belief some of Practise and obedience he that gives you a sufficient summary of the first sort of necessary points hath brought you halfe way towards your journies end And therefore that which he does is no more to be slighted as vain and impertinent then an Architects work is to be thought impertinent towards the making of a house because he does it not all himselfe Sure I am if his assertion be true as I believe it is a corollary may presently be deduced from it which if it were imbraced cannot in all reason but doe infinite service both to the truth of Christ and the peace of Christendome For seeing falsehood and errour could not long stand against the power of truth were they not supported by tyranny and worldly advantages he that could assert Christians to that liberty which Christ and his Apostles left them must needs doe Truth a most Heroicall service And seeing the over-valuing of the differences among Christians is one of the greatest maintainers of the Schisme of Christendome he that could demonstrate that only these points of Beliefe are simply necessary to salvation wherein Christians generally agree should he not lay a very faire and firme foundation of the peace of Christendome Now the Corollary which I conceive would produce these good effects and which flowes naturally from D. Potters Assertion is this That what Man or Church soever beleeves the Creed and all the evident consequences of it sincerely and heartily cannot possibly if also he beleeve the Scripture be in any Errour of simple beleife which is offensiue to God nor therefore deserve for any such Errour to be deprived of his life or to be cut off from the Churches Communion and the hope of Salvation And the production of this againe would be this which highly concernes the Church of Rome to think of That whatsoever Man or Church does for any errour of simple beleife depriue any man so qualified as aboue either of his temporall life or liuelyhood or liberty or of the Churches Communion and hope of salvation is for the first uniust cruell and tyrannous Schismaticall presumptuous and uncharitable for the second 13 Neither yet is this as you pretend to take away the necessity of beleeving those verities of Scripture which are not contained in the Creed when once we come to know that they are written in Scripture but rather to lay a necessity upon men of beleeving all things written in Scripture when once they know them to be there written For he that beleeves not all knowne Divine Revelations to be true how does he believe in God Vnlesse you will say that the same man at the same time may not believe God and yet believe in him The greater difficulty is how it will not take away the necessity of beleeving Scripture to be the word of God But that it will not neither For though the Creed be granted a sufficient summary of Articles of meere Faith yet no man pretends that it containes the Rules of obedience but for them all men are referred to Scripture Besides he that pretends to believe in God obligeth himselfe to beleeve it necessary to obey that which reason assures him to be the Will of God Now reason will assure him that beleeves the Creed that it is the Will of God he should beleeve the Scripture even the very same Reason which moves him to beleeve the Creed Vniversall and never failing Tradition having given this Testimony both to Creed and Scripture that they both by the works of God were sealed testified to be the words of God And thus much be spoken in Answere to your first Argument the length whereof will be the more excusable If I oblige my self to say but little to the Rest. 14 I come then to your second And in Answer to it denie flatly as a thing destructive of it self that any Errour can be damnable unlesse it be repugnant immediatly or mediatly directly or indirectly of it self or by accident to some Truth for the matter of it fundamentall And to your example of Pontius Pilat's being Iudge of Christ I say the deniall of it in him that knowes it to be revealed by God is manifestly destructive of this fundamentall truth that all Divine Revelations are true Neither will you find any errour so much as by accident damnable but the rejecting of it will be necessarily laid upon us by a reall beleif of all Fundamentals and simply necessary Truths And I desire you would reconcile with this that which you have said § 15. Every Fundamentall Errour must have a contrary Fundamentall Truth because of two Contradictory propositions in the same degree the one is false the other must be true c. 15 To the Third I Answer That the certainty I have of the Creed That it was from the Apostles and containes the principles of Faith I ground it not upon Scripture and yet not upon the Infallibility of any present much lesse of your Church but upon the Authority of the Ancient Church and written Tradition which as D. Potter hath proved gave this constant Testimony unto it Besides I tell you it is guilty of the same fault which D. Potter's Assertion is here accused of having perhaps some colour toward the proving it false but none at all to shew it impertinent 16 To the Fourth I Answer plainly thus That you finde fault with D. Potter for his Vertues you are offended with him for not usurping the Authority which he hath not in a word for not playing the Pope Certainly if Protestants be faulty in this matter it is for doing it too much and not too little This presumptuous imposing of the senses of men upon the words of God the speciall senses of men upon the generall words of God and laying them upon mens consciences together under the equall penaltie of death and damnation this Vaine conceit that we can speak of the things of God better then in the word of God This Deifying our owne Interpretations and Tyrannous inforcing them upon others This restraining of the word of God from that latitude and generality and the understandings of men from that liberty wherein Christ and Apostles
thus of it how could he have called it A brief comprehension of the faith and a summe of all things to be believed and as it were a signe or cognizance whereby Christians are to be differenced and distinguished from the impious and misbelievers who professe either no faith or not the right If Huntly had been of this mind how could he have said of it with any congruity That the rule of faith is expressely contained in it and all the prime foundations of faith And that the Apostles were not so forgetfull as to omit any prime principall foundation of faith in that Creed which they delivered to be believed by all Christians The words of Filiucius are pregnant to the same purpose There cannot bee a fitter Rule from whence Christians may learn what they are explicitly to belieue then that which is contained in the Creed Which words cannot be justified if all points necessary to be believed explicitely be not comprised in it To this end saith Putean was the Creed compos'd by the Apostles that Christians might haue a forme whereby they might professe themselues Catholiques But certainly the Apostles did this in vain If a man might professe this and yet for matter of faith be not a Catholique 26 The words of Cardinal Richelieu exact this sense and refuse your glosse as much as any of the former The Apostles Creed is the Summary and Abridgment of that faith which is necessary for a Christian These holy persons being by the Commandement of Iesus Christ to disperse themselves over the world and in all parts by preaching the Gospell to plant the faith esteemed it very necessary to reduce into a short summe all that which Christians ought to know to the end that being dispersed into divers parts of the world they might preach the same thing in a short for me that it might be the easier remembred For this effect they called this Abridgment a Symbole which signifies a mark or signe which might serue to distinguish true Christians which imbraced it from Infidels which rejected it Now I would fain know how the composition of the Creed could serue for this end and secure the Preachers of it that they should preach the same thing if there were other necessary Articles not compriz'd in it Or how could it be a signe to distinguish true Christians from others if a man might belieue it all and for want of believing something else not be a true Christian 27 The words of the Author of the consideration of foure heads propounded King Iames require the same sense and utterly renounce your qualification The Symbole is a briefe yet entire Methodicall summe of Christian Doctrine including all points of faith either to bee preached by the Apostles or to be believed by their Disciples Delivered both for a direction unto them what they were to preach and others to belieue as also to discern and put a difference betwixt all faithfull Christians and misbelieving Infidels 28 Lastly Gregory of Valence affirmes our Assertion even in termes The Articles of faith contained in the Creed are as it were the first principles of the Christian faith in which is contained the summe of Evangelicall doctrine which all men are bound explicitely to belieue 29 To these Testimonies of your own Doctors I should haue added the concurrent suffrages of the ancient Fathers but the full and free acknowledgment of the same Valentia in the place aboue quoted will make this labour unnecessary So iudge saith hee the holy Fathers affirming that his Symbole of faith was composed by the Apostles that all might haue a short summe of those things which are to be belieued and are dispersedly contain'd in Scripture 30 Neither is there any discord between this Assertion of your Doctors and their holding themselues oblig'd to belieue all the points which the Councell of Trent defines For Protestants Papists may both hold that all points of beliefe necessary to be known belieued are summ'd up in the Creed and yet both the one the other think themselues bound to belieue whatsoever other points they either know or belieue to be revealed by God For the Articles which are necessary to be known that they are revealed by God may bee very few and yet those which are necessary to be believed when they are revealed and known to be so may be very many 31 But Summaries and Abstracts are not intended to specifie all the particulars of the science or subiect to which they belong Yes if they bee intended for perfect Summaries they must not omit any necessary doctrine of that Science whereof they are Summaries though the Illustration and Reasons of it they may omit If this were not so a man might set down forty or fifty of the Principall definitions and divisions and rules of Logick and call it a Summary or Abstract of Logick But sure this were no more a Summary then that were the picture of a man in little that wanted any of the parts of a man or that a totall summe wherein all the particulars were not cast up Now the Apostles Creed you here intimate that it was intended for a Summary otherwise why talk you here of Summaries and tell us that they need not contain all the particulars of their science And of what I pray may it be a Summary but of the Fundamentals of Christian faith Now you haue already told us That it is most full and compleat to that purpose for which it was intended Lay all this together and I belieue the product will be That the Apostles Creed is a perfect Summary of the Fundamentalls of the Christian faith and what the duty of a perfect Summary is I haue already told you 32 Whereas therefore to disproue this Assertion in divers particles of this Chapter but especially the fourteenth you muster up whole armies of doctrines which you pretend are necessary and not contain'd in the Creed I answer very briefly thus That the doctrines you mention are either concerning matters of practise and not simple beliefe or else they are such doctrines wherein God has not so plainly revealed himselfe but that honest and good men true Lovers of God and of Truth those that desire aboue all things to know his will and doe it may erre and yet commit no sinne at all or only a sinne of infirmity and not destructiue of salvation or lastly they are such Doctrines which God hath plainly revealed and so are necessary to be belieued when they are known to be divine but not necessary to be known believed not necessary to be known for divine that they may be believed Now all these sorts of doctrines are impertinent to the present Question For D. Potter never affirmed either that the necessary duties of a Christian or that all Truths piously credible but not necessary to be believed or that all Truths necessary to bee believed upon the supposall of divine Revelation were specified in the
not deny I presume that S. Peter preached all therefore you must not deny that S. Marke wrote all 42 Our next inquiry let it be touching S. Iohns intent in writing his Gospell whether it were to deliver so much truth as being believed and obeyed would certainly bring men to eternall life or only part of it and to leave part unwritten A great man there is but much lesse then the Apostle who saith that writing last he purposed to supply the defects of the other Evangelists that had wrote before him which if it were true would sufficiently justify what I have undertaken that at least all the four Evangelists have in them all the necessary parts of the Gospell of Christ. Neither will I deny but S. Iohns secondary intent might be to supply the defects of the former three Gospels in some things very profitable But he that pretends that any necessary doctrine is in S. Iohn which is in none of the other Evangelists hath not so well considered them as he should doe before he pronounce sentence of so weighty a matter And for his prime intent in writing his Gospell what that was certainly no Father in the world understood it better then himselfe Therefore let us hear him speak Many other signes saith he also did Iesus in the sight of his Disciples which are not written in this Book But these are written that you may believe that Iesus is Christ the sonne of God and that believing you may have life in his name By these are written may be understood either these things are written or these signes are written Take it which way you will this conclusion will certainly follow That either all that which S. Iohn wrote in his Gospell or lesse then all and therefore all much more was sufficient to make them believe that which being believed with lively faith would certainly bring them to eternall life 43 This which hath been spoken I hope is enough to justify my undertaking to the full that it is very probable that every one of the foure Evangelists has in his book the whole substance all the necessary parts of the Gospell of Christ. But for S. Luke that he hath written such a perfect Gospell in my judgement it ought to be with them that believe him no manner of question Consider first the introduction to his Gospell where he declares what he intends to write in these words For as much as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed amongst us even as they delivered unto us which from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word it seemed good to me also having had perfect understanding of things from the first to write to thee in order most excellent Theophilus that thou mightest know the certainty of those things wherein thou hast been instructed Adde to this place the entrāce to his History of the Acts of the Apostles The former treatise have I made O Theophilus of all that Iesus began both to doe and teach untill the day in which he was taken up Weigh well these two places and then answer me freely and ingenuously to these demands 1. Whether S. Luke does not undertake the very same thing which he saies many had taken in hand 2. Whether this were not to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed amongst Christians 3. Whether the whole Gospell of Christ and every necessary doctrine of it were not surely believed among Christians 4. Whether they which were Eye-witnesses and ministers of the word from the begining delivered not the whole Gospell of Christ 5. Whether he does not undertake to write in order these things whereof he had perfect understanding from the first 6. Whether he had not perfect understanding of the whole Gospell of Christ 7. Whether he doth not undertake to write to Theophilus of all those things wherein he had been instructed 8. And whether he had not been instructed in all the necessary parts of the Gospell of Christ 9. Whether in the other Text All things which Iesus began to doe and teach must not at least imply all the Principall and necessary things 10. Whether this be not the very interpretation of your Rhemish Doctors in their Annotation upon this place 11. Whether all these Articles of the Christian faith without the belief whereof no man can be saved be not the Principall and most necessary things which Iesus taught 12. And lastly whether many things which S. Luke has wrote in his Gospell be not lesse principall and lesse necessary then all and every one of these When you have well considered these proposalls I believe you will be very apt to think if S. Luke be of credit with you That all things necessary to salvation are certainly contained in his writings alone And from hence you will not choose but conclude that seeing all the Christians in the world agree in the belief of what S. Luke hath written and not only so but in all other Books of Canonicall Scripture which were never doubted of in and by the Church the Learned Arch-Bishop had very just and certain ground to say That in these Propositiōs which without Controversy are universally received in the whole Christian world so much truth is contained as being joyned with holy obedience may be sufficient to bring a man to everlasting Salvation and that we have no cause to doubt but that as many as walk according to this rule neither overthrowing that which they have builded by superinducing any damnable Heresy thereupon nor otherwise vitiating their holy faith with a lewd and wicked conversation peace shall be upon them and upon the Israel of God 44 Against this you object two things The one that by this Rule seeing the Doctrine of the Trinity is not received universally among Christians the deniall of it shall not exclude Salvation The other that the Bishop contradicts himselfe in supposing a man may belieue all necessary Truths and yet superinduce some damnable Heresies 45 To the first I answere what I conceive he would whose words I here justify that he hath declared plainly in this very place that he meant not an absolute but a limited Vniversality and speaks not of propositions universally believed by all Professions of Christianity that are but only by all those severall Professions of Christiany that have any large spread in any part of the world By which words he excludes from the universality here spoken of the denyers of the Doctrine of the Trinity as being but a handfull of men in respect of all nay in respect of any of these professions which maintain it And therefore it was a great fault in you either willingly to conceal these words which evacuate your objection or else negligently to oversee them Especially seeing your friend to whom you are so much beholding Paulus Veridicus in his scurrilous and sophisticall Pamphlet against B. Vshers Sermon
