she proposes you would not haue wanted evasions by saying we should belieue her as far as she agreed with Scripture or in Fundamentall points only as now Protestants say of the vniversall Church 16. Ch Ma Pag 251. N. 18. sayth The Holy Scriptures and ancient Fathers assigne separation from the visible Church as a marke of Heresy which he proves by some textes of Scripture as 1. Joan 2.19 They went out from vs And Actor 15.24 Some went out from vs and Actor 20.30 Out of you shall arise men speaking perverse things This say you is certainly a strange and vnheard of straine of Logick vnless we will say that euery text whe in it is sayd that some body goes out from some body affoards an argument for this purpos and yet you confesse that Hereticks doe alwayes separate from the visible Church but that they who doe soe are not alwayes Heretiks Now if all Heretiks separate from the visible Church ād yet doe not separate from every some body for they doe not separate from themselves and their owne Associates it is a signe that their is great difference betwixt some some body and orhers some body betweene separating from the Church or the Congregation of the Faithfull and frō every other some body But if I proue these propositions every Heretik separates from the Church and every one that separates from the Church is an Heretik to be convertible you will yeald such a separation to be a Mark of Heresy This is easily done by taking your owne grant That Heretiks do always separate from the Church For Heresy being an error against some revealed truth if the Church also may erre against any such truth there is no necessity that an Heretik should separate from the Church but may very well agree with her in such error and so the first part of your assertion that Heretiques do alwayes separate from the Church would be false or if the Church cannot erre every one who separates from her in matters of Faith must be guilty of an errour against Faith and so be an Heretik if therfore the first part of your assertion be true you must grant that the second is false and that as every Heretik separates from the Church so conversivè every one who separates from the Church in matters of beliefe is an Heretik and then it is no wonder if Scripture and Fathers assigne a separation or going out of the Church as a mark of Heresy Which may be further declared in this manner If all Heretiks separate from the Church the reason must be because there is in the Church something incompatible with their Heresy which can be nothing but the true Doctrine and Beliefe which she holds and is opposite to the error which makes thē Heretiks and which whosoever hold are Heretiks and consequently whosoever leaves the Church by occasion of such errors are Heretiks and if they had not held such errors they had remained in the Church Therefore for the same reason for which all Heretiks forsake the Church we must necessarily inferr that whosoever forsake the Churches doctrine are Heretiks that is for the errors which they hold against the truth which the Church is supposed to belieue and if she be supposed to belieue an error an heretique may belieue the same and so goe out of her no more than she goes out of herself For this cause our Saviour saied Matth. 24.26 If therefore they shall say vnto you behold he is in the desert goe you not forth Of which words Henoch Clapham in his souveraigne remedy against Schisme Pag 23. sayth that therby our Saviour forbids going out vnto such desert and corner Ghospells which declares that going out of the Church is Heresy or Schisme and not only that all Heretiks or Schismaticks goe out And now I hope you being convinced by Reason will be better disposed to receiue authority and the true exposition of the text alleadged aboue by Ch Ma of which you say For the first place there is no certainty that it speakes of Heretiks but no Christians and Antichrists of such as denyed Iesus to be the Christ Answer That S. John speakes of Heretiks will appeare by reading Cornelius a Lapide vpon this psace who cites holy Fathers to the same purpos See also the annotation of the Rhemes Testament vpon this Chapter of S. John Uers 18. shewing out of S. Cypriā that all who separate themselves from the Church are called without exception Antichrists Pantaleon in Epist nuncupator Chrongraph saith Tertium locum assignabimus Haereticis qui exierunt de electo Dei populo at non erant ex illo And in Osiander Epitom Histor Ecclesias cent 1. lib 3. cap 1. saith Nota Haereticiex Ecclesia progrediuntur 17. The second place say you It is certaine you must not say it speakes of Heretiks for it speakes only of some who believed and taught an error when it was yet a question and not evident and therfor according to your Doctrine no formall Heresy Answer I see no such certainty as you pretend that the text Act 15.24 Some went out from vs must not speake of Heretiks that is of persons who held an errour against a revealed truth of which some might haue been sufficiently informed before the Councell and Definition or Declaration of the Apostles and that some did proceed in a turbulent and as a man may say Hereticall manner appeares by reading the same