hath so kindly offered to lead you by the hand to the observation of them in these words To consider of your Coinopista or communitèr Credenda Articles as you call them universally believed of all these severall Professions of Cristianity which have 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 that your friend whom you so much magnify hath plainly confessed that notwithstanding the Bishops words the denyall of the doctrine of the Trinity may exclude Salvation and therefore in approving and applauding his Answer to the Bishops Sermon you have unawares allowed this Answer of mine to your own greatest objection 46 Now for the foule contradiction which you say the Doctor might easily haue espied in the Bishops saying he desires your pardon for his oversight for Paulus Veridicus his sake who though he set him selfe to finde faults with the Bishops Sermon yet it seemes this hee could not finde or else questionlesse wee should haue heard of it from him And therefore if D. Potter being the Bishops friend haue not been more sharp-sighted then his enemies this he hopes to indifferent judges will seem no unpardonable offence Yet this I say not as if there were any contradiction at all much lesse any foul contradiction in the Bishops words but as Antipherons picture which he thought he saw in the ayre before him was not in the ayre but in his disturb'd phansie◠so all the contradiction which here you descant upon is not indeed in the Bishops saying but in your imagination For wherein I pray lies this foule contradiction In supposing say you a man may believe all Truths necessary to salvation and yet superinduce a damnable Heresie I answer It is not certain that his words doe suppose this neither if they doe does he contradict himselfe I say it is not certain that his words import any such matter For ordinarily men use to speake and write so as here he does when they intend not to limit or restrain but only to repeat and presse illustrate what they haue said before And I wonder why with your Eagles eyes you did not espy another foule contradiction in his words as well as this and say that he supposes a man may walk according to the rule of holy obedience and yet vitiate his holy faith with a lewd and wicked conversation Certainly a lewd conversation is altogether as contradictious to holy obedience as a damnable heresie to necessary truth What then was the reason that you espied not this foule contradiction in his words as well as that Was it because according to the spirit and Genius of your Church your zeal is greater to that which you conceive true doctrine then holy obedience and think simple errour a more capitall crime then sins committed against knowledge and conscience Or was it because your Reason told you that herein he meant onely to repeat and not to limit what he said before And why then had you not so much candour to conceave that he might haue the same meaning in the former part of the disiunction and intend no more but this Whosoever walks according to this rule of believing all necessary Truths and holy obedience neither poisoning his faith of those Truths which he holds with the mixture of any damnable Heresie nor vitiating it with a wicked life Peace shall be upon him In which words what man of any ingenuity will not presently perceive that the words within the parenthesis are only a repetition of and no exception from those that are without S. Athanasius in his Creed tells us The Catholique Faith is this that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Vnity neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the Substance and why now doe you not tell him that he contradicts himselfe and supposes that we may worship a Trinity of Persons and one God in substance and yet confound the Persons or divide the substance which yet is impossible because Three remaining Three cannot be confounded and One remaining One cannot be divided If a man should say unto you he that keeps all the Commandements of God committing no sinne either against the loue of God or the loue of his neighbour is a perfect man Or thus he that will liue in constant health had need be exact in his diet neither eating too much nor too little Or thus hee that will come to London must goe on straight forward in such a way and neither turn to the right hand or to the left I verily belieue you would not finde any contradiction in his words but confesse them as coherent and consonant as any in your Book And certainly if you would look upon this saying of the Bishop with any indifference you would easily perceive it to be of the very same kinde capable of the very same construction And therefore one of the grounds of your accusation is uncertain Neither can you assure us that the Bishop supposes any such matter as you pretend Neither if he did suppose this as perhaps he did were this to contradict himselfe For though there can be no damnable Heresie unlesse it contradict some necessary Truth yet there is no contradiction but the same man may at once belieue this Heresie and this Truth because there is no contradiction that the same man at the same time should believe contradictions For first whatsoever a man believes true that he may and must believe But there haue been some who have believed and taught that contradictions might be true against whom Aristotle disputes in the third of his Metaphysicks Therefore it is not impossible that a man may belieue Contradictions Secondly they which believe there is no certainty in Reason must belieue that contradictions may be true For otherwise there will be certainty in this Reason This contradicts Truth therefore it is false But there be now divers in the world who believe there is no certainty in reason and whether you be of their minde or no I desire to be inform'd Therefore there be divers in the world who believe contradictions may be true Thirdly They which doe captivate their understandings to the beliefe of those things which to their understanding seem irreconcileable contradictions may as well belieue reall contradictions For the difficulty of believing arises not from their being repugnant but from their seeming to be so But you doe captivate your understandings to the beliefe of those things which seem to your understandings irreconcileable contradictions Therefore it is as possible and easie for you to believe those that indeed are so Fourthly some men may be confuted in their errours and perswaded out of them but no mans errour can be confuted who together with his errour doth not believe and grant some true principle that contradicts his Errour for nothing can bee proved to him who grants nothing neither can there be as all men
know any rationall discourse but out of grounds agreed upon by both parts Therfore it is not impossible but absolutely certain that the same man at the same time may believe contradictions Fiftly It is evident neither can you without extream madnesse and uncharitablenesse deny that we belieue the Bible those Books I mean which we believe Canonicall Otherwise why dispute you with us out of them as out of a common Principle Either therefore you must retract your opinion and acknowledge that the same man at the same time may believe coÌ„tradictions or else you will run into a greater inconvenience and be forc'd to confesse that no part of our Doctrine contradicts the Bible Sixtly I desire you to vindicate from contradiction these following Assertions That there should be Length and nothing long Breadth nothing broad Thicknesse and nothing thick Whitenesse nothing white Roundnesse and nothing round Weight and nothing heavy Sweetnesse and nothing sweet Moisture and nothing moist Fluidnesse and nothing flowing many Actions and no Agent Many Passions and no Patient That is that there should be a Long broad thick white round heavy sweet moist flowing active passive nothing That Bread should be turned into the substance of Christ and yet not any thing of the Bread become any thing of Christ neither the matter not the form not the Accidents of Bread be made either the matter or the Forme or the Accidents of Christ. That Bread should be turned into nothing and at the same time with the same action turn'd into Christ and yet Christ should not be nothing That the same thing at the same time should haue its just dimensions and just distance of its parts one from another and at the same time not haue it but all its parts together in one the selfe same point That the body of Christ which is much greater should be contained wholly and in its full dimensions without any alteration in that which is lesser and that not once only but as many times over as there are severall points in the Bread and Wine That the same thing at the same time should bee wholly aboue it selfe and wholly below it selfe within it selfe and without it selfe on the right hand and on the left hand and round about it selfe That the same thing at the same time should moue to and from it selfe and lye still Or that it should be carried from one place to another through the middle space and yet not move That it should be brought from heaven to earth and yet not come out of Heaven nor be at all in any of the middle space between Heaven and Earth That to be one should be to be undivided from it selfe and yet that one and the same thing should be divided from it selfe That a thing may be yet be no where That a Finite thing may be in all places at once That a Body may be in a place and haue there its dimensions colour all other qualities and yet that it is not in the power of God to make it visible and tangible there nor capable of doing or suffering any thing That there should be no certainty in our senses and yet that we should know something certainly yet know nothing but by our seÌ„ses That that which is and was long agoe should now begin to be That that is now to be made of nothing which is not nothing but something That the same thing should be before and after it selfe That it should bee truly and really in a place and yet without Locality Nay that hee which is OmnipoteÌ„t should not be able to give it Locality in this place where it is as some of you hold or if he can as others say he can that it should be possible that the same man for example You or I may at the sametime be awake at London and not awake but asleep at Rome There run or walk here not run or walk but stand still sit or lye along There study or write here doe neither but dine or sup There speak here be silent That he may in one place freez for cold in another burn with heat That he may be drunk in one place and sober in another Valiant in one place and a Coward in another A theef in one place honest in another That he may be a Papist and goe to Masse in Rome A Protestant and goe to Church in England That he may dye in Rome and liue in England or ' dying in both places may goe to Hell from Rome and to Heaven from England That the Body and Soule of Christ should cease to be where it was yet not goe to another place nor be destroyed All these and many other of the like nature are the unavoidable most of them the acknowledged consequences of your doctrine of Transubstantiation as is explained one where or other by your School-men Now I beseech you Sir to try your skill if you can compose their repugnance and make peace between them Certainly none but you shall be Catholique Moderator But if you cannot doe it and that after an intelligible manner then you must give me leave to believe that either you doe not believe Transubstantiation or else that it is no contradiction that men should subjugate their understandings to the belief of contradictions 47 Lastly I pray tell me whether you have not so much Charity in store for the Bishop of Armach and D. Potter as to think that they themselves believe this saying which the one preacht and printed the other reprinted and as you say applauded If you think they doe then certainly you have done unadvisedly either in charging it with a foul contradiction or in saying it is impossible that any man should at once believe contradictions Indeed that men should not assent to contradictions and that it is unreasonable to doe so I willingly grant But to say it is impossible to be done is against every mans experience and almost as unreasonable as to doe the thing which is said to be impossible For though perhaps it may be very difficult for a man in his â—ight wits to believe a contradiction expressed in termes especially if he believe it to be a contradiction yet for men being cowed and awed by superstition to perswade themselves upon slight and triviall grounds that these or these though they seem contradictions yet indeed are not so and so to believe them or if the plain repugnance of them be veil'd and disguis'd a little with some empty unintelligible 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 offerd 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 48 Ad § 18. This Paragraph consists of two immodest untruths obtruded upon us without
shew or shadow of Reason and an evident sophisme grounded upon an affected mistake of the sense of the word Fundamentall 49 The first untruth is that D. Potter makes a Church of men agreeing scarcely in one point of faith of men concurring in some one or few Articles of belief and in the rest holding conceits plainly contradictory Agreeing only in this one Article that Christ is our Saviour but for the rest like to the parts of a Chimaera c. Which I say is a shamelesse calumny not only because D. Potter in this point delivers not his own judgement but relates the opinion of others M. Hooker and M. Morton but especially because even these men as they are related by D. Potter to the constituting of the very essence of a Church in the lowest degree require not only Faith in Christ Iesus the sonne of God and Saviour of the World but also submission to his Doctrine in mind and will Now I beseech you Sir tell me ingenuously whether the doctrine of Christ may be called without blasphemy scarcely one point of Faith or whether it consists only of some one or few Articles of belief Or whether there be nothing in it but only this Article That Christ is our Saviour Is it not manifest to all the world that Christians of all Professions doe agree with one consent in the belief of all those Bookes of Scripture which were not doubted of in the ancient Church without danger of damnation Nay is it not apparent that no man at this time can without hypocrisy pretend to believe in Christ but of necessity he must doe so Seeing he can have no reason to believe in Christ but he must have the same to believe the Scripture I pray then read over the Scripture once more or if that be too much labour the New Testament only and then say whether there be nothing there but scarcely one point of Faith But some one or two Articles of beleif Nothing but this Article onely that Christ is our Saviour Say whether there be not there an infinite number of Divine Verities Divine precepts Divine promises and those so plainly and undoubtedly delivered that if any sees them not it cannot be because he cannot but because he will not So plainly that whosoever submits syncerely to the doctrine of Christ in mind and will cannot possibly but submit to these in act and performance And in the rest which it hath pleased God for reasons best known to himselfe to deliver obscurely or ambiguously yet thus farre at least they agree that the sense of them intended by God is certainly true and that they are without passion or prejudice to endeavour to find it out The difference only is which is that true sense which God intended Neither would this long continue if the walls of separation whereby the Divell hopes to make their Divisions eternall were pulled down and errour were not supported against Truth by humane advantages But for the present God forbid the matter should be so ill as you make it For whereas you looking upon their points of difference and agreement through I know not what strange glasses have made the first innumerable and the other scarce a number the truth is clean contrary That those divine Verities Speculative and Practicall wherein they universally agree which you will have to be but a few or but one or scarcely one amount to many millions i◠an exact account were taken of them And on the other side the Ponts in variance are in comparison but few and those not of such a quality but the Error in them may well consist with the belief obedience of the entire Covenant ratified by Christ between God and man Yet I would not be so mistaken as if I thought the errours even of some Protestants unconsiderable things and matters of no moment For the truth is I am very fearfull that some of their opinions either as they are or as they are apt to be mistaken though not of themselves so damnable but that good and holy men may be saved with thē yet are too frequent occasions of our remisnes and slacknesse in running the race of Christian Profession of our deferring Repentance and conversion to God of our frequent relapses into sinne not seldome of security in sinning consequently though not certain causes yet too frequent occasions of many mens damnation and such I conceive all these doctrines which either directly or obliquely put men in hope of eternall happinesse by any other means saving only the narrow way of sincere and universall obedience grounded upon a true and lively faith These Errours therefore I doe not elevate or extenuate and on condition the ruptures made by them might be composed doe heartily wish that the cement were made of my deerest blood and only not to be an Anathema from Christ Only this I say that neither are their points of agreement so few nor their differences so many as you make them nor so great as to exclude the opposite Parties from being members of one Church Militant joynt heires of the glory of the Church Triumphant 50 Your other palpable untruth is that Protestants are farre more bold to disagree even in matters of faith then Catholique Divines you mean your own in Questions meerely Philosophicall or not determined by the Church For neither doe they differ at all in matters of faith if you take the word in the highest sense and mean by matters of faith such doctrines as are absolutely necessary to Salvation to be believed or not to be disbelieved And then in those wherein they doe differ with what colour or shadow of Argument can you make good that they are more bold to disagree then you are in Questions meerely Philosophicall or not determined by the Church For is there not as great repugnancy between your assent and dissent your affirmation and negation your Est Est Non Non as there is between theirs You follow your Reason in those things wich are not determined by your Church and they theirs in things not plainly determined in Scripture And wherein then consists their greater their farre greater boldnesse And what if they in their contradictory opinions pretend both to rely upon the truth of God doth this make their contradictions ever a whit the more repugnant I had alwaies thought that all contradictions had been equally contradictions and equally repugnant because the least of them are as farre asunder as Est and Non Est can make them and the greatest are no farther But then you in your differences by name about Predetermination the Immaculate Conception the Popes Infallibility upon what other motive doe you rely Doe not you cite Scripture or Tradition or both on both sides And doe you not pretend that both these are the infallible Truths of Almighty God 51 You close up this Section with a fallacy proving forsooth that we destroy by our confession the Church which is the house of God
a venture but desire to have certaine direction to it This supposition therefore being the hinge whereon your whole discourse turnes is the Minerva of your owne Brayne and therefore were it but for this have we not great reason to accuse you of strange immodesty in saying as you doe That The whole discourse inferences which here you have made are either D. Potters own direct assertions or evident consequences cleerely deduced froÌ„ them Especially seeing your proceeding in it is so consonant to this ill beginning that it is in a manner wholly made up not of D. Potters assertions but your owne fictions obtruded on him 54 Ad § 19. To the next Question Cannot Generall Councels erre You pretend he answers § 19. They may erre damnably Let the Reader see the place and he shall finde damnably is your addition To the third demand Must I consult about my difficulties with every particular person of the Catholique Church You answer for him that which is most false that it seemes so by his words The whole militant Church that is all the members of it cannot possibly erre either in the whole faith or any necessary Article of it Which is very certaine for should it doe so it should be the Church no longer But what sense is there that you should collect out of these words that every member of the militant Church must be consulted with By like reason if he had said that all men in the world cannot erre If he had said that God in his own person or his Angels could not erre in these matters you might haue gathered from hence that he laid a necessity upon men in doubt to consult with Angels or with God in his own person or with all men in the world Is it not evident to all sober men that to make any man or men fit to be consulted with besides the understanding of the matter it is absolutely requisite that they may bee spoken with And is it not apparently impossible that any man should speak with all the members of the Militant Church Or if hee had spoken with them all know that he had done so Nay does not D. Potter say as much in plain termes Nay more doe not you take notice that hee does so in the very next words before these where you say he affirmes that the Catholique Church cannot be told of private injuries unlesse you will perswade us there is a difference between the Catholique Church and the whole Militant Church For whereas you make him deny this of the Catholique Church united and affirm it of the Militant Church dispersed into particulars The truth is he speaks neither of united nor dispersed but affirmes simply as appeares to your shame by your own quotations that the Catholique Church cannot bee told of private iniuries and then that the whole Militant Church cannot erre But then besides that the united Church cannot be consulted and the dispersed may what a wild imagination is it and what a strange injustice was it in you to father it upon him I beseech you Sir to consider seriously how far blinde zeal to your superstition hath transported you beyond all bounds of honesty and discretion made you carelesse of speaking either truth or sense so you speak against D. Potter 55 Again you make him say The Prelates of Gods Church meeting in a lawfull Councell may erre damnably and from this collect It remaines then for your necessary instruction you must repaire to every particular member of the Vniversall Church spread over the face of the earth And this is also Pergulapictoris veri nihil omnia ficta The Antecedent false not for the matter of it but that D. Potter saies it And the consequence as far from it as Gades from Gange and as coherent as a rope of sand A generall Councell may erre therefore you must travell all the world over and consult with every particular Christian As if there were nothing else to be consulted with nay as if according to the doctrine of Protestants for so you must say there were nothing to be consulted with but only a Generall Councell or all the world Haue you never heard that Protestants say That men for their direction must consult with Scripture Nay doth not D. Potter say it often in this very Book which you are confuting Nay more in this very page out of which you take this peece of your Cento A Generall Councell may erre damnably are there not these plain words In searches of Truth the Scripture With what conscience then or modesty can you impose upon him this unreasonable consequence yet pretend that your whole discourse is either his own direct assertion or evident consequences cleerely deduc'd from them You adde that yet he teaches as if he contradicted himselfe that the promises of God made to the Church for his assistance are not intended to particular persons but only to the Catholique Church which sure agrees very well with any thing said by D. Potter If it be repugnant to what you said for him falsely what is that to him 56 Neither yet is this to drive any man to desperation unlesse it be such a one as hath such a strong affection to this word Church that he will not goe to heaven unlesse he hath a Church to lead him thither For what though a Councell may erre and the whole Church cannot be consulted with yet this is not to send you on the Fooles Pilgrimage for faith and bid you goe and conferre with every Christian soul man and woman by Sea and by Land close prisoner or at liberty as you dilate the matter But to tell you very briefly that Vniversall Tradition directs you to the word of God and the word of God directs you to Heaven And therefore here is no cause of desperatioÌ„ no cause for you to be so vain and tragicall as here you would seeeme Yet upon supposall you say of this miraculous pilgrimage for faith before I have the faith of Miracles how shall I proceed at our meeting Or how shall I know the man on whom I may securely rely And hereunto you frame this answere for the Doctor Procure to know whether he believe all Fundamentall points of faith Whereas in all the Doctors book there is no such answer to any such question or any like it Neither doe you as your custome is note any page where it may be found which makes mee suspect that sure you have some priuate licence to use Heretiques as you call them at your pleasure and make them answer any thing to anything 57 Wherein I am yet more confirmed by the answer you put in his mouth to your next demand How shall I know whether he hold all Fundamentall points or no For whereas hereunto D. Potter hauing given one Answer fully satisfactory to it which is If he truly believe the undoubted bookes of Canonicall Scriptâ—re he cannot but believe all Fundamentalls and another which is but somethings