Chapter in the Acts. And for our present purpose it is sufficient that separation from the Church is a signe at least of a materiall Heresie or Heretique since the being a formall Heretique depends vpon individuall personall and accidentall circumstances of which to judg in particular is the part of prudence not of Faith though if once the partie know that his opinyon is contrary to the Doctrine of the Church and will yet persist therin and rather leaue the Church than forsake it he cannot be excused from pride singularity and Heresie 18. You say The third sayes indeed that of the Professours of Christianity some shall arise that shall teach Heresy But not one of them all that sayes or intimates that whosoever separates from the visible Church in what state soever is certainly an Heretique Answer we haue shewed that as you say all that are Heretiques goe out of the Church so you must grant that whosoever separates for matter of Doctrine from the visible Church is an Heretique And holy Scripture mentioning so particularly and frequently going out or separation doth clearly put a particular emphasis and force therin as a mark of fals believers and seducers And this to be the sense of the Holy Fathers Ch Ma. hath proved and now we will make good his Proofes by confuting your evasions to the contrary And I must intreate the Reader to consider the words of the Fathers as they are cited in Charity Maintayned with the Inferences which he deduces from them and not as they are interpreted by you 19.
seuerall Professions in poynt of Religion And as men ought not to be remooued from belieuing that there is a God though to our weake vndestandings there be presented Arguments touching his Nature Freedom of will Prouidence Preuision and the like of farr greater difficulty to be answered than can be objected against the jnfallibility of Faith so ought we not to deny the jnfallible Truth of Christian Faith notwithstanding those poore objections which this man and his Associates with equall impiety and boldness make against it And therfore both in the beliefe of a God and certainty of Faith Religion and worship of him we are to follow the certaine instinct of Nature and conduct of Piety not the vncertainty of our weake vnderstanding or liberty of will 5. For this cause as I sayd not only all Catholiques with a most Unanimous consent belieue profess and proclaime this truth in somuch as S. BouaueÌ„ture in 3. Dist 24. Art â— Q. 1. auoucheth Faith to be as jnfallible as the Prescience of God and Hâ—â—ensis 3. P. Q. 68. memb 7. affirmeth that Faith can be no more subject to falshood than the Prime Uerity but Protestants also and in particular D. Potter who Pag. 143. speakes clearly thus The chiefe principle or ground on which Faith rests and for which it firmely assents vnto those truths which the Church propounds is diuine Reuelation made in the Scripture Nothing less than this nothing but this can erect or qualify an act of supernaturall Faith which must be absolutely vndoubted and certaine and without this Faith is but opinion or at the most an acquired humane belief And Pag. 140. Humane authority consent and proofe may produce an humane or acquired Faith and infallibly in some sort assure the mynd of the truth of that which is so witnessed but the assent of diuine Faith is absolutely diuine which requires an object and motiue so infallibly true as that it neither hath nor can possibly admit of any mixture of errour or falshood Behold how he affirmes that Christian Faith doth more than only in some sort assure vs of the truth as Chillingworth will say it doth by an assent highly probable but that it must be absolutely diuine which he contradistinguishes from humane Faith making this not that absolutely certaine And indeed to litle purpose should Potter and all other Diuines require an Objest and Motiue jnfallibly true if likewise our assent to it be not jnfallible What auayles it that Diuine Authority be certaine and jnfallible in it selfe if in the meane tyme it remayme vncertaine whether such a Divine and jnfallible Authority interpose it selfe or witness any thing 6. But nothing can be imagined more effectuall and express against Chillingworth who Pag. 325. N. 3. saith That there is required of vs a knowledg of the Articles of our Faith and adherence to them as certaine as that of sense or science is a great errour and of dangerous and pernitious consequence Nothing I saie can be more cleare against this pernitious doctrine of Chillingworth than these words of Potter Pag. 199. Though the assent of Faith be more certaine if it be possible than that of sense or science or demonstration because it rests on diuine Authority which cannot possibly deceiue yet it is also an assent ineuident and obscure both in regard of the object which are thinges that do not appeare Hebr. 11.1 And in respect of the subject the eye of Faith in this state of mortality being dimme and apprehending heauenly things as through a glass darkly 1. Cor. 13.12 What could haue beene spoken more directly of the certainty and yet ineuidency of Faith against Chillingworth who both denyes that Faith is absolutely certaine and that certainty caÌ„ be without euidency as may be seene Pag. 330. N. 7. D Lawd Pag. 227. saith As for morall certainty that 's not stroÌ„g enough in points of Faith and Pag. 360. he directly affirmes that an jnfallible certainty is necessary for that one faith which is necessary to saluation which is the very same with our Title of this Chapter And Pag. 142. he saith That falshood may be the subject of the Catholike Faith were no lesse then blasphemy to affirme and yet Mr. Chillingworths Booke where in this blasphemy is purposely taught is expresly approud as agreable to the Doctrine of the Church of England by euery one of the three Approbators who can best giue account by whose Authority they were induced to so pernicious and foule a fact 7. But why do I alledg particular Persons This of the fallibility of faith is opposd by all Protestants and particularly they who teach that we know the Scripture to be the word of God by the spirit or instinct of the Holy Ghost hold Faith to be infallibly true Thus Caluin Lib. 1. jnstit C. 7. Sect. 4. saith Petenda est haec persuasio ab arcano spiritus testimonio This belief that Scripture is the word of God is taken from a secret testimony of the spirit And afterwards Testimonium spiritus omni ratione praestantius esse respondeo I answer that the testimony of the spirit is to be preferrd before all reason 8. And here is to be obserued that Chillingworth disagreeing from Protestants in this maine generall transcendentall point differs from them for euery particular in an essentiall attribute or perfection of Faith seing an assent only probable is essentially distinguished from an assent absolutely and infallibly certaine and so he opposes them in a higher degree then if he did contradict them in one or more chiefest particular Articles of faith or rather he cuts of at one blowe all the true belief of Christians by making it not certaine wherby men become no Christians as not belieuing in Christ with diuine certaine faith His tenet Pag. 367. N 49. that he who disbelieues one Article may yet belieue an other with true diuine faith is in no wise to be approoud but this his doctrine that Faith is fallible is farr worse as disbelieuing all and positiuely denying that certainty which is essentiall to diuine Faith and distinguisheth it from Opinyon or humane beliefe 9. This fundamentall truth that faith is absolutely certaine is very clearly deliuered in Holy Scripture S. Paule saith Hebr. 11.1 Faith is the substance of things to be hoped for the argument of things not appearing or as the Protestants English translation hath The substance and in the margine the ground or confidence of things hoped for the euidence of things not seene All which signifyes a firme certaine and as I may say substantiall faith stronger than any assent only probable Thus holy S. Bernard Ep. 190. disputing against Abailardus who taught that Faith was but Opinion saith Audis substantiam non licet tibi in fide putare vel disputare pro libitu c Doest thou heare the name of substance it is not lawfull for thee in Faith to thinke or dispute at thy pleasure nor wander hither and thither through the emptynes
N. 4. he endeauours to proue that Faith cannot be absolutely certaine because if it were so any least doubting would destroy it which shewes that doubting may well consist with his kind of probable faith which is that very absurdity which we inferrd as impious against true Religion of which we must resolue neuer to doubt though per jmpossible an Apostle or Angel should moue vs therto as we haue heard out of S. Paule and yet the Authority of an Apostle or perswasion of an Angell should in all reason be preferrd before Faith if it be only probable 24. This inconstancy in Religion appeares further by what he confesses of himselfe Pag. 389. N. 7. where speaking of a command of obedience to the Roman Church he hath these words sure I am for my part that I haue done my true endeauour to find it true and am still willing to doe so but the more I seeke the further I am from findinge c. Behold how after so long tyme so much deliberation so many changes of Religion euen after the writing of his Booke he is still willing to find and embrace a Religion different and contrary to that which he professed Also P. 184. N. 90. he sayth Shew vs any way and do not say but proue it to haue come frrm Christ and his Apostles down to vs and we are ready to followit Neither do we expect Demonstration herof but such reasons as may make this more probable than the contrary Agreable to this is his professing Preface N. 2. that he had a trauellers indifferency most apt and most willing to be led by reason to any way or from it And N. 5. he professes that his constancy in Religion consisted in following that way to Heauen which for the present seemed to him the most probable A poore comfort and miserable faith only probable and of no longer continuance than for the tyme present I willingly omitt that his deeds were agreeable to his words changing first from Protestants to Catholike then from Catholike to Protestant and about againe to Catholike till at last he became neyther Precisian nor Subscriber to the 39. Articles nor confessed