necessary and to take in nothing unnecessary 66 Moreover in answer to this demand you tell us that the Doctor beggs the Question supposing that the Apostles believed no more then is contained in their Creed I Answer He supposes no such matter but only that they knew no more necessary Articles of simple belief then what are contained in their Creed So that here you abuse D. Potter and your Reader by taking sophistically without limitation that which is delivered with limitation 67 But this demand of D. Potters was equivalent to a Negation and intended for one How can it be necessary for any Christian to have more in his Creed then the Apostles had All one with this It cannot be necessary c. And this negation of his he inforces with many arguments which he proposes by way of interrogation thus May the Church of after Ages make the narrow way to heaven narrower then our Saviour left it Shall it bee a fault to straiten and encumber the Kings high way with publique nuisances and is it lawfull by adding new Articles to the faith to retrench any thing from the Latitude of the King of Heavens high way to eternall happinesse The yoake of Christ which he said was easy may it be justly made heavier by the Governors of the Church in after Ages The Apostles professe they revealed to the Church the whole Counsell of God keeping back nothing needfull for our Salvation What tyranny then to impose any new unnecessary matters on the faith of Christians especially as the late Popes have done under the high commanding forme Qui non crediderit damnabitur If this may be done why then did our Savlour reprehend the Pharises so sharpely for binding heavy burdens and laying them on mens shoulders And why did he teach them that in vain they worshipped God teaching for doctrines mens Traditions And why did the Apostles call it tempting of God to lay those things upon the necks of Christians that were not necessary 68 All which interrogations seeme to me to containe so many plain and convincing Arguments of the premised Assertion to all which one excepted according to the advise of the best Masters of Rhetorique in such Cases you have answered very discreetly by saying O. But when you write againe I pray take notice of them and if you can devise no faire and satisfying answer to them then be so ingenuous as to grant the Conclusion That no more can be necessary for Christians to beleeve now then was in the Apostles time A conclusion of great importance for the decision of many Controversies the disburdening of the faith of Christ from many incumbrances 69 As for that one which you thought you could fasten upon grounded on the 20. Act. 27. let me tell you plainly that by your Answering this you have shewed plainly that it was wisely done of you to decline the rest You tell D. Potter That needfull for salvation is his glosse which perhaps you intended for a peice of an Answer But good Sir consult the place and you shall find that there S. Paul himself saies that he kept back 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not any thing that was profitable and I hope you will make no difficulty to grant that whatsoever is needfull for salvation is very profitable 70 But then you say This is no proofe unlesse he beg the Question and suppose that whatsoever the Apostles revealed to the Church is contained in the Creed I Answer it is not D. Potter that beggs the Question but you that mistake it which is not here in this particular place Whether all points of simple Beleife necessary for the salvation of the Primitive Christians were contained in the Apostles Symbole for that and the proofes of it follow after in the next § p. 223. of D. Potters Booke but whether any thing can be necessary for Christians to beleeve now which was not so from the beginning D. Potter maintaines the negative and to make good his opinion thus he argues S. Paul declared to the Ephesians the whole Counsell of God touching their Salvation Therefore that which S. Paul did not declare can be no part of the Counsell of God and therefore not necessary And againe S. Paul kept back nothing from the Ephesians that was profitable Therefore he taught them all things necessary to salvation Consider this I pray a little better and then I hope you will acknowledge that here was no Petitio principij in D. Potter but rather Ignoratio Elenchi in you 71 Neither is it materiall that these words were particularly directed by S. Paul to the Pastours of the Church For to say nothing that the point here issuable is not Whom he taught whether Priests or Laymen But how much he taught and whether all things necessary it appeares plainly out of the Text and I wonder you should read it so negligently as not to observe it that though he speaks now to the Pastors yet he speaks of what he taught not only them but also the Laity as well as them I have kept back nothing saies S. Paul that was profitable but have shewed and have taught you publikely and from house to house Testifying I pray observe both to the Iewes and also to the Greeks Repentance towards God Faith towards our Lord Iesus Christ. And a little after I know that yee all among whom I have gone Preaching the Kingdome of God shall see my face no more Wherefore I take you to record this day that I am innocent from the blood of all men for I have kept nothing back but have shewed you all the Counsell of God And againe Remember that by the space of three yeares I ceased not to warne every one night and day with teares Certainly though he did all these things to the Pastours among the rest nay above the rest yet without controversie they whom he taught publikely and from house to house The Iewes and Greeks to whom he testified 1. preach'd Faith and Repentance Those all amongst whom he went preaching the kingdome of Cod Those Every one whom for three yeares together he warned were not Bishops and Pastors only 72 Neither is this to say that the Apostles taught Christians nothing but their Creed nothing of the Sacraments Comandements c. for that is not here the point to be proved but only that they taught them all things necessary so that nothing can be necessary which they did not teach them But how much of this they put into their Creed whether all the necessary points of simple beleife as we pretend or only as you say I know not what is another Question and which comes now to be farther examined D. Potter in confirmation of it besides the authorities which you formerly shifted of with so egregious tergiversation urges fiue severall Arguments 73 The sense of the first is this If all the necessary points of simple beliefe be not compriz'd in the Creed it can no way deserue the name of
you plainly if it be a fault I know not whose it should be but theirs For sure it can be no fault in me to follow such Guides whether â—oever they lead me Now I say they haue led me into this perswasion because they haue given me great reason to belieue it and none to the contrary The reason they haue given me to belieue it is because it is apparent and confest they did propose to themselues in composing it some good end or ends As that Christians might haue a forme by which for matter of faith they might professe themselues Catholiques So Putean out of Th. Aquinas That the faithfull might know what the Christian people is to believe explicitely So Vincent Filiucius That being separated into divers parts of the world they might preach the same thing And that that might serve as a mark to distinguish true Christians from Infidels So Cardinall Richlieu Now for all these and for any other good intent I say it will be plainly uneffectuall unlesse it contain at least all points of simple beliefe which are in ordinary course necessary to be explicitely known by all men So that if it be fault in me to belieue this it must be my fault to belieue the Apostles wise and good men which I cannot doe if I belieue not this And therefore what Richardus de sancto Victore sayes of God himselfe I make no scruple at all to apply to the Apostles and to say Si error est quod credo à vobis deceptus sum If it be an errour which I belieue it is you and my reverend esteem of you and your actions that hath led me into it For as for your suspition That we are led into this perswasion out of a hope that we may the better maintain by it some opinions of our own It is plainly uncharitable I know no opinion I haue which I would not as willingly forsake as keep if I could see sufficient reason to enduce me to believe that it is the will of God I should forsake it Neither doe I know any opinion I hold against the Church of Rome but I haue more evident grounds then this whereupon to build it For let but these Truths bee granted That the authority of the Scripture is independent on your Church dependent only in respect of us upon universall Tradition That Scripture is the only Rule of faith That all things necessary to salvation are plainly delivered in Scripture Let I say these most certain and divine Truths be laid for foundations and let our superstructions bee consequent and coherent to them and I am confident Peace would be restored and Truth maintained against you though the Apostles Creed were not in the world CHAP. V. That Luther Calvin their Associates all who began or continue the separation from the externall Communion of the Roman Church are guilty of the proper and formall sinne of Schisme THE Searcher of all Hearts is witnesse with how unwilling minds we Catholiques are drawen to fasten the denomination of Schismatiques or Heretiques on them for whose soules if they imployed their best blood they judge that it could not be better spent If we rejoyce that they are contistated at such titles our joy riseth not from their trouble or griefe but as that of the Apostles did from the fountaine of Charity because they are contâ—â—stated to repentance that so after unpartiall examination they finding themselves to be what we say may by Gods holy grace begin to dislike what themselves are For our part we must remember that our obligation is to keep within the meane betwixt uncharitable bitternesse and pernicious flattery not yeelding to worldly respects nor offending Christian Modesty but uttering the substance of truth in so Charitable manner that not so much we as Truth and Charity may seeme to speak according to the wholesome advise of S. Gregory Nazianzen in these divine words We doe not affect peace with preiudice of the true doctrine that so we may get a name of being gentle and mild and yet we seek to conserue peace fighting in a lawfull manner and containing our selves within our compasse and the rule of Spirit And of these things my iudgment is and for my part I prescribe the same law to all that deale with soules and treat of true doctrine that neither they exasperate meâ—s minds by harshnesse nor make them haughty or insolent by submission but that in the cause of faith they behave themselves prudently and advisedly and doe not in either of these things exceed the meane With whom aÌ„greeth S. Leo saying It behoveth us in such causes to be most carefull that without noise of contentions both Charity be conserved and Truth maintained 2. For better Methode we will handle these points in order First we will set downe the nature and essence or as I may call it the Quality of Schisme In the second place the greatnesse and grievousnesse or so to tearme it the Quantity thereof For the Nature or Quality will tell us who may without injury be iudged Schismatiques and by the greatnesse or quantity such as finde themselves guilty thereof will remaine acquainted with the true state of their soule and and whether they may conceive any hope of salvation or no. And because Schisme will be found to be a division from the Church which could not happen unlesse there were alwaies a visible Church we will Thirdly prove or rather take it as a point to be granted by all Christians that in all ages there hath beene such a Visible Congregation of Faithfull People Fourthly we will demonstrate that Luther Calvin and the rest did separate themselves from the Communion of that alwaies visible Church of Christ and therefore were guilty of Schisme And fifthly we will make it evident that the visible true Church of Christ out of which Luther and his followers departed was no other but the Roman Church and consequently that both they and all others who persist in the same division are Schismatiques by reason of their separation from the Church of Rome 3 For the first point touching the Nature or Quality of Schisme As the naturall perfection of man consists in his being the Image of God his Creator by the powers of his soule so his supernaturall perfection is placed in fimilitude with God as his last End and Felicity and by having the said spirituall faculties his Vnderstanding and Will linked to him His Vnderstanding is united to God by Faith his Will by Charity The former relies upon his infallible Truth The latter carrieth us to his infinite Goodnesse Faith hath a deadly opposite Heresie Contrary to the Vnion or Vnity of Charity is Separation and Division Charity is twofold As it respects God his Opposite Vice is Hatred against God as it uniteth us to our Neighbour his contrary is Seperation or division of affections and will from our Neighbour Our Neighbour may be considered either as one private person
answerable but already answered The memorandums I would commend to him are these 30 That not every separation but only a causelesse separation from the externall Communion of any Church is the Sinne of Schisme 31 That imposing upon men under pain of Excommunication a necessity of professing known errours and practising known corruptions is a sufficient and necessary cause of separation and that this is the cause which Protestants alleage to justifie their separation from the Church of Rome 32 That to leave the Church and to leave the externall Communion of a Church at least as D. Potter understands the words is not the same thing That being done by ceasing to be a member of it by ceasing to haue those requisites which constitute a man a member of it as faith and obedience This by refusing to communicate with any Church in her Liturgies and publike worship of God This little Armour if it be rightly placed I am perswaded will repell all those Batteries which you threaten shall be so furious 33 Ad § 13. 14. 15. The first is a sentence of S. Austine against Donatus applied to Luther thus If the Church perished what Church brought forth Donatus you say Luther If she could not perish what madnesse moved the sect of Donatus to separate upon pretence to avoid the Communion of bad men Whereunto one faire answer to let passe many others is obvious out of the second observation That this sentence though it were Gospell as it is not is impertinently applied to Luther and Lutherans Whose pretence of separation be it true or be it false was not as that of the Donatists only to avoid the Communion of bad men but to free themselves from a necessity which but by separating was unavoidable of joyning with bad men in their impieties And your not substituting Luther in stead of Donatus in the latter part of the Dilemma as well as in the former would make a suspicious man conjecture that you your selfe took notice of this exception of disparitie between Donatus and Luther 34 Ad § 16. Your second onset drives only at those Protestants who hold the true Church was invisible for many ages Which Doctrine if by the true Church be understood the pure Church as you doe understand it is a certain truth and it is easier for you to declaime as you doe then to dispute against it But these men you say must bee Heretiques because they separated from the Communion of the visible Church and therefore also from the Communion of that which they say was invisible In as much as the invisible Church communicated with the visible 35 Ans. I might very justly desire some proofe of that which so confidently you take for granted That there were no persecuted and oppressed maintainers of the Truth in the daies of our Fore-fathers but only such as dissembled their opinions lived in your Communion And truly if I should say there were many of this condition I suppose I could make my Affirmative much more probable then you can make your Negatiue We read in Scripture that Elias conceived There was none left besides himselfe in the whole kingdome of Israell who had not revolted from God and yet God himselfe assures us that he was deceived And if such a man a Prophet and one of the greatest erred in his judgement touching his own time and his own countrey why may not you who are certainly but a man and subject to the same passions as Elias was mistake in thinking that in former ages in some countrey or other there were not alwaies some good Christians which did not so much as externally bow their knees to your Baal But this answer I am content you shall take no notice of and thinke it sufficient to tell you that if it bee true that this supposed invisible Church did hypocritically communicate with the visible Church in her corruptions then Protestants had cause nay necessity to forsake their Communion also for otherwise they must haue joyn'd with thē in the practise of impieties and seeing they had such cause to separate they presume their separation cannot be schismaticall 36 Yes you reply to forsake the externall Communion of them with whom they agree in faith is the most formall proper sin of Schisme Ans. Very true but I would fain know wherein I would gladly be informed whether I bee bound for feare of Schisme to communicate with those that believe as I doe only in lawfull things or absolutely in every thing whether I am to joyn with them in superstition and Idolatry and not only in a common profession of the faith wherein we agree but in a common dissimulation or abjuration of it This is that which you would haue them do or else forsooth they must be Schismatiques But hereafter I pray remember that there is no necessity of communicating even with true Beleevers in wicked actions Nay that there is a necessity herein to separate from them And then I dare say even you being their judge the reasonablenesse of their cause to separate shall according to my first observation justifie their separation from being schismaticall 37 Arg But the property of Schisme according to D. Potter is to cut off from the hope of salvation the Church from which it separates And these Protestants haue this property Therefore they are Schismatiques 38 Ans. I deny the Syllogisme it is no better then this One Symptome of the Plague is a Feaver But such a man hath a Feaver Therefore he hath the Plague The true conclusiō which issues out of these Premisses should be this Therefore he hath one Symptome of the plague And so likewise in the former therefore they haue one property or one quality of Schismatiques And as in the former instance The man that hath one signe of the plague may by reason of the absence of other requisites not haue the plague So these Protestants may haue something of Schismatiques and yet not be Schismatiques A Tyrant sentencing a man to death for his pleasure and a just judge that condemnes a malefactor doe both sentence a man to death and so for the matter doe both the same thing yet the one does wickedly the other justly What 's the reason because the one hath cause the other hath not In like manner Schismatiques either alwaies or generally denounce damnation to them from whom they separate The same doe these Protestants yet are not Schismatiques The Reason because Schismatiques doe it and doe it without cause and Protestants haue cause for what they doe The impieties of your Church being generally speaking damnable unlesse where they are excus'd by ignorance and expiated at least by a generall repentance In fine though perhaps it may be true that all Schismatiques doe so yet universall affirmatiues are not converted and therefore it followes not by any good Logick that all that doe so when there is just cause for it must be Schismatiques The cause in this matter of separation is
all in all and that for ought I see you never think of But if these rigid Protestants haue iust cause to cut off your Church from the hope of salvation How can the milder sort allow hope of salvation to the Members of this Church Ans. Distinguish the quality of the Persons censur'd and this seeming repugance of their censures will vanish into nothing For your Church may be considered either in regard of those in whom either negligence or pride or worldly feare or hopes or some other voluntary sinne is the cause of their ignorance which I feare is the case of the generality of men amongst you or in regard of those who owe their Errours from Truth to want of capacity or default of instruction either in respect of those that might know the truth and will not or of those who would know the truth but all things considered cannot In respect of those that haue eyes to see and will not see or those that would gladly see but want eyes or light Consider the former sort of men which your more rigid censurers seem especially to reflect upon and the heaviest sentence will not be too heavy Consider the latter and the mildest will not be too milde So that here is no difference but in words only neither are you flattered by the one nor uncharitably censur'd by the other 39 Your next blow is directed against the milder sort of Protestants who you say involve themselves in the sinne of Schisme by communicating with those as you call them exterminating Spirits whom you conceiue your selfe to have proved Schismatiques And now load them further with the crime of Heresie For say you if you held your selves obliged under pain of damnation to forsake the Communion of the Roman Church by reason of her Errours which yet you confesse were not fundamentall shall it not be much more damnable to liue in confraternity with these who defend an Errour of the fayling of the Church which in the Donatists you confesse to haue been properly Hereticall 40 Answ You mistake in thinking that Protestants hold themselves obliged not to communicate with you onely or principally by reason of your Errours and Corruption For the true reason according to my third observation is not so much because you maintaine Errours and Corruptions as because you impose them and will allow your Communion to none but to those that will hold them with you and haue so ordered your Communion that either we must communicate with you in these things or nothing And for this very reason though it were granted that these Protestants held this doctrine which you impute to them And though this Errour were as damnable and as much against the Creed as you pretend Yet after all this this disparity between you and them might make it more lawfull for us to communicate with them then you because what they hold they hold to themselues and refuse not as you doe to communicate with them that hold the contrary 41 Thus we may answer your Argument though both your former Suppositions were granted But then for a second answer I am to tell you that there is no necessity of granting either of them For neither doe these Protestants hold the fayling of the Church from its being but only from its visibility which if you conceive all one then must you conceive that the starres fayle every day and the Sunne every night Neither is it certain that the doctrine of the Churches fayling is repugnant to the Creed For as the truth of the Article of the Remission of sinnes depends not upon the actuall remission of any mans sinnes but upon Gods readinesse and resolution to forgive the sins of all that believe and repent so that although unbeleef or impenitence should be universall and the Faithfull should absolutely fayle from the children of men and the sonne of man should finde no faith on the earth yet should the Article still continue true that God would forgive the sinnes of all that repent In like manner it is not certain that the truth of the Article of the Catholique Church depends upon the actuall existence of a Catholique Church but rather upon the right that the Church of Christ or rather to speak properly the Gospell of Christ hath to be universally believed And therefore the Article may bee true though there were no Church in the world In regard this notwithstanding it remaines still true that there ought to be a Church this Church ought to be Catholique For as of these two Propositions There is a Church in America and There should bee a Church in America The truth of the latter depends not upon the truth of the former so neither does it in these two There is a Church diffused all the world over and There should be a Church diffused all the world over 42 Thirdly if you understand by Errours not fundamentall such as are not damnable it is not true as I haue often told you that we confesse your errours not fundamentall 43 Lastly for your desire that I should here apply an authority of S. Cyprian alleaged in your next number I would haue done so very willingly but indeed I know not how to doe it for in my apprehensiō it hath no more to doe with your present businesse of proving it unlawfull to communicate with these men who hold the Church was not alwaies visible then In nova fert animus Besides I am here again to remember you that S. Cyprians words were they never so pertinent yet are by neither of the parts litigant esteemed any rule of faith And therefore the urging of them and such like authorities serves onely to make Books great and Controversies endlesse 44 Ad § 17. The next Section in three long leaues delivers us this short sense That those Protestants which say they have not left the Churches externall Communion but only her corruptions pretend to doe that which is impossible Because these corruptions were inherent in the Churches externall Communion and therefore he that forsakes them cannot but forsake this 45 Ans. But who are they that pretend they forsooke the Churches corruptions and not her externall communion Some there be that say they have not left the Church that is not ceased to be members of the Church but only left her corruptions some that they have not left the communion but the corruptions of it meaning the internall communion of it and conjunction with it by faith and obedience which disagree from the former only in the manner of speaking for he that is in the Church is in this kinde of communion with it and he that is not in this internall communion is not in the Church Some perhaps that they left not your externall communion in all things meaning that they left it not voluntarily being not fugitivi but fugati as being willing to joyne with you in any act of piety but were by you necessitated and constrained to doe so because you
would not suffer them to doe well with you unlesse they would doe ill with you Now to doe ill that you may doe well is against the will of God which to every good man is a high degree of necessity But for such Protestants as pretend that de facto they forsook your corruptions only and not your externall communion that is such as pretend to communicate with you in your confessions and Liturgies and participation of Sacraments I cannot but doubt very much that neither you nor I have ever met with any of this condition And if perhaps you were led into error by thinking that to leave the Church and to leave the externall communion of it was all one in sense signification I hope by this time you are disabus'd and beginne to understand that as a man may leave any fashion or custome of a Colledge and yet remain still a member of the Colledge so a man may possibly leave some opinion or practise of a Church formerly common to himselfe others and continue still a member of that Church Provided that what he forsakes be not one of those things wherein the essence of the Church consists Whereas peradventure this practise may be so involved with the externall communion of this Church that it may be simply impossible for him to leave this practise and not to leave the Churches externall communion 46 You will reply perhaps That the difficulty lies as well against those who pretend to forsake the Churches corruptions not the Church as against those who say they forsook the Churches corruptions and not her externall communion And that the reason is still the same because these supposed corruptions were inherent in the whole Church and therefore by like reason with the former could not be forsaken but if the whole Church were forsaken 47 Ans. A pretty Sophisme and very fit to perswade men that it is impossible for them to forsake any error they hold or any vice they are subject to either peculiar to themselves or in common with others Because forsooth they cannot forsake themselves and Vices and Errors are things inherent in themselves The deceit lies in not distinguishing between a Locall and a Morall forsaking of any thing For as it were an absurdity fit for the maintainers of Transubstantiation to defend that a man may Locally and properly depart from the Accidents of a subject and not from the subject it selfe So is it also against reason to deny that a man may by an usuall phrase of speech forsake any custome or quality good or bad either proper to himself or common to himselfe with any company and yet never truly or properly forsake either his company or himselfe Thus if all the Iesuits in the Society were given to write Sophistically yet you might leave this ill custome and yet not leave your Society If all the Citizens of a City were addicted to any vanity they might either all or some of them forsake it and yet not forsake the city If all the parts of a mans body were dirty or filthy nothing hinders but that all or some of them might clense themselves and yet continue parts of the body And what reason then in the world is there if the whole Visible Church were overcome with tares and weeds of superstitions and corruptions but that some members of it might reforme themselves and yet continue still true members of the body of the Church and not be made no members but the better by their Reformation Certainly it is so obvious sensible a Truth that this thing is possible that no man in his wits will be perswaded out of it with all the Quirks and Metaphysicks in the World Neither is this to say that a man may keep company with Christopher Potter and not keep company with the Provost of Q. Colledge Nor that a man can avoid the company of a sinner and at the same time be really present with the man who is the sinner which we leave to those Protestants of your invention who are so foolish as to pretend that a man may really separate himselfe from the Churches externall communion as she is corrupted and yet continue in that Churches externall Communion which in this externall Communion is corrupted But we that say only the whole Church being corrupted some parts of it might and did reforme themselves and yet might and did continue parts of the Church though separated from the externall communion of the other parts which would not reforme need not trouble our selves to reconcile any such repugnance For the case put by you of keeping D. Potters company and leaving the company of the Provost of Queens Colledge of leaving a sinners company and not the mans are nothing at all like ours But if you would speak to the point you must shew that D. Potter cannot leave being Provost of Q. Colledge without ceasing to be himselfe or that a sinner cannot leave his sinne without ceasing to be a man or that he that is part of any society cannot renounce any Vice of that society but he must relinquish the society If you would shew any of these things then indeed I dare promise you should find us apt enough to believe that the particular parts of the visible Church could not reforme themselves but they must of necessity become no parts of it But untill we see this done you must pardon us if we choose to believe sense rather then Sophistry 48 In this Paragraph you bring in the sentence of S. Cyprian whereto you refer'd us in the former but why in a cōtroversy of faith doe you cite any thing which is confessed on all hands not to be a rule of faith Besides in my apprehension this sentence of S. Cyprian is in this place and to this purpose meerely impertinent S. Cyprians words are The Church he speaks of the particular Church or Diocesse of Rome being one cannot be within and without If she be with Novatianus she was not with Cornelius But if she were with Cornelius who succeeded Fabianus by lawfull Ordination Novatianus is not in the Church And now having related the words I am only to remember the Reader that your businesse was to prove it impossible For a man to forsake the Churches corruptions and not the Church and then to request him to tell me whether as I said In nova fert animus had not been as much to the purpose 49 Toward the conclusion of this Section you number up your Victories and tell us That out of your discourse it remaineth cleere that this our chiefest Answer changeth the very state of the Question confoundeth internall Acts of the under standing with externoll deeds doth not distinguish between Schisme and Heresy and leaves this demonstrated against us that they Protestants divided themselves from the communion of the Visible Catholique Church because they conceived that she needed Reformation To which Triumphs if any reply be needfull then briefly thus We doe not
yee offend against God by troubling his Church without iust and necessary cause Be it that there are some reasons inducing you to think hardly of our Lawes Are those Reasons demonstrative are they necessary or but meer probabilities only An argument necessary and demonstratiue is such as being proposed to any man and understood the minde cannot choose but inwardly assent Any one such reason dischargeth I grant the conscience and setteth it at ful liberty For the publique approbation given by the body of this whole Church unto those things which are established doth make it but probable that they are good And therefore unto a necessary proofe that they are not good it must giue place This plain declaration of his judgement in this matter this expresse limitation of his former resolution hee makes in the very same Section which affords your former quotation and therefore what Apology can bee made for you and your store-house M. Brerely for dissembling of it I cannot possibly imagine 111 D. Potter p. 131. saies That the errors of the Donatists and Novatians were not in themselves Heresies nor could be made so by the Churches determination But that the Churches intention was only to silence disputes and to settle peace and unity in her government which because they factiously opposed they were justly esteemed Schismatiques From hence you conclude that the same condemnation must passe against the first Reformers seeing they also opposed the commands of the Church imposed on them for silencing all disputes and setling Peace and Vnity in government But this collection is deceitfull and the reason is Because though the first Reformers as well as the Donatists and Novatians opposed herein the Commands of the Visible Church that is of a great part of it yet the Reformers had reason nay necessity to doe so the Church being then corrupted with damnable errors which was not true of the Church when it was opposed by the Novatians and Donatists And therefore though they and the Reformers did the same action yet doing it upon different grounds it might in these merit applause and in them condemnation 112 Ad § 43. The next § hath in it some objections against Luthers person but none against his cause which alone I have undertaken to justify therefore I passe it over Yet this I promise that when you or any of your side shall publish a good defence of all that your Popes have said done especially of them whom Bellarmin beleeves in such a long train to have gone to the Divell then you shall receive an ample Apology for all the actions and words of Luther In the mean time I hope all reasonable and equitable judges will esteeme it not unpardonable in the great and Heroicall spirit of Luther if being opposed and perpetually baited with a world of Furies hee were transported sometimes and made somewhat furious As for you I desire you to be quiet and to demand no more whether God be wont to send such Furies to preach the Gospell Vnlesse you desire to heare of your killing of Kings Massacring of Peoples Blowing up of Parliaments and have a minde to be ask't whether it bee probable that that should bee Gods cause which needs to bee maintained by such Divellish meanes 112 Ad § 44. 45. In the two next Particles which are all of this Chapter that remain unspoken to you spend a great deale of reading wit reason against some men who pretending to honour believe the Doctrine practice of the visible Church you mean your own and condemning their Forefathers who forsook her say they would not have done so yet remain divided from her Communion Which men in my judgement cannot be defended For if they believe the Doctrine of your Church then must they believe this doctrine that they are to returne to your Communion And therefore if they doe not so it cannot be avoided but they must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so I leave them only I am to remember you that these men cannot pretend to be Protestants because they pretend to believe your doctrine which is opposite in Diameter unto the doctrine of Protestants and therefore in a worke which you professe to have written meerly against Protestants all this might have been spared CHAP. VI. That Luther and the rest of Protestants have added Heresie unto Schisme BECAVSE Vice is best knowne by the contrary Vertue we cannot well determine what Heresie is nor who be Heretiques but by the opposite vertue of Faith whose Nature being once understood as farre as belongs to our present purpose we shall passe on with ease to the definition of Heresie and so be able to discerne who be Heretiques And this I intend to doe not by entring into such particular Questions as are controverted between Catholiques and Protestants but only by applying some generall grounds either already proved or else yeelded to on all sides 2 Almighty God having ordained Man to a supernaturall End of Beatitude by supernaturall meanes it was requisite that his Vnderstanding should be enabled to apprehend that End and meanes by a supernaturall knowledge And because if such a knowledge were no more then probable it could not be able sufficiently to overbeare our Will and encounter with human probabilities being backed with the strength of flesh and blood It was further necessary that this supernaturall knowledge should be most certaine and infallible and that Faith should beleeue nothing more certainly then that it self is a most certain Beliefe and so be able to beat downe all gâ—y probabilities of humane Opinion And because the aforesaid Means and end of Beatificall Vision do farre exceed the reach of naturall wit the certainty of faith could not alwaies be joyned with such evidence of reason as is wont to be found in the Principles or Conclusions of humane naturall Sciences that so all flesh might not glory in the arme of flesh but that he who glories should glory in our Lord Moreover it was expedient that our belief or assent to divine truths should not only be unknowne or inevident by any humane discourse but that absolutely also it should be obscure in it self and ordinarily speaking be void even of supernaturall evidence that so we might have occasion to actuate and testifie the obedience which we owe to our God noâ— only by submitting our Will to this Will and Commands but by subjecting also our Vnderstanding to this Wisdome and Words captivating as the Apostle speaks the same Vnderstanding to the Obedience of Faith Which occasion had been wanting if Almighty God had made â—â—â—ere to us the truths which now are certainly but not evidently presented to our minds For where Truth doth manifestly open it self not obedience but necessity commands our assent For this reason Divines teach that the Objects of Faith being not evident to humane reason it is in mans power not only to abstaine from believing by suspending our Iudgments or exercising no act one