Socinian nor any thing vnless that mhich S. Bernard sayth of Abailardus Ep 193. Homo sibi dissimilis est totus ambiguus He is a man who disagrees euen from himselfe wholy compounded of doubts I willingly leaue out his middle words Intus Herodes for is Ioannes inwatdly a Herode outwardly a Iohn If the Apostles be to be belieued only in that which they deliuered constantly as a certaine diuine truth as he teaches Pag. 144. N. 31. surely this man and his fellow Socinians ought not to be belieued in any thing seing according to their doctrine that faith is fallible and but probable they neither are nor can be constant in any poynt they deliuer and so we cannot say so much of them as of the Scribes and Pharisees Matt 23.2 whatsoeuer they shall say vnto you doe but according to their works doe not but doe neither what they shall say nor according to their works And heere I beseech and euen begg of the Reader if he haue any care to saue his soule that he will consider how far the faith of this man and his Associates is from true Christian Faith of which we haue heard S. Paule saying Although we or an Angell from Heauen euangelize to you beside that which we haue euangelized be he an Anathema 25. But this is not all that strongly offers it selfe in this poynt For not only his Faith cannot affoard any rest or satisfaction wherby a man may cease from further inquiry but leaues him with a strict obligation to be incessantly examining his Religion and seeking whether he can fynd some more probable and better grounded This sequele seems cleare Because the true Faith and Religion being absolutely necessary to saluation charity towards ones self obliges euery man to seeke the safer way and the most certaine Religion And seeing he is not certaine that the Religion or way to Heauen which for the present seemes to him most probable as we haue heard him speake is indeed the right way what remaynes but that men are obliged to be continually busied and perplexed in the search of the true Faith necessary to saluation This my inference seemes to be acknowledged by him For beside what hath beene already cited he sayes of himselfe P. 278. N. 61. If I did not put away idleness and prejudice and worldly affections and so examine to the bottome all my opinions of diuine matters being prepard in mynd to fellow God and God only which way sceuer he shall lead me if I did not hope that I eyther doe or endeauour to dâ—e these things certainly I should haue little hope of obtaining saluation Loe heere little hope of saluation vnless a man be still examining to the bottome his opinions and be prepard in mynd to follow c. But in Vaine it is to seeke that rest which will neuer be found except in a Faith and Religion acknowledged to be absolutely certaine and infallible which alone can put an end to all further inquiry Finally Pag. 376. N. 57. he sayth This is the Religion which I haue chosen after a long deliberation and I am verily perswaded that I haue chosen wisely Ponder verily perswaded And were not you verily perswaded in those your changes which you acknowledg Pag. 303. N. 103. from a moderate Protestant to a Papist from a doubting Papist to a confirmed Protestant were you not I say verily perswaded that you did choose wisely Yea you expresly tell vs in the same Pag. 303. that of a moderate Protestant you turned a Papist and that the day that you did so you were conuicted in conscience that your yesterdayes opinion that is Protestantisme was an errour By all which appeares how inconstant you were and must be in matters of Faith and Religion till you acknowledg an infallible Faith taken from an infallible liuing Guide which is Gods true Church 26. From this liberty of Belief what can follow but liberty of life Seing his belief of Heauen and Hell is but an opinion concerning things of an other world wheras worldly pleasures are in present possession and certaine If the absolute certainty wherwith all Christians hitherto haue belieued their Faith to abound hath not bene able to stop the course of mens licentiousness what can we now expect but that they who before did runne will now fly after the Idols of whatsoeuer may appeare to their soules or bodyes objects of profit or delight Pag. 326. N. 4. he teaches that if faith be infallible no Christian could committ any deliberate sinne yea and must be perfect in Charity because Faith is the victorie which ouercomes the world and Charity is the effect of Faith If this be so we may say on thecontrary side that if faith be weake or only probable what victory what perfection in Charity can be hoped from it But let