by knowledge an apprehension or beliefe But if you take the word properly and exactly it is both false for faith is not knowledge no more then three is foure but eminently contained in it so that he that knowes believes and something more but he that believes many times doe not know nay if he doth barely and meerely believe he doth never know and besides it is retracted by your selfe presently where you require That the object of faith must be both naturally and supernaturally unknown And againe in the next page where you say Faith differs from science in regard of the objects obscurity For that science and knowledge properly taken are Synonimous termes and that a knowledge of a thing absolutely unknown is a plain implicancy I think are things so plain that you will not require any proofe of them 3 But then whereas you adde that if such a knowledge were no more then probable it could not be able sufficiently to over beare our will and encounter with humane probabilities being backed with the strength of flesh and bloud and therefore conclude that it was farther necessary that this supernaturall knowledge should be most certain and infallible To this I answere that I doe heartily acknowledge and believe the Articles of our faith be in themselves Truths as certain and infallible as the very common Principles of Geometry and Metaphysicks But that there is required of us a knowledge of them and an adherence to them as certain as that of sense or science that such a certainty is required of us under pain of damnation so that no man can hope to be in the state of Salvation but he that findes in himselfe such a degree of faith such a strength of adherence This I have already demonstrated to be a great errour and of dangerous and pernitious consequence And because I am more and more confirm'd in my perswasion that the truth which I there delivered is of great and singular use I will here confirme it with more reasons And to satisfy you that this is no singularity of my own my Margent presents you with a Protestant Divine of great authority and no way singular in his opinions who hath long since preached and justified the same doctrine 4 I say that every Text of Scripture which makes mention of any that were weake or of any that were strong in faith of any that were of litle or any that were of great faith of any that abounded or any that were rich in faith of encreasing growing rooting grounding establishing confirming in faith Every such Text is a demonstrative refutation of this vain fancy proving that faith even true and saving faith is not a thing consisting in such an indivisible point of perfection as you make it but capable of augmentation and diminution Every Praier you make to God to encrease your faith or if you conceive such a prayer derogatory from the perfection of your faith The Apostles praying to Christ to encrease their faith is a convincing argument of the same conclusion Moreover if this doctrine of yours were true then seeing not any the least doubting can consist with a most infallible certainty it will follow that every least doubting in any matter of faith though resisted and involuntary is a damnable sinne absolutely destructive so long as it lasts of all true and saving faith which you are so farre from granting that you make it no sinne at all but only an occasion of merit and if you should esteeme it a sinne then must you acknowledge contrary to your owne Principles that there are Actuall sinnes meerely involuntary The same is furthermore invincibly confirmed by every deliberate sinne that any Christian commits by any progresse in Charity that he makes For seeing as S. Iohn assures us our faith is the victory which overcomes the world certainly if the faith of all true Believers were perfect and if true faith be capable of no imperfection if all faith be a knowledge most certain and infallible all faith must be perfect for the most imperfect that is according to your doctrine if it be true must be most certain and sure the most perfect that is cannot be more then most certain then certainly their victory over the World and therefore over the flesh and therefore over sinne must of necessity be perfect and so it should be impossible for any true believer to commit any deliberate sinne and therefore he that commits any sinne must not think himselfe a true believer Besides seeing faith worketh by Charity and Charity is the effect of faith certainly if the cause were perfect the effect would be perfect and consequently as you make no degrees in faith so there would be none in charity and so no man could possibly make any progresse in it but all true believers should be equally in Charity as in faith you make them equall from thence it would follow unavoidably that whosoever findes in himselfe any true faith must presently perswade himselfe that he is perfect in Charity and whosoever on the other side discovers in his charity any imperfection must not believe that he hath any true faith These you see are strange and portentous consequences and yet the deduction of them from your doctrine is cleere and apparent which shewes this doctrine of yours which you would fain have true that there might be some necessity of your Churches infallibility to be indeed plainly repugnant not only to Truth but even to all Religion and Piety fit for nothing but to make men negligent of making any progresse in faith or Charity And therefore I must entreat and adjure you either to discover unto me which I take God to witnesse I cannot perceive some fallacy in my reasons against it or never hereafter to open your mouth in defence of it 5 As for that one single reason which you produce to confirm it it will appeare upon examination to be resolved finally into a groundlesse Assertion of your own contrary to all Truth and experience and that is That no degree of faith lesse then a most certaine and infallible knowledge can bee able sufficiently to overbeare our will and encovnter with humane probabilities being backt with the strength of Flesh and Blood For who sees not that many millions in the world forgoe many times their present ease and pleasure undergoe great and toylsome labours encounter great difficulties adventure vpon great dangers and all this not upon any certain expectation but upon a probable hope of some future gain and commodity and that not infinite and eternall but finite and temporall Who sees not that many men abstain from many things they exceedingly desire not upon any certain assurance but a probable feare of danger that may come after What man ever was there so madly in loue with a present penny but that hee would willingly spend it upon any litle hope that by doing so hee might gain an hundred thousand pound And I would fain know
what gay probabilities you could devise to disswade him from this Resolution And if you can devise none what reason then or sense is there but that a probable hope of infinite and eternall happinesse provided for all those that obey Christ Iesus and much more a firme faith though not so certain in some sort as sense or science may be able to sway our will to obedience and encounter with all those temptations which Flesh and Blood can suggest to avert us from it Men may therefore talke their pleasure of an absolute and most infallible certainty but did they generally believe that obedience to Christ were the only way to present and eternall felicity but as firmly and undoubtedly as that there is such a Citty as Constantinople nay but as much as Caesars Commentaries or the History of Salust I believe the liues of most men both Papists and Protestants would be better then they are Thus therefore out of your own words I argue against you He that requires to true faith an absolute and infallible certainty for this onely Reason because any lesse degree could not be able to overbeare our will c. imports that if a lesse degree of faith were able to doe this then a lesse degree of faith may be true and divine and saving Faith But experience shews and reason confirmes that a firm faith though not so certain as sense or science may be able to encounter and overcome our will and affections And therefore it followes from your own reason that faith which is not a most certain and infallible knowledge may be true and divine and saving faith 6 All these Reasons I haue imployed to shew that such a most certain and infallible faith as here you talk of is not so necessary but that without such a high degree of it it is possible to please God And therefore the Doctrines delivered by you § 25. are most presumptuous and uncharitable viz That such a most certain and infallible faith is necessary to salvation necessitate Finis or Medii so necessary that after a man is come to the use of reason no man ever was or can bee saved without it Wherein you boldly intrude into the judgement seat of God damne men for breaking Lawes not of God's but your own making But withall you cleerly contradict your selfe not only where you affirm That your faith depends finally upon the Tradition of Age to Age of Father to Sonne which cannot be a fit ground but onely for a Morall Assurance nor only where you pretend that not alone Hearing and Seeing but also Histories Letters Relations of many which certainly are things not certain and infallible are yet foundations good enough to support your faith Which Doctrine if it were good and allowable Protestants might then hope that their Histories and Letters and Relations might also passe for means sufficient of a sufficient Certainty and that they should not bee excluded from Salvation for want of such a Certainty But indeed the pressure of the present difficulty compell'd you to speak here what I believe you wil not justify and with a pretty tergiversation to shew D. Potter your means of morall certainty whereas the Objection was that you had no means or possibility of infallible certainty for which you are plainly at as great a losse and as far to seek as any of your Adversaries And therefore it concernes you highly not to damne others for want of it least you involue your selues in the same condemnation according to those terrible words of S. Paul Inexcusabilis es c. In this therefore you plainly contradict your selfe And lastly most plainly in saying as you doe here you contradict and retract your pretence of Charity to Protestants in the beginning of your Book For there you make profession that you haue no assurance but that Protestants dying Protestants may possibly dye with contrition and be saved And here you are very peremptory that they cannot but want a means absolutely necessary to salvation and wanting that cannot but be damned 7 The third Condition you require to faith is that our assent to divine Truths should not only be unknown and unevident by any humane discourse but that absolutely also it should be obscure in it selfe and ordinarily speaking be void even of supernaturall evidence Which words must have a very favourable constructiō or else they will not be sense For who can make any thing of these words taken properly that faith must be an unknown unevident assent or an assent absolutely obscure I had alwaies thought that known and unknown obscure and evident had been affections not of our Assent but the Object of it not of our beliefe but the thing believed For well may wee assent to a thing unknown obscure or unevident but that our assent it selfe should bee called therefore unknown or obscure seems to me as great an impropriety as if I should say your sight were green or blew because you see something that is so In other places therefore I answer your words but here I must answer your meaning which I conceive to be That it is necessary to faith that the Objects of it the points which we belieue should not be so evidently certain as to necessitate our understandings to an Assent that so there might be some merit in faith as you love to speak who will not receive no not from God himselfe but a penny-worth for a penny but as we some obedience in it which can hardly have place where there is no possibility of disobedience as there is not where the understanding does all and the will nothing Now seeing the Religion of Protestants though it be much more credible then yours yet is not pretended to haue the absolute evidence of sense or demonstration therefore I might let this doctrine passe without exception for any prejudice that can redound to us by it But yet I must not forbeare to tell you that your discourse proves indeed this condition requisite to the merit but yet not to the essence of faith without it faith were not an act of obedience but yet faith may bee faith without it and this you must confesse unlesse you will say either the Apostles believed not the whole Gospel which they preached or that they were not eye-witnesses of a great part of it unlesse you will question S. Iohn for saying that which we haue seen with our eyes and which our hands haue handled c. declare we unto you nay our Saviour himselfe for saying Thomas because thou seest thou be lievest Blessed are they which haue not seen and yet haue believed Yet if you will say that in respect of the things which they saw the Apostles assent was not pure proper and meer faith but somewhat more an assent containing faith but superadding to it I will not contend with you for it will bee a contention about words But then again I must crave leave to tell you that the requiring this
condition is in my judgement a plain revocation of the former For had you made the matter of faith either naturally or supernaturally evident it might have been a fitly attēpered duely proportioned object for an absolute certainty naturall or supernaturall But requiring as you doe that faith should be an absolute knowledge of a thing not absolutely known an infallible certainty of a thing which though it is in it selfe yet is it not made appeare to us to be infallibly certain to my understanding you speak impossibilities And truly for one of your Religion to doe so is but a good Decorum For the matter and object of your Faith being so full of contradictions a contradictictious faith may very well become a contradictious Religion Your faith therefore if you please to haue it so let it be a free necessitated certain uncertain evident obscure prudent and foolish naturall and supernaturall unnaturall assent But they which are unwilling to believe non-sense themselves or to perswade others to doe so it is but reason they should make the faith wherewith they believe an intelligible compossible consistent thing and not define it by repugnances Now nothing is more repugnant then that a man should be required to give most certain credit unto that which cannot be made appeare most certainly credible and if it appeare to him to be so then is it not obscure that it is so For if you speak of an acquired rationall discursive faith certainly these Reasons which make the object seem credible must be the cause of it and consequently the strength and firmity of my assent must rise and fall together with the apparent credibility of the object If you speak of a supernaturall infused faith then you either suppose it infused by the former meanes and then that which was said before must be said again for whatsoever effect is wrought meerly by meanes must beare proportion to and cannot exceed the vertue of the meanes by which it is wrought As nothing by water can be made more cold then water nor by fire more hot then fire nor by honey more sweet then honey nor by gall more bitter then gall Or if you will suppose it infused without meanes then that power which infuseth into the understanding assent which beares analogie to sight in the eye must also infuse evidence that is Visibilitie into the Object look what degree of assent is infus'd into the understanding at least the same degree of evidence must be infused into the Object And for you to require a strength of credit beyond the appearance of the objects credibility is all one as if you should require me to goe ten miles an houre upon a horse that will goe but fiue to discern a man certainly through a myst or cloud that makes him not certainly discernable To heare a sound more cleerly then it is audible to understand a thing more fully then it is intelligible and he that doth so I may well expect that his next injunction will be that I must see something that is invisible heare something inaudible understand something that is wholly unintelligible For he that demands ten of me knowing I haue but five does in effect as if he demanded five knowing that I have none and by like reason you requiring that I should see things farther then they are visible require I should see something invisible and in requiring that I believe something more firmly then it is made to mee evidently credible you require in effect that I believe something which appeares to me incredible and while it does so I deny not but that I am bound to believe the truth of many Texts of Scripture the sense whereof is to me obscure the truth of many Articles of faith the manner whereof is obscure and to humane understandings incomprehensible But then it is to be observed that not the sense of such Texts not the manner of these things is that which I am bound to believe but the truth of them But that I should believe the truth of any thing the truth whereof cannot bee made evident with an evidence proportionable to the degree of faith required of me this I say for any man to be bound to is unjust and unreasonable because to doe it is impossible 8 Ad § 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Yet though I deny that it is required of us to be certain in the highest degree infallibly certain of the truth of the things which we believe for this were to know not believe neither is it possible unlesse our evidence of it be it naturall or supernaturall were of the highest degree yet I deny not but that wee are to believe the Religion of Christ we are and may be infallibly certain For first this is most certain that we are in all things to doe according to wisdome and reason rather then against it Secondly this is as certain That wisdome and Reason require that wee should believe these things which are by many degrees more credible and probable then the contrary Thirdly this is as certain that to every man who considers impartially what great things may be said for the truth of Christianity and what poore things they are which may be said against it either for any other Religion or for none at all it cannot but appear by many degrees more credible that Christian Religiō is true then the contrary And from all these premises this conclusion evidently followes that it is infallibly certain that we are firmely to beleeve the truth of Christian Religion 9 Your discourse therefore touching the fourth requisite to faith which is Prudence I admit so farre as to grant 1. That if we were required to believe with certainty I mean a Morall certainty things no way represented as infallible and certain I mean morally an unreasonable obedience were required of us And so likewise were it were we required to believe as absolutely certain that which is no way represented to us as absolutely certain 2. That whom God obligeth to believe any thing he will not fail to furnish their understandings with such inducements as are sufficient if they be not negligent or perverse to perswade them to believe 3. That there is an abundance of Arguments exceedingly credible inducing men to believe the Truth of Christianity I say so credible that though they cannot make us evidently see what we believe yet they evidently convince that in true wisdome and prudence the Articles of it deserve credit and ought to be accepted as things revealed by God 4. That without such reasons and inducements our choice even of the true faith is not to be commended as prudent but to be condemned of rashnesse and levity 10 But then for your making Prudence not only a commendation of a believer and a justification of his faith but also essentiall to it and part of the definition of it in that questionlesse you were mistaken and have done as if being to say