vs now come to some other kind of Argument 27. Hitherto Christians haue belieued that true Christian Faith is a Theologicall vertue that is it hath for its Formall object and Motiue God as he is infinitly Wise and True as Hope respects Him as infinitly Powerfull and Charity as infinitly Good But the Faith of these men cannot be a Theologicall vertue Therfore their faith is no true Christian Faith The Minor cannot be denyed in the grounds of this man For although they will pretend to belieue the Articles of Christiā Religion because God hath reuealed them yet the Argumēts of Credibility or humane testimonyes are the only formall object or Motiue of this Assent God hath reuealed the Mysteryes of Christian Religion They are I say Premises from which the sayed Conclusion or act and assent of Faith is deduced and according to which it is to be measured and not only Preparations or Dispositions to it as Catholike Diuines teach so that the infallible Diuine Reuelation comes to be only a materiall object belieued for another fallible Motiue or Formall Object infinitly beneath the Testimony of God which alone is able to constitute a Theologicall vertue Thus he plainly saith Pag 36. N. 8. God desires only that we belieue the Conclusion as much as the Premises deserue that the strength of our faith be equall or proportionable to the credibility of the Motiues to it and most expresly he saith in the same place Our faith is an assent to this Conclusion that the Doctrine of Christianity is true which being deduced from a Thesis which is metaphysically certaine and from an Hypothesis wherof we can haue but a morall certainty we cannot possibly by naturall meanes be more certaine of it then of the weaker of the Premises You see he holds the Assent of Faith to be a Conclusion not proportioned to Diuine Reuelation which is most infallible and strong but measured by the weaker of the Premises grounded vpon humane inducements which cannot giue Species or nature and essence to a Theologicall vertue and so his probable Faith is no more than an humane Opinion For euen as he who concludeth out of Mathematicall Principles knowne only probably hath not knowledg but opinion so he that belieues out of Principles not certaine a Reuelation of its nature certaine hath not certaine knowledg but only opinion And therfor his saying Pag 35. N. 7. that he conveyues Faith to be an assent to Diuine Reuelations vpon the authoty of the Renealer will in no wise free him from the just imputation of turning Diuine Faith into Opinion since his assent to Diuine Reuelation is grounded and measured and receyues its essence from testimonyes and Principles only probable and humane and not from the Diuine Reuelation without which euen Dr. Potter Pag. 143. expressly sayes Faith is but Opinion or perswasion or at the most an acquired humane belief And it is to be obserued that the Doctour speakes expresly of the Authority of the Church which he sayth can beget only an Opinion and yet Chillingworth resolues our belief of the Scripture into the Tradition and teaching of the Church and therfor his belief of the Scripture cannot passe the degree of Opinion or humane belief 28. Children are taught in their Catechismes that Faith Hope and Charity are vertues and all Diuines agree that Faith is a vertue infused and seing it resides in the vnderstanding it must be a Vertue of the vnderstanding which of its nature cannot produce any but true acts because vertue out of S. Austine Lib 2. de Libero arbitrio is a quality which by no man is vsed ill And vertue as Diuines teach togeather with Aristotle disposes the Power to that which is best Wherfor the vertue of the will disposeth it vnto Good which is the wils good and an intellectuall vertue must dispose the vnderstanding to that which is True which is the intellectiue Powers greatest Good Since therfor Faith is of its owne essence an intellectuall vertue it must haue an intrinsecall reference and tye vnto true Acts and an incapacity and repugnance vnto false ones and errours 29. Besides Faith is the first Power of supernaturall Being and ought not to be inferiour to Habitus Principiorum in our naturall Being which Habits cannot incline to any false assent And whence comes it that the Habit of Faith for producing an Act requires Gods speciall helpe which cannot moue vnto falshood but that such a Habit is determinated to Truth Or how is it giuen vs as a fitt sufficient and secure meanes wherby to captiuate our vnderstanding with great considence to the obedience of Faith and of God if it be not determined to truth without all danger of errour Will he deny that it exceeds Gods Power to produce such a Habit or to concurre with our vnderstanding to such an Act as shal be incapable of errrour Or what imaginable reason can there be to deny that Faith is such in which concurre Diuine Reuelation a Pious Affection and command of the will and the speciall Grace of the Holy Ghost What A supernaturall End of eternall Happyness a supernaturall Habit a supernaturall Grace a supernaturall Act an infinite Authority or formall Object and all to end in meere weake Probabilityes Doth water rise as high as the source from which it flowes and shall not all these diuine and supernaturall fountaynes raise vs higher than Opinion Good Christians can correct naturall Reason in poynts which to Philosophers seemed euident truths and Principles as in the Creation against that Axiom Ex nihilo nihil fit of nothing nothing is made In the Resurrection against From priuation there is not admitted a retourning back to the former Being In the incarnation against A substance is that which exists by it selfe and yet our Sauiours sacred Humanity exists in the Eternall Word in the Mystery of the B. Trinity against Those things which are the same with a third are the same amongst themselues and not to alledge more particulars all miracles wrought by our Sauiour aboue the strength of all naturall causes seemed in humane reason to imply a contradiction or impossibility and whatsoeuer is belieued aboue Reason would seeme false and against it if we did not correct Reason by Faith which could not be done vnless we did judge the light of Faith to be more certaine than the light of Reason or the Principles therof And this Chilling must either grant and so yield faith to be infallible or els must be content to acknowledg a plaine contradiction to himselfe This appeares by these words Pag. 376. N. 56. Propose me any thing out of this booke the Bible and require whether I belieue it or no and seeme it neuer so incomprehensible to humane reason I will subscribe it with hand and hart as knowing no demonstration can be stronger then this God hath sayd so therfor it is true And in the Conclusion of his Booke § And wheras he professeth that he will not belieue
earth Hee I say who with Arians and other old and moderne condemned Heretiques denyes Christ to be the sonne of God and consubstantiall to his Father as also his Merit and satisfaction for mankind wherby he is the Saviour of the world The like I say of his resurrection and that all men shall arise againe at the last day seing Socinians teach as I sayd aboue that we shall have bodyes in Heaven in nature substaÌ„ce and essence different from our bodyes on earth Against whom these words of S. Iohn Chrisostome Hom 65. in Ioannem post medium are very effectuall as they were against some others who sayd Corpora non resurgent our bodyes shall not rise againe Nonne audiunt Paulum c Do they not heare S. Paule saying For this corruptible must do on incorruption 1. Cor 15.53 Neither can he meane the soule seing it is not corrupted and Resurrection must belong to that which is dead which was the body only And Serm de Ascensione Domini To 3. Let vs consider who he is 〈◊〉 whom it was sayd sit on my right hand what nature that is to whom God sayd be partaker of my seate It is that nature which heard thou art earth and shald returne to â—arth And Learne who ascended and what nature was elevated For I willingly stay in this subject that by consideration of mankind we may with all admiration learne the divine clemency which hath bestowed so great honour and glory on our nature which this day is exalted above all things This day Angels behold our nature shining with immortall glory in the divine Throne And S. Austine serm 3. de Ascensione saith to the same purpose an earthly body is seated aboue the highest Heaven bones ere while shut vp in a narrow grave are placed in the company of Angels a mortall nature is placed in the bosome of immortality And in the same place he sayth If our saviour did not rise againe in our body he gave nothing to our condition by rising againe Whosoever sayes this doth not vnderstand the reason of the flesh which he assumed but confounds the order and evacuates the profit therof I acnowledge to be myne that which fell that that may be myne which rose I acknowledg that to be myne which lay in the grave that that may be myne which ascended into Heauen From this Secinian Heresy it also followes that indeed they deny his true Ascension since they give him and vs not his and our nature but another essentially different But indeed is the Resurrection of the dead so cleare in scripture for the sense without any help of Gods Church How then doth Dr. Potter Pag. 122. say in behalf of Hookers and M. Mortons opinion A learned man was anciently made a Bishop of the Catholique Church though he did professedly doubt of the last Resurrection of our Bodyes Was he a learned man Then surely he vnderstood the Grammaticall signification of the words and yet he erred in the sense as also many others did who denyed Resurrection as Basilidiani Saturniani Carpocratiani Valentiniani Severiani Hieracitae and others which shewes the necessity of a living judg beside the letter or bare word of scripture Which appeares also by the other example which you alledg as cleare That They which belieue and repent shal be saved That they which do not belieue or repent shal be damned For how is this cleare for the sense of the words if it be not cleare what that Faith and Repentance is without which none can be saved And yet you teach a Faith and a repentance wholy different from that which hitherto both Catholikes and ProtestaÌ„ts haue believed and taught as also Calvinists tell vs of a Faith justifying after a new fashion different both from Catholikes and from Socinians and yet what is more necessary to salvation than true Faith and repentance 34. Neither are you more fortunate in your example that it is clearly against Scripture that the keeping of the Mosaicall Law is necessary to salvation Yea this instance makes against your self and proves the necessity of a living judg For the first determination concerning that poynt was made in the Councell of the Apostles Act. 15. V. 28. and the Scripture only relates what their definition was and so this proves only that the voyce of the Church or Councels may be clear both for the words and sense Or that it may be declared by the Church of succeding ages if it grow in tyme to be obscure which happens in this very Councell For though no doubt but Christians of that tyme vnderstood fully the meaning of the Councell by the declaration of the Apostles yet the contents therof were afterward to be declared to all posterity by the Church how they were to be vnderstood and practised The Councell sayd Act. 15. V. 28. 