the Popes proceedings just but rather the contrary For though they setled an uniformity in this matter yet they setled it as a matter formerly indifferent not as a matter of faith or necessity as it is evident out of Athanasius consequently they rather declare Victors proceeding unjust who excommunicated so many Churches for differing from him in an indifferent matter m It seemes then Polycrates might be a Saint and a Martyr and yet think the commands of the Roman Church enjoyned upon pain of damnation contrary to the commandements of God Besides S. Peter himselfe the head of the Church the Vicar of Christ as you pretend made this very answer to the High Priest yet I hope you will not say he was his inferior and obliged to obey him Lastly who sees not that when the Pope commandes us any thing unjust as to communicate Lay men in one kinde to use the Latine service we may very fitly say to him it is better to obey God then men and yet never think of any authority he hath over us n Between requesting and summoning methinkes there should be some difference and Polycrates saies no more but that hee was requested by the Church of Rome to call them and did so Here then as very often the Cardinall is faine to help the dice with a false translation and his pretence being false every one must see that that which he pretends to be insinuated by it is cleerely inconsequent o Polycrates was deceived if he believed it to be against Gods commandement and the Pope deceived as much in thinking it to be Gods commandement for it was neither the one nor the other but an indifferent matter wherein God had not interposed his Authority Neither did the Councell of Nice embrace the censure of Victor by acknowledging his Excommunication to be just and well grounded for which the Cardinall neither doth pretend nor can produce any proofe any way comparable to the fore-alleaged words of Athanasius testifying the contrary though peradventure having setled the observation and reduced it to an uniformity they might excommunicate those who afterward should trouble the Churches peace for an indifferent matter And thus much for Irenaeus 31 I come now to S. Austine and to the first place out of him where he seemes to say that the Succession in the Sea of Peter was the Rock which our Saviour meant when he said upon this Rock c. I answer first we have no reason to be confident of the truth hereof because S. Austine himselfe was not but retracts it as uncertain leaves to the Reader whether he will think that or another more probable Retr l. 1. c. 26. Secondly what he saies of the Succession in the Roman Church in this place he saies it else where of all the Successions in all other Apostolique Churches Thirdly that as in this place he urgeth the Donatists with separation from the Roman Church as an argument of their Error So elsewhere he presseth them with their Separation from other Apostolique Churches nay more from these then from that because in Rome the Donatists had a Bishop though not a perpetuall Succession of them but in other Apostolique Churches they wanted both These scatter'd men saith he of the Donatists Epist. 165. read in the holy bookes the Churches to which the Apostles wrote and have no Bishop in them But what is more perverse and mad then to the Lectors reading these Epistles to say Peace with you and to separate from the peace of these Churches to which these Epistles were written So Optatus having done you as it might seeme great service in upbraiding the Donatists as Schismatiques because they had not Communion with the Church of Rome overthrowes and undoes it all againe and as it were with a spunge wipes out all that he had said for you by adding after that they were Schismatiques because They had not the fellowship of Cōmunion with the seven Churches of Asia to which S. Iohn writes whereof he pronounces confidently though I know not upon what ground 〈◊〉 septem Ecclesias quicquid for is est alienum est Now I pray tell me doe you esteeme the Authority of these Fathers a sufficient assurance that separation from these other Apostolique Churches was a certain marke of Heresy or not If so then your Church hath been for many Ages hereticall If not how is their authority a greater argument for the Roman then for the other Churches If you say they conceived separation from these Churches a note of Schisme only when they were united to the Roman so also they might conceive of the Roman only when it was united to them If you say they urg'd this only as a probable and not as a certain Argument so also they might doe that In a word whatsoever answer you can devise to shew that these Fathers made not separation from these other Churches a mark of Heresy apply that to your own Argument and it will be satisfied 32 The other place is evidently impertinent to the present question nor is there in it any thing but this That Caecilian might contemne the multitude of his adversaries because those that were united with him were more and of more account then those that were against him Had he preferr'd the Roman Church alone before Caecilians enemies this had been litle but something but when other Countries from which the Gospell came first into Africa are joyned in this Patent with the Church of Rome how she can build any singular priviledge upon it I am yet to learne Neither doe I see what can be concluded from it but that in the Roman Church was the Principality of an Apostolique Sea which no man doubts or that the Roman Church was not the Mother Church because the Gospell came first into Africa not from her but from other Churches 33 Thus you see his wordes make very litle or indeed nothing for you But now his Action which according to Cardinall Perrons rule is much more to be regarded then his words as not being so obnoxious to misinterpretatiō I mean his famous opposition of three Bishops of Rome in succession touching the great question of Appeales wherein he and the rest of the African Bishops proceeded so farre in the first or second Milevitan Councell as to decree any African Excommunicate that should appeale to any man out of Africk and therein continued resolute unto death I say this famous Action of his makes cleerely and evidently and infinitely against you For had Boniface and the rest of the African Bishops a great part whereof were Saints and Martyrs believed as an Article of faith that Vnion and Conformity with the doctrine of the Roman Church in all things which she held necessary was a certain note of a good Catholique and by Gods command necessary to Salvation how was it possible they should have opposed it in this Vnlesse you will say they were all so foolish as to believe at once
will let it passe and desire you to give me some peece or shadow of reason why I may not doe all this without a perpetuall Succession of Bishops and Pastours that have done so before me You may judge as uncharitably and speak as maliciously of me as your blind zeale to your Superstition shall direct you but certainly I know and with all your Sophistry you cannot make me doubt of what I know that I doe beleeve the Gospell of Christ as it is delivered in the undoubted books of Canonicall Scripture as verily as that it is now day that I see the light that I am now writing and I beleeve it upon this Motive because I conceive it sufficiently abundantly superabundantly proved to be divine Revelation And yet in this I doe not depend upon any Succession of men that have alwayes beleeved it without any mixture of Errour nay I am fully perswaded there hath been no such Succession aud yet doe not find my self any way weakned in my faith by the want of it but so fully assured of the truth of it that not only though your divels at Lowden doe tricks against it but though an Angell from heaven should gainsay it or any part of it I perswade my self that I should not be moved This I say and this I am sure is true and if you will be so hyperscepticall as to perswade me that I am not sure that I doe beleeve all this I desire you to tell me how are you sure that you beleeve the Church of Rome For if a man may perswade himself he doth beleeve what he doth not beleeve then may you think you beleeve the Church of Rome and yet not beleeve it But if no man can erre concerning what he beleeves then you must give me leave to assure my selfe that I doe beleeve and consequently that any man may beleeve the foresaid truths upon the foresaid motives without any dependance upon any Succession that hath beleeved it alwayes And as from your definition of faith so from your definition of Heresy this phancy may be refuted For questionlesse no man can be an Heretique but he that holds an Heresie and an Heresie you say is a Voluntary Errour therefore no man can be necessitated to be an Heretique whether he will or no by want of such a thing that is not in his power to have But that there should have been a perpetuall Succession of Beleevers in all points Orthodox is not a thing which is in your power therefore our being or not being Heretiques depends not on it Besides what is more certain then that he may make a streight line who hath a Rule to make it by though never man in the world had made any before and why then may not he that beleeves the Scripture to be the word of God and the Rule of faith regulate his faith by it and consequently beleeve aright without much regarding what other men either will doe or have done It is true indeed there is a necessity that if God will have his words beleeved he by his Providence must take order that either by succession of men or by some other meanes naturall or supernaturall it be preserv'd and delivered and sufficiently notified to bee his word but that this should be done by a Succession of men that holds no errour against it certainly there is no more necessity then that it should be done by a Succession of men that commit no sinne against it For if men may preserve the Records of a Law and yet transgresse it certainly they may also preserve directions for their faith and yet not follow them I doubt not but Lawyers at the Barre doe find by frequent experience that many men preserve and produce evidences which being examined of times make against themselves This they doe ignorantly it being in their power to suppresse or perhaps to alter them And why then should any man conceive it strange that an erroneous and corrupted Church should preserve and deliver the Scriptures uncorrupted when indeed for many reasons which I have formerly alleaged it was impossible for them to corrupt them Seeing therefore this is all the necessity that is pretended of a perpetuall Succession of men orthodoxe in all points certainly there is no necessity at all of any such neither can the want of it prove any man or any Church Hereticall 39 When therefore you have produced some proofe of this which was your Major in your former Syllogisme That want of Succession is a certain mark of Heresy you shall then receive a full answer to your Minor We shall then consider whether your indelible Character be any reality or whether it be a creature of your own making a fancy of your own imagination And if it be a thing and not only a word whether our Bishops and Priests have it not as well as yours whether some mens perswasion that there is no such thing can hinder them from having it or prove that they have it not if there be any such thing Any more then a mans perswasion that he has not taken Physick or Poyson will marke him not to have taken it if hee has or hinder the operation of it And whether Tertullian in the place quoted by you speak of a Priest made a Lay-man by just deposition or degradation and not by a voluntary desertion of his Order And whether in the same place he set not some make upon Heretiques that will agree to your Church Whether all the Authority of our Bishops in England before the Reformation was conferr'd on them by the Pope And if it were whether it were the Pope's right or an usurpation If it were his right whether by Divine Law or Ecclesiasticall And if by Ecclesiasticall only whether he might possibly so abuse his power as to deserve to loose it Whether de facto he had done so Whether supposing he had deserved to loose it those that deprived him of it had power to take it from him Or if not whether they had power to suspend him from the use of it untill good caution were put in and good assurance given that if he had it again he would not abuse it as he had formerly done Whether in case they had done unlawfully that took his power from him it may not things being now setled and the present government established be as unlawfull to goe about to restore it Whether it be not a Fallacy to conclude because we believe the Pope hath no power in England now when the King and State and Church hath deprived him upon just grounds of it therefore wee cannot believe that he had any before his deprivation Whether without Schisme a man may not withdraw obediēce from an usurp'd Authority commanding unlawfull things Whether the Roman Church might not give authority to Bishops and Priests to oppose her errors as well as a King gives Authority to a Iudge to judge against him if his cause be bad as well as Traian gave
ages after For example In mutilation of the Communion in having your Service in such a language as the Assistants generally understand nor your offering to Saints your picturing of God your worshipping of Pictures 42 Ad § 24. As for Vniversality of place the want whereof you object to Protestants as a marke of Heresie You have not set down cleerely and univocally what you mean by it whether universality of fact or of right and if of fact whether absolute or comparative and if comparative whether of the Church in comparisō of any other Religion or only of Hereticall Christians or if in comparison of these whether in comparison of all other Sects conjoyn'd or in comparison only of any One of them Nor have you proved it by any good argument in any sense to be a certain mark of Heresy For those places of S. Austine doe not deserve the name And truly in my judgement you have done advisedly in proving it no better For as for Vniversality of right or a right to Vniversality all Religions claime it but only the true has it and which has it cannot be determin'd unlesse it first be determin'd which is the true An absolute Vniversality and diffusion through all the world if you should pretend to all the world would laugh at you If you should contend for latitude with any one Religion Mahumetisme would carry the victory from you If you should oppose your selves against all other Christians besides you it is certain you would be cast in this suit also If lastly being hard driven you should please you selves with being more then any one Sect of Christiās it would presently be replied that it is ūcertain whether now you are so but most certain that the time has been when you have not been so Then when the whole world wondred that it was become Arrian then when Athanasius oppos'd the world and the world Athanasius then when your Liberius having the contemptible paucity of his adherents objected to him as a note of error answered for himselfe There was a time when there were but three opposed the decree of the King and yet those three were in the right and the rest in the wrong then when the Professors of error surpassed the number of the Professors of truth in proportion as the sands of the Sea doe the Starres of the Heaven As S. Austine acknowledgeth then when Vincentius confesseth that the poyson of the Arrians had contaminated not now some certain portion but almost the whole World then when the author of Nazianzens life testifies That the Heresy of Arrius had possessed in a manner the whole extent of the world and when Nazianzen found cause to cry out Where are they who reproach us with our pouerty who define the Church by the multitude and despise the little flock They have the People but we the faith And lastly when Athanasius was so overborn with Sholes floods of Arriās that he was enforc'd to write a Treatise on purpose against those who judge of the truth only by plurality of adherents So that if you had prov'd want of Universality even thus restrained to be an infallible note of Heresy there would have been no remedy but you must have confessed that the time was when you were Heretiques And besides I see not how you would have avoided this great inconvenience of laying grounds and storeing up arguments for Antichrist against he comes by which he may prove his Company the true Church For it is evident out of Scripture and confessed by you that though his time be not long his dominion shall be very large and that the true Church shall be then the woman driven into the wildernesse 43 Ad § 25. 26. The remainder of this Chapter if I would deale strictly with you I might let passe as impertinent to the question now disputed For whereas your argument promises that this whole Chapter shall be imploied in proving Luther the Protestants guilty of Heresy here you desert this question and strike out into another accusation of them that their faith even of the truth they hold is not indeed true faith But put case it were not does it follow that the having of this faith makes them Heretiques or that they are therefore Heretiques because they have this faith Aristotle beleeved there were Intelligences which moved the Spheares he believed this with an humane perswasion and not with a certain obscure prudent supernaturall faith and will you make Aristotle an Heretique because he believed so You believe there was such a man as Iulius Caesar that there is such a City as Constantinople and your beliefe here of has not these qualifications which you require And will you be content that this shall passe for a sufficient proofe that you are an Heretique Heresy you have defin'd above to be a voluntary error but he that believes truth though his belief be not qualified according to your minde yet sure in believing truth he believes no error from hence according to ordinary Logick methinkes it should follow that such a man for doing so cannot be guilty of Heresy 44 But you will say though he be not guilty of Heresy for believing these truths yet if his faith be not saving to what purpose will it be Truly very litle to the purpose of Salvation as litle as it is to your proving Protestants guilty of Heresy But out of our wonted indulgence let us pardon this fault also and doe you the favour to hear what you can say to beget this faith in us that indeed wee have no faith or at least not such a faith without which it is impossible to please God Your discourse upon this point you have I know not upon what policie disjoynted and given us the grounds of it in the begining of the Chapter and the superstructure here in the end Them I have already examined and for a great part of them proved them vain and deceitfull I have shewed by many certain arguments that though the subject matter of our faith be in it selfe most certain yet that absolute certainty of adherence is not required to the essence of faith no nor to make it acceptable with God but that to both these effects it is sufficient if it be firme enough to produce Obedience and Charity I haue shewed besides that Prudence is rather commendable in faith then intrinsecall and essentiall to it So that whatsoever is here said to prove the faith of Protestants no faith for want of certainty or for want of prudence is already answered before it is objected for the foundation being destroyed the building cannot stand Yet for the fuller refutation of all pretences I will here make good that to prove our faith destitute of these qualifications you have produc'd but vain Sophismes and for the most part such arguments as returne most violently upon your selves Thus then you say 45 First that their belief wanteth
true faith defined by the Apostle but an invention of your own 51 And having thus cryed quittance with you I must intreat you to devise for truly I cannot some answer to this argument which will not serve in proportion to your own For I hope you will not pretend that I have done you injurie in setling your faith upon principles which you disclaim And if you alleage this disparity That you are more certain of your principles then we of ours and yet you doe not pretend that your principles are so evident as we doe that ours are what is this to say but that you are more confident then we but confesse you have lesse reason for it For the evidence of the thing assented to be it more or lesse is the reason and cause of the assent in the understanding But then besides I am to tell you that you are here as every where extremely if not affectedly mistaken in the Doctrine of Protestants who though they acknowledge that the things which they beleeve are in themselves as certain as any demonstrable or sensible verities yet pretend not that their certainty of adherence is most perfect and absolute but such as may be perfected and increas'd as long as they walke by faith and not by sight And consonant hereunto is their doctrine touching the evidence of the objects whereunto they adhere For you abuse the world them if you pretend that they hold the first of your two principles That these particular Books are the word of God for so I think you mean either to be in it self evidently certain or of it self and being devested of the motives of credibility evidently credible For they are not so fond as to be ignorant nor so vain as to pretend that all men doe assent to it which they would if it were evidently certain nor so ridiculous as to imagine that if an Indian that never heard of Christ or Scripture should by chance find a Bible in his own Language and were able to read it that upon the reading it hee would certainly without a miracle beleeve it to bee the word of God which he could not chuse if it were evidently credible What then doe they affirm of it Certainly no more then this that whatsoever man that is not of a perverse mind shall weigh with serious and mature deliberation those great moments of reason which may incline him to beleeve the Divine authority of Scripture and compare them with the light objections that in prudence can be made against it he shall not chuse but find sufficient nay abundant inducements to yeeld unto it firme faith and syncere obedience Let that learned man Hugo Grotius speake for all the Rest in his Booke of the truth of Christian Religion which Book whosoever attentively peruses shall find that a man may have great reason to be a Christian without dependance upon your Church for any part of it and that your Religion is no foundation but rather a scandall and an objection against Christianity He then in the last Chapter of his second book hath these excellent words If any be not satisfied with these arguments above-said but desires more forcible reasons for confirmation of the excellency of Christian Religion let such know that as there are variety of things which be true so are there divers waies of proving or manifesting the truth Thus is there one way in Mathematicks another in Physicks a third in Ethicks and lastly another kind when a matter of fact is in question wherein verily we must rest content with such testimonies as are free from all suspition of untruth otherwise down goes all the frame and use of history and a great part of the art of Physick together with all dutifulnesse that ought to be between parents and children for matters of practice can no way else be known but by such testimonies Now it is the pleasure of Almighty God that those things which he would have us to beleeve so that the very beleef thereof may be imputed to us for obedience should not so evidently appear as those things which are apprehended by sense and plaine demonstration but only be so farre forth revealed as may beget faith and a perswasion thereof in the hearts and minds of such as are not obstinate That so the Gospell may be as a touchstone for triall of mens judgments whether they be sound or unsound For seeing these arguments whereof we have spoken have induced so many honest godly and wise men to approve of this Religion it is thereby plain enough that the fault of other mens infidelity is not for want of sufficient testimony but because they would not have that to be had and embraced for truth which is contrary to their wilfull desires it being a hard matter for them to relinquish their honours and set at naught other commodities which thing they know they ought to doe if they admit of Christs doctrine and obey what he hath commanded And this is the rather to be noted of them for that many other historicall narrations are approved by them to be true which notwithstanding are only manifest by authority and not by any such strong proofs and perswasions or tokens as doe declare the history of Christ to be true which are evident partly by the confession of those Iewes that are yet alive and partly in those companies and congregations of Christians which are any where to be found whereof doubtlesse there was some cause Lastly seeing the long duration or continuance of Christian Religion and the large extent thereof can be ascribed to no humane power therefore the same must be attributed to miracles or if any deny that it came to passe through a miraculous manner this very getting so great strength and power without a miracle may be thought to surpasse any miracle 52 And now you see I hope that Protestants neither doe nor need to pretend to any such evidence in the doctrine they beleeve as cannot well consist both with the essence and the obedience of faith Let us come now to the last nullity which you impute to the faith of Protestants and that it is want of Prudence Touching which point as I have already demonstrated that wisdome is not essentiall to faith but that a man may truly beleeve truth though upon insufficient motives So I doubt not but I shall make good that if prudence were necessary to faith we have better title to it then you and that if a wiser then Solomon were here he should have better reason to beleeve the Religion of Protestants then Papists the Bible rather then the Councell of Trent But let us hear what you can say 53 Ad § 31. You demand then first of all What wisdome was it to forsake a Church confessedly very ancient and besides which there could be demonstrated no other Visible Church of Christ upon earth I answer Against God and truth there lyes no presoription and therefore certainly it might be great
thereof Now your Church notwithstanding all this enervates and in a manner dissolves and abrogates many of these precepts teaching men that they are not lawes for all Christians but Counsells of perfection and matters of Supererrogation that a man shall doe well if he doe observe them but he shall not sinne if he observe them not That they are for them who ayme at high places in heaven who aspire with the two sonnes of Zebede to the right hand or to the left hand of Christ But if a man will be content barely to goe to heaven and to be a doore keeper in the house of God especially if he will be content to tast of Purgatory in the way he may obtaine it at any easier purchase Therefore the Religion of your Church is not so holy nor so good as the doctrine of Christ delivered in Scripture and therefore not so likely to come from the Fountaine of holinesse goodnesse 72 Lastly if I follow your Church for my Guide I shall doe all one as if I should follow a Company of blind men in a judgement of colours or in the choice of a way For every unconsidering man is blind in that which he does not consider Now what is your Church but a Company of unconsidering men who comfort themselves because they are a great company together but all of them either out of idlenesse refuse the trouble of a severe tryall of their Religion as if heaven were not worth it or out of superstition fear the event of such a tryall that they may be scrupled and staggered and disquieted by it and therefore for the most part doe it not at all Or if they doe it they doe it negligently and hypocritically and perfunctorily rather for the satisfaction of others then themselves but certainly without indifference without liberty of judgement without a resolution to doubt of it if upon examination the grounds of it prove uncertain or to leave it if they prove apparently false My own experience assures me that in this imputation I doe you no injury but it is very apparent to all men from your ranking doubting of any part of your Doctrine among mortall sinnes For from hence it followes that seeing every man must resolve that he will never commit mortall sinne that he must never examine the grounds of it at all for fear he should be mov'd to doubt or if he doe he must resolve that no motives be they never so strong shall move him to doubt but that with his will and resolution he will uphold himselfe in a firme belief of your Religon though his reason and his understanding faile him And seeing this is the condition of all those whom you esteem good Catholiques who can deny but you are a Company of men unwilling and afraid to understand least you should doe good That have eyes to see and will not see that have have not the love of truth which is only to be known by an indifferent tryall therefore deserve to be given over to strong delusions men that love darknesse more then light in a word that you are the blind leading the blind and what prudence there can be in following such Guides our Saviour hath taught us in saying If the blind lead the blind both shall fall into the ditch 73 There remaines unspoken to in this Section some places out of S. Austin and some sayings of Luther wherein he confesses that in the Papacy are many good things But the former I have already considered and return'd the argument grounded on them As for Luthers speeches I told you not long since that we follow no privat men and regard not much what he saies either against the Church of Rome or for it but what he proves He was a man of a vehement Spirit and very often what he took in hand he did not doe it but over doe it He that will justify all his speeches especially such as he wrote in heat of opposition I believe will have work enough Yet in these sentences though he overreach in the particulars yet what he saies in generall we confesse true and confesse with him that in the Papacy are many good things which have come from them to us but withall we say there are many bad neither doe wee think our selves bound in prudence either to reject the good with the bad or to retain the bad with the good but rather conceive it a high point of wisdome to separate between the pretious and the vile to sever the good from the bad and to put the good in vessels to be kept and to cast the bad away to try all things and to hold that which is good 74 Ad § 32. Your next and last argument against the faith of Protestants is because wanting Certainty and Prudence it must also want the fourth condition Supernaturality For that being a humane perswasion it is not in the essence of it supernaturall and being imprudent and rash it cannot proceed from Divine motion and so is not supernaturall in respect of the cause from which it proceedeth Ans. This litle discourse stands wholly upon what went before and therefore must fall together with it I have proved the Faith of Protestants as certain and as prudent as the faith of Papists and therefore if these be certain grounds of supernaturality our faith may have it as well as yours I would here furthermore be inform'd how you can assure us that your faith is not your perswasion or opinion for you make them all one that your Churches doctrine is true Or if you grant it your perswasion why is it not the perswasion of men and in respect of the subject of it an humane perswasion I desire also to know what sense there is in pretending that your perswasion is not in regard of the object only and cause of it but in nature or essence of it supernaturall Lastly whereas you say that being imprudent it cannot come from divine motion certainly by this reason all they that believe your own Religion and cannot give a wise and sufficient reason for it as millions amongst you cannot must be condemn'd to have no supernaturall faith or if not then without question nothing can hinder but that the imprudent faith of Protestants may proceed from divine motion as well as the imprudent faith of Papists 75 And thus having weighed your whole discourse and found it altogether lighter then vanity why should I not invert your conclusion and say Seeing you have not proved that whosoever erres against any one point of Faith looseth all divine Faith nor that any error whatsoever concerning that which by the Parties litigant may be esteem'd a matter of faith is a grievous sinne it followes not at all that when two men hold different doctrines concerning Religion that but one can be saved Not that I deny but that the sentence of S. Chrysost. with which you conclude this Chapt. may in a good sense be true for oftimes by
the faith is meant only that Doctrine which is necessary to salvation and to say that salvation may be had without any the least thing which is necessary to salvation implyes a repugnance and destroies it selfe Besides not to believe all necessary points and to believe none at all is for the purpose of salvation all one and therefore he that does so may justly be said to destroy the Gospell of Christ seeing he makes it uneffectuall to the end for which it was intended the Salvation of mens soules But why you should conceive that all differences about Religon are concerning matters of faith in this high notion of the word for that I conceive no reason CHAP. VII In regard of the Precept of Charity towards ones self Protestants are in state of Sinne as long as they remain separated from the Roman Church THAT due Order is to be observed in the Theologicall Vertue of Charity whereby we are directed to preferre some Objects before others is a truth taught by all Divines and declared in these words of holy Scripture He hath ordered Charity in me The reason whereof is because the infinite Goodnesse of God which is the formall Obiect or Motive of Charity and for which all other things are loved is differently participated by different Objects and therefore the love we beare to them for Gods sake must accordingly be unequall In the vertue of Faith the case is farre otherwise because all the Objects or points which we believe doe equally participate the divine Testimony or Revelation for which we believe alike all things propounded for such For it is as impossible for God to speake an untruth in a small as in a great matter And this is the ground for which we have so often affirmed that any least errour against Faith is injurious to God and destructive of Salvation 2 This order in Charity may be considered Towards God Our owne soule The soule of our Neighbour Our owne life or Goods and the life or goods of our Neighbour God is to be beloved above all things both objectivè as the Divines speake that is we must wish or desire to God a Good more great perfect and noble then to any or all other things namely all that indeed He is a Nature Infinite Independent Immense c. and also appretiative that is wee must sooner loose what good soever then leave and abandon Him In the other Objects of Charity of which I spake this order is to be kept We may but are not bound to preferre the life and goods of our Neigbour before our owne we are bound to preâ—erre the soule of our Neighbour before our own temporall goods or life if he happen to be in extreme spirituall necessity and that we by our assistance can succour him according to the saying of S. Iohn In this we have knowne the Charity of God because he hath yielded his life for us and we ought to yield our life for our Brethren And S. Augustine likewise saith A Christian will not doubt to loose his owne temporall life for the eternall life of his Neighbour Lastly we are to preferre the spirituall good of our own soule before both the spirituall and temporall good of our Neighbour because as Charity doth of its own Nature chiefly encline the person in whom it resides to love God and to be united with him so of it selfe it enclines him to procure those things whereby the said Vnion with God is effected rather to himselfe then to others And from hence it followes that in things necessary to salvation no man ought in any case or in any respect whatsoever to preferre the spirituall good either of any particular person or of the whole world before his own soule according to those words of our Blessed Saviour What doth it availe a man if he gaine the whole world and sustaine the damage of his own soule And therefore to come to our present purpose it is directly against the Order of Charity or against Charity as it hath a reference to our selves which Divines call Charitas propria to adventure either the omitting of any meanes necessary to salvation or the committing of any thing repugnant to it for whatsoever respect and consequently if by living out of the Roman Church we put our selves in hazard either to want some thing necessarily required to salvation or else to performe some act against it wee commit a most grievous sinne against the vertue of Charity as it respect our selves and so cannot hope for salvation without repentance 3 Now of things necessary to salvation there are two sorts according to the doctrine of all Divines Some things say they are necessary to salvation necessitate praecepti necessary only because they are commanded For If thou wilt enter into life keepe the Commandements In which kind of things as probable ignorance of the Law or of the commandement doth excuse the party from all faulty breach thereof so likewise doth it not exclude salvation in case of ignorance Some other things are said to be necessary to salvation necessitate medij finis or salutis because they are Meanes appointed by God to attaine our End of eternall salvation in so strict a manner that it were presumption to hope for Salvation without them And as the former meanes are said to be necessary because they are commanded so the latter are commonly said to be commanded because they are necessary that is Although there were no other speciall precept concerning them yet supposing they bee once appointed as meanes absolutely necessary to salvation there cannot but arise an obligation of procuring to have them in vertue of that universall precept of Charity which obligeth every man to procure the salvation of his own soule In this sort divine infallible Faith is necessary to salvation as likewise repentance of every deadly sinne and in the doctrine of Catholiques Baptisme in re that is in act to Children and for those who are come to the use of reason in voto or harty desire when they cannot have it in act And as Baptisme is necessary for remission of Originall and Actuall sinne committed before it so the Sacrament of Confession or Pennance is necessary in re or in voto in act or desire for the remission of mortall sinnes committed after Baptisme The Minister of which Sacrament of Pennance being necessarily a true Priest true Ordination is necessary in the Church of God for remission of sinnes by this sacrament as also for other ends not belonging to our present purpose From hence it riseth that no ignorance or impossibility can supply the want of those means which are absolutely necessary to salvation As if for example a sinner depart this world without repenting himselfe of all deadly sinnes although he dye suddenly or unexpectedly fall out of his wits and so commit no new sinne by omission of repentance yet he shall be eternally punished for his former sinnes committed and never repented
found or rather that Company is to be imbraced before all other in which all sides agree that salvation may be found We therefore must inferre that it is safest for you to seeke salvation among us You had good reason to conceal S. Augustins answer to the Donatists 10 You frame another argument in our behalf and make us speake thus If Protestants believe the Religion of Catholiques to be a safe way to Heaven why doe they not follow it which wise argument of your own you answer at large and confirm your answer by this instance The Iesuits and Dominicans hold different Opinions touching Predetermination and the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Yet so that the Iesuits hold the Dominicans way safe that is his error not damnable and the Dominicans hold the same of the Iesuits Yet neither of them with good Consequence can presse the other to believe his opinion because by his own Confession it is no damnable error 11 But what Catholique maketh such a wise demaund as you put into our mouths If our Religion be a safe way to heaven that is not damnable why doe you not follow it As if every thing that is good must be of necessity imbraced by every body But what think you of the Argument framed thus Our Religion is safe even by your Confession therefore you ought to grant that all may imbrace it And yet further thus Among different Religions and contrary waies to heaven one only can be safe But ours by your own Confession is safe whereas we hold that in yours there is no hope of salvation Therefore you may and ought to imbrace ours This is our Argument And if the Dominicans and Iesuits did say one to another as we say to you then one of them might with good consequence press the other to believe his opinion You have still the hard for tune to be beaten with your own weapon 12 It remaineth then that both in regard of Faith and Charity Protestants are obliged to unite themselves with the Church of Rome And I may adde also in regard of the Theologicall Vâ—â—tue of Hope without which none can hope to be saved and which you want either by exâ—â—sse of Confidence or defect by Despair not unlike to your Faith which I shewed to be either â—â—â—cient in Certainty or excessive in EvideÌ„ce as likewise according to the rigid Calvinists it is either so strong that once had it can never be lost or so more then weak and so much nothing that it can never be gotten For the trve Theologicall Hope of Christians is a Hope which keeps a mean between Presumption and Desperation which moves us to work our salvation with feare and trembling which conducts us to make sure our salvation by good works as holy Scripture adviseth But contrarily Protestants doe either exclude Hope by Despaire with the Doctrine that our Saviour died not for all and that such want grace sufficient to salvation or else by vaine Presumption grounded upon a fantasticall persuasion that they are Predestinate which Faith must exclude all feare and trembling Neither can they make their Calling certain by good works who doe certainly beleeve that before any good works they are justified and justified even by Faith alone and that by Faith whereby they certainly believe that they are justified Which points some Protestants doe expresly affirme to be the soule of the Church the principall Origen of salvation Of all other points of Doctrine the chiefest and weightiest as already I have noted Chap. 3. n. 19. And if some Protestants doe now relent from the rigour of the aforesaid doctrine we must affirme that at least some of them want the Theologicall Vertue of Hope yea that none of them can have trve Hope while they hope to be saved in the Communion of those who defend such doctrines as doe directly overthrow all true Christian Hope And for as much as concernes Faith we must also infer that they want Vnity therein and consequently have none at all by their disagreement about the soule of the Church the principall Origen of salvation of all other points of Doctrine the chiefest and weightiest And if you want trve Faith you must by consequence want Hope or if you hold that this point is not to be so indivisible on either side but that it hath latitude sufficient to imbrace all parties without prejudice to their salvation notwithstanding that your Brethren hold it to be the soule of the Church c. I must repeat what I have said heretofore that even by this Example it is cleer you cannot agree what points be fundamentall And so to whatsoever answer you fly I presse you in the same manner and say that haue no Certainty whether you agree in fundamentall points or Vnity and substance of Faith which cannot stand with difference in fundamentalls And so upon the whole matter I leave it to be considered whether Want of Charity can be iustly charged on us because we affirme that they cannot without repentance be saved who want of all other the most necessary meanes to salvation which are the three Theologicall Vertues FAITH HOPE and CHARITY 13 And now I end this first part having as I conceive complyed with my first designe in that measure which Time Commodity scarcity of Books and my own small Abilities could afford which was to shew that Amongst men of different Religions one side only can be saved For since there must be some infallible Meanes to decide all Controversies concerning Religion and to propound truth revealed by Almighty God and this Meanes can be no other but the Visible Church of Christ which at the time of Luthers appearance was only the Church of Rome and such as agreed with her We must conclude that whosoever opposeth himself to her definitions or forsaketh her Communion doth resist God himself whose Spouse she is and whose divine truth she propounds and therefore becoms guilty of Schisme and Heresie which since Luther his Associates and Protestants have done and still continue to doe it is not Want of Charity but abundance of evident cause that forceth us to declare this necessary Truth PROTESTANCIE VNREPENTED DESTROIES SALVATION THE ANSVVER TO THE SEAVENTH CHAPTER That Protestants are not bound by the Charity which they owe to themselves to re-unite themselves to the Roman Church THE first foure Paragraphs of this Chapter are wholly spent in an un-necessary introduction unto a truth which I presume never was nor will be by any man in his right wits either denied or question'd and that is That every man in wisdome and charity to himselfe is to take the safest way to his eternall Salvation 2 The fift and sixt are nothing in a manner but references to discourses already answered by me and confuted in their proper places 3 The seaventh eight ninth tenth and eleventh have no other foundation but this false pretence That we confesse the Roman Church free from damnable error 4 In the
of Salvation to none among you but to those whose ignorance was the cause of their error and no sinne cause of their ignorance and presently after when another project comes in your head you make his words softer then oile towards you you pretend he does and must confesse That your Doctrine containes no damnable error that your Church is certainly a true Church that your way to heaven is a safe way and all these acknowledgements you set down simple and absolute without any restriction or limitation whereas in the Doctor they are all so qualified that no knowing Papist can promise himselfe any security or comfort from them We confesse saith he the Church of Rome to be in some sense a true Church and her errors to some men not damnable we believe her Religion safe that is by Gods great mercy not damnable to some such as believe what they professe But we believe it not safe but very dangerous if not certainly damnable to such as professe it when they believe or if their hearts were upright and not perversly obstinate might believe the contrary Observe I pray these restraining termes which formerly you have dissembled A true Church in some sense not damnable to some men a safe way that is by Gods great mercy not damnable to some And then seeing you have pretended these confessions to be absolute which are thus plainly limited how can you avoid the imputation of an egregious Sophister You quarrell with the Doctor in the end of your Preface for using in his Book such ambiguous tearmes as these in some sort in some sense in some degree and desire him if he make any reply either to forbear them or to tell you roundly in what sort in what sense in what degree he understands these and the like mincing phrases But the truth is he hath not left them so ambiguous and undetermin'd as you pretend but told you plainly in what sense your Church may passe for a true Church viz. In regard we may hope that she retaines those truths which are simply absolutely and indispensably necessary to Salvation which may suffice to bring those good soules to heaven who wanted meanes of discovering their errors this is the charitable construction in which you may passe for a Church And to what men your Religion may be safe and your errors not damnable viz. to such whom Ignorance may excuse and therefore he hath more cause to complain of you for quoting his words without those qualifications then you to finde fault with him for using of them 30 That your Discourse in the 12. § presseth you as forcibly as Protestants I have shewed above I adde here 1. Whereas you say that faith according to rigid Calvinists is either so strong that once had it can never be lost or so more then weak and so much nothing that it can never begotten That these are words without sense Never any Calvinist affirmed that faith was so weak and so much nothing that it can never be gotten but it seemes you wanted matter to make up your Antithesis and therefore were resolved to speak empty words rather then loose your figure Crimina rasis Librat in antithetis doct as posuisse Figuras Laudatur 2. That there is no Calvinist that will deny the Truth of this proposition Christ died for all nor to subscribe to that sense of it which your Dominicans put upon it neither can you with coherence to the received Doctrine of your own Society deny that they as well as the Calvinists take away the distinction of sufficient and effectuall grace and indeed hold none to be sufficient but only that which is effectuall 3. Whereas you say They cannot make their calling certain by good workes who doe certainly believe that before any good works they are justified and justified by faith alone and by that faith whereby they certainly believe they are justified I ans There is no Protestant but believes that Faith Repentance and universall Obedience are necessary to the obtaining of Gods favour and eternall happinesse This being granted the rest is but a speculative Controversy a Question about words which would quickly vanish but that men affect not to understand one another As if a company of Physitians were in consultation and should all agree that three medicines and no more were necessary for the recovery of the Patients health this were sufficient for his direction towards the recovery of his health though concerning the proper and specificall effects of these three medicines there should be amongst them as many differences as men So likewise being generally at accord that these three things Faith Hope Charity are necessary to salvation so that whosoever wants any of them cannot obtain it and he which hath them all cannot faile of it it is not very evident that they are sufficiently agreed for mens directions to eternall Salvation And seeing Charity is a full comprehension of all good workes they requiring Charity as a necessary qualification in him that will be saved what sense is there in saying they cannot make their calling certain by good workes They know what salvation is as well as you and have as much reason to desire it They believe it as heartily as you that there is no good worke but shall have its proper reward and that there is no possibility of obtaining the eternall reward without good workes and why then may not this Doctrine be a sufficient incitement and provocation unto good workes 31 You say that they certainly believe that before any good works they are iustified But this is a calumny There is no Protestant but requires to Iustification Remission of sinnes and to Remission of sinnes they all require Repentance and Repentance I presume may not be denied the name of a good worke being indeed if it be rightly understood and according to the sense of the word in Scripture an effectuall conversion from all sinne to all holinesse But though it be taken for meer sorrow for sinnes past and a bare purpose of amendment yet even this is a good worke and therefore Protestants requiring this to Remission of sinnes and Remission of sinnes to justification cannot with candor be pretended to believe that they are justified before any good worke 32 You say They believe themselves iustified by faith alone and that by that faith whereby they believe themselves iustified Some peradventure doe so but withall they believe that that faith which is alone and unaccompanied with sincere and universall obedience is to be esteem'd not faith but presumption and is at no hand sufficient to justification that though Charity be not imputed unto justification yet is it required as a necessary disposition in the person to be justified and that though in regard of the imperfection of it no man can be justified by it yet that on the other side no man can be justified without it So that upon the whole matter a man may truly and safely say that the
Authority of defining some of you setling it in the Pope himselfe though alone without a Councell Others in a Councell though divided from the Pope Others only in the conjunction of Councell and Pope Others not in this neither but in the acceptation of the present Church Vniversall Lastly others not attributing it to this neither but only to the perpetuall Succession of the Church of all ages of which divided Company it is very evident and undeniable that every former may be and are obliged to hold many things defin'd and therefore necessary which the latter according to their own grounds have no obligation to doe nay cannot doe so upon any firme and sure and infallible foundation THE CONCLVSION ANd thus by Gods assistance and the advantage of a good cause I am at length through a passage rather tireing then difficult arriv'd at the end of my undertaken voyage and have as I suppose made appear to all dis-interessed and unprejudicate readers what in the begining I undertook that a vein of Sophistry and Calumny runs clean through this first part of your book wherein though I never thought of the directions you have been pleas'd to give mee in your Pamphlet entitled a Direction to N. N. yet upon consideration of my answer I finde that I have proceeded as if I had had it alwaies before my eyes and steer'd my course by it as by a card and compasse For first I have not proceeded by a meere destructive way as you call it nor objected such difficulties against your Religion as upon examination tend to the overthrow of all Religion but have shewed that the truth of Christianity is cleerely independent upon the truth of Popery and that on the other side the arguments you urge and the courses you take for the maintenance of your Religion doe manifestly tend if they be closely and consequently followed to the destruction of all religion and lead men by the hand to Atheisme and impiety whereof I have given you ocular demonstrations in divers places of my book but especially in my answer to your direction to N. N. Neither can I discover any repugnance between any one part of my answer and any other though I have used many more judicious and more searching eyes then mine owne to make if it were possible such a discovery and therefore am in good hope that though the musicke I have made be but dull and flat and even downright plain-song yet your curious and criticall eares shall discover no discord in it but on the other side I have charg'd you frequently and very justly with manifest contradiction and retractation of your own assertions and not seldome of the main grounds you build upon and the principall conclusions which you endeavour to maintain which I conceive my selfe to have made apparent even to the â—ye c. 2. § 5. c. 3. § 88. c. 4. § .14 24. c. 5. § 93. c. 6. § 6. 7. 12. 17. c. 7. § 29. and in many other parts of my answer And though I did never pretend to defend D. Potter absolutely and in all things but only so farre as he defends truth neither did D. Potter desire me nor any law of God or man oblige me to defend him any farther yet I doe not finde that I have cause to differ from him in any matter of moment particularly not concerning the infallibility of Gods Church which I grant with him to be infallible in fundamentalls because if it should erre in fundamentalls it were not the Church Nor concerning the supernaturality of Faith which I know believe as well as you to be the gift of God and that flesh blood reveal'd it not unto us but our Father which is in Heaven But now if it were demanded what defence you can make for deserting Ch. Mistaken in the main question disputed between him and D. Potter Whether Protestancy without a particular repentance and dereliction of it destroy Salvation whereof I have convinc'd you I believe your answer would be much like that which Vlysses makes in the Meâ—amorphosis for his running away from his friend Nestor that is none at all For Opposing the Articles of the Church of England the Approbation I presume cleeres my book from this imputation And whereas you give me a Caution that my grounds destroy not the belief of diverse Doctrines which all good Christians believe yea and of all verities that cannot be prov'd by naturall reason I professe syncerely that I doe not know nor believe that any ground laid by me in my whole Book is any way inconsistent with any one such Doctrine or with any verity revealed in the word of God though neuer so improbable or incomprehensible to Naturall Reason and if I thought there were I would deale with it as those primitive converts dealt with their curious Books in the Acts of the Apostles For the Ep. of S. Iames and those other Books which were anciently controverted and are now received by the Church of England as Canonicall I am so farre from relying upon any Principles which must to my apprehension bring with them the deniall of the authority of them that I my selfe believe them all to be Canonicall For the overthrowing the Infallibility of all Scripture my Book is so innocent of it that the Infallibility of Scripture is the chiefest of all my grounds And lastly for Arguments tending to prove an impossibility of all Divine Supernaturall Infallible Faith and Religion I assure my self that if you were ten times more a spider then you are you could suck no poyson from them My heart I am sure is innocent of any such intention and the searcher of all hearts knowes that I had no other end in writing this Book but to confirm to the uttermost of my ability the truth of the Divine and Infallible Religion of our dearest Lord and Saviour Christ Iesus which I am ready to seale and confirm not with my arguments only but my bloud Now these are directions which you have been pleas'd to give me whether out of a fear that I might otherwise deviate from them or out of a desire to make others think so But howsoever I have not to my understanding swarved from them in any thing which puts me in good hope that my Answer to this first Part of your Book will give even to you your self indifferent good satisfaction I have also provided though this were more then I undertook a just and punctuall examination and refutation of your second Part But if you will give your consent am resolv'd to suppresse it and that for divers sufficient and reasonable considerations First because the discussion of the Controversies entreated of in the first Part if we shall think fit to proceed in it as I for my part shall so long as I have truth to reply will I conceive be sufficient employment for us though wee cast off the burden of those many lesser dispuâ—es which remain behind in the Second And perhaps
decreta sedis Apostolicae imo universalis Ecclesiae haec literis sacris confirmata contemnitis aâ—sque ulla dubietate peccatis c Beda lib. 3. Eccl. Hist. c. 25. Erasm. Ep. lib. 15. Ep. ad Gode schalcum Ros. a 2. Cor. 10. b 2. Cor. 10. 5. c Heb. 11. d 1. Cor. 13. v. 12. e 2. Pet. 1. â— 19. f Rom 〈…〉 1. g Psal. 92. h Eccles. 19. 4. i Praescript cap. 28. k Praesc c. 21. 37. l Praes c. 21. m Lib. 3 〈◊〉 haeres cap. 〈◊〉 n 〈…〉 o 1 Cor. 13. 13. p 2. 2. q. 39. 〈…〉 q â—ag 1â—6 r Epist. 50. s De Vnit Eccles cap. 6. t Cont. lit Peâ—il lib. 1. cap. 104. u Anno 3â—1 â—u 2 Spâ—nd w De Vâ—â— Eccleâ— 3. x Ep. 163. y Conc. super gest cum Eâ—â—rit z De doctâ— Chriâ—â— lib. 3. cap. 30. a Cont. Parâ— l. 1. cap. 1. b 2 Ioan. 19. c Act. 15. 2â— d Act. 20. 30. e Lib. adversus haer c. 3â— f Dimiâ— temp cap. 5. h Ep. 57. ad Damas. i Lib. 1. Apoleg k Ibid. lib. 3. l De obitu Satyri fratris m Lib. 1 cp 4. ad Iâ—peraâ—ores n Epist. 55. ad Cornel. o Epist. 52. p Lib. 3. cont 〈◊〉 â— 3. q Ia Psal. cont patrem Donati r Ep. 162. s Praeser cap. 36. t Epist. ad Pont. Rom u Epist. ad Hâ—rmis P. P. w Mat. 24. 35. x Praesâ—r cap. 41. y In Millenario sexto Pag. 187. z See Adamum TaÌ„â—erum tom 4. disp 7. quaest 2. duâ— 3. 4. a Dyer fol. 234. term Mich. 6. â— Eliz. b Sup. c. 5. c L. 3. c. 5. d L. 4. c. 43. e Contr. epist. Fundam c. 4. f Praef. ad lib Periarchon g Cont. Faust cap. 2. h Lib. 28. cont Eaust cap. 2. i Cap. 24. k Lib. de Pâ—storib c. 8. l Cant. â— m Ep. 48. n Heb. 11. 6. The faith of Protestants wanteth Certainty o 2. 2. 4. 5. ar 3. in corp q Ad 2. They want the second Condition of Faith Obscurity Their faith wants Prudence r Cont. ep Fund c. 5. s Lib. de util Cred. c. 14. t Iâ— epist. coâ—t Anah ad duos Parochoâ— to 2. Germ. Witt. sol 229. 230. x Contra Donar post collat cap. 24. y Deut. c. 32. 31. Their faith wants Supernaturality z Galat. 1. 7. Ad §. 1 a M. Hooker in his answer to Travers his supplication I have taught that the assurance of things which we believe by the word is not so certain as of that we perceive by sence And is it as certaine Yes I taught that the things which God doth promise in his word are surer unto us then any thing we touch handle or see But are we so sure and certain of them If we be why doth God so often prove his promises unto us as he doth by arguments taken from our sensible experience We must be surer of the proofe then the thing proved otherwise it is no proofe How is it that if ten men doe all looke upon the Moone every one of them knowes it as certainly to bee the Moone as another but many believing one and the same promises all haue not one and the same fullnesse of perswasion How falleth it out that men being assured of any thing by sence can be no surer of it then they are whereas the strongest in faith that liveth upon the earth had alwaies need to labour and strive and pray that his assurance concerning heavenly and spirituall things may grow increase and be augmented P. 1. C. 2. § 14. P. 2. C. 5. §. 32. Ch. 5. §. 41. Hierom de scrip Eccle. tit Fortunatianus b It is confessed by Baronius Anno. 238. N. 41. By Bellarm l. 4. de R. Pont. c. 7. § Tertia ratio c Confessed by Baronius An. 258. N. 14. 15. By Card. Perron Repl. l. 1. c. 25. d Vide Con. Cartho apud sur To. 1. e Bell. l. 2. de Con. c. 5. Aug. ep 48. lib. 1. de Bapt. c. 13 Bell. l. 2. de Con. c 5. § 1. Canisius in Initio Catech. Sept. die 14. Rom. 11. In Dial. cunt Tryphon Lib. 3 cap. 2. Or this reply to King Iames. C. 2. §. 32. Calv. ubi supâ—a Ruffin in vers hist. Eccl Eus. l. 5. c. 24. Euseb. hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 24. Kuffin b. c. 24. Iren. l. 3. c. 3. 1. Booke 〈◊〉 25 Euseb. hist. Eccl. l. 5. l. 22 Iren. apud Euseb. hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 26. Conc. Antioch c. 1. Conc. Const. c. 7. Conc. Eph. p. 2. act â— Euseb. hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 24. Hieron in script Eccl. in Polyer Exod. 12. Hieronym ubi supra Euseb. hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 23. Beda in frag de Aequinoctio veâ—nali * Can. 2â— * In his Letter to Casaubon towards the end * In ep ad Episcopos in Africaâ— Where he cleerely shewes that this question was not a question of faithe by saying The Câ—uncelloâ— Nice was celebrated by occasion of the Arrian heresy and the difference about Easter In so much 〈◊〉 they in 〈…〉 and Mâ—sopotamia did â—â—ffer herein from us and kept this feast on the same day with the Iâ—wes But thankes be to God an agreement was made as concerning the Faith so 〈◊〉 concerning this holy 〈◊〉 a You doe ill to translate it the Principality of the Sea Apostolique as if there were but one whereas S. Austine presently after speaks of Apostolicall Churches in the plurall number and makes the Bishops of the joynt Commisioners for the judging of Ecclesiâ—sticall causes b The words of the Decree which also Bellarmine l 1. de Matrim c. 17. assures us to have bin â—erm'd by S. Austine are these Si qui Africani ab Episâ—â—pis provocandum putaverint non nisi ad Africanâ— provocent Concilia vel ad Primates provinciarum suarum Ad transmarina autem qui putaverit appellandum à nullo intra Africaâ— in Communionem suscipiatur This Decree is by Gratian most impudently corrupted For whereas the Fathers of that Councell intended it particularly against the Church of Rome he tels us they forbad Appeales to All excepting only the Church of Rome 〈…〉 a Hierom. Cont. Lucifâ—rianos b In Theodoret Hist. 16. c. l. 2. c In ep 48. 〈◊〉 Vincentium d Convnenitorij lib. 1. c. 4. e In vita Naziauz f In Orat. Arian 〈◊〉 g To. â— a Cant. 2 4. b 1. Ioan. 3. v. 16. c De mendac cap. 6. d Mat. 6 e Math. 10. 17. f In his true difference c. Part. 4. pag. 168. 369. g Cent. 3. cap. 6. Col. 1â—7 h Chap. 5. Huâ— 9. i Eccl. 3. 27. k Pag. 112. l Pag. 81. m Ps. 57. 6. n Pag. 126. o Ad lit Petil. l. 2. cap. 10â— p Contra Cresc lib. 1. cap. 21. q Pag. 7â— Bellar. Contr. Barcl c. 7. In 7. c. resutare conâ—tur Bardâ—verba illa Romuli Veteres illos Imperotores Constantium Valentem Caeteros non ideo toleravit Ecclesia quod legitimè successissent sed quod illos sine populi detrimento coercere non poâ—erat Et miratur hoc idem scripsisse Bellarminum l 5. de Pontif. c. 7. Sed ut magis miretur sciat hoc idem sensisse S. Thâ—mâ—m 2. 2. 〈◊〉 12 art 2. ad 1. â—â—bi dicit Ecclesiam tolerasse ut sideles obedirent Iuliano Apostatae quiâ—iâ— suinovitate nondum habebant vires â—oÌ„pescendi Principes terrenos Et posiâ—a Sanctus Gregorius decit nullum adversus Iuliani persecutionem fuisse remediuâ— praeter lachrimas quoniam non habebat Ecclesia vires quibus illius tyrannidi resistere posset * Iâ— Problem 15. 16. Lib. 5. prope initium Lib. 2. c. 3. Cont. lit Petil l. 2. 〈…〉 Chap. 1. §. 4. c. 3. §. 53. â—libi