29. It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to vs to lay no further burden vpon you than these necessary things that you abstayne from the things immolated to Idols and bloud and that which is strangled Doth not this rather seeme contrary than clearly in favour of your affirmation that it is cleare in Scripture that the Mosaicall Law is not necessary For one part and practise and Law obliging the Iewes was to abstaine from bloud and that which is strangled though I grant it was also commanded before but not to last always as the practise of Christs Church declareth and yet in the councell it is sayd to be necessary And for the other point that you abstaine from the things immolated to Idols S. Paule teaches that abstracting from an erroneous conscience it is not necessary to abstayne from them and yet in that Councell it is injoyned as a thing necessary How then is this poynt so cleare if we looke on scripture alone without reference to any declaration or practise of Gods church 35. Besides for Circumcision which as the Apostle sayth brings with it an obligation to obserue the whole Mosaicall Law which observation is you say clearly not necessary although if we take some words or text of Scripture alone without any further reflection or consideration it may seeme cleare that it is not only not necessary but hurtfull S. Paule saying Gal. 5.2 If you be circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing yet if we also call to mynd the fact of the same Apostle Act 16. V. 3 saying taking him he circumcided him Timothy that other text If you be circumcised Christ will profit you nothing which seemed cleare and vniversall will seeme difficult and to be vnderstood with some explication or restraint For who will imagine that S. Paule would be author of that wherby Timothy should be deprived of all the good he could expect from the Sauiour of the world And the difficulty wil be increased if we add that S. Paule caused Timothy to be circumcised propter Iudaeos c. For the Iewes who were in those places for they knew all of them that his father was
amongst themselves nor vvith vs Catholikes Socinians goe further and deny Baptisme to be a Sacrament and teach that all are not obliged to receaue it but that some may be enrolled amongst the number of Christians without it That the church may either leaue it of or at least can compell none to receyue it and in a vvord that it is a thing adiaphorous or indifferent (b) Volkel Lib. 6. Cap. 14. The Eucharist also they hold not to be a SacrameÌ„t (c) Volkel Lib. 4. C 22. that it may be administred by lay persons (d) Ibidem and receyved by such as are not baptized (e) Lib. 7. Cap. 14. Other Protestants do not agree about the necessity of Baptisme 40. As for the Matter and Forme of those tvvo Sacraments vvhich they admit Divers of them expressly teach that vvater is not absolutely necessary in Baptisme but that some other liquid thing may serue and yet the scripture sayth Joan 3. V. 5. Vnless a man be borne againe of vvater and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter the Kingdome of God And Ephes 5.25.26 Christ loved the church and delivered himself for it that he might sanctify it cleansing it by the laver in the vvord of life And for the Forme there vvant not that teach those vvords In the name of the Father c. not to be necessary About the Forme of the Eucharist they agree not some requiring no vvords at all other requiring vvords but in a farr different manner and meaning one from another as may be seene in Bellarm. Lib. 4. de Sacrament Eucharistiae Cap. 12. And for the Matter some Protestants as Beza Tilenus Bucanus Hommius teach that neither bread nor vvine is necessary for the Eucharist though it be evident in scripture that our Sauiour consecrated in bread and vvine As also Beza Lib Quest Respons Vol 3. Theol Pag 364. saith that it is naevus in Ecclesijs c. A blemish in those Churches which vse vnleavened bread rather than leavened and savours of Iudaâ—sme and yet he affirmes that Christ first blessed vnleavened bread and instituted this supper at that tyme when it was not lawfull for the Iewes to vse any but vnleavened bread And Sadeel ad Artic 56. abjurat Pag 511. saith Christ indeed vsed vnleavened bread Did Christ that vvhich savours of Judaisme Christ did institute the Sacraments at supper By what authority then do they alter these things if we must stand to scriprure alone without the churches tradition and authority What evident Text can they bring for these and the like alterations as not first washing feete c. And Volkel Lib 4. C. 22. affirmes that if one cannot drinke wine he may vse water without changing the substance of the Lord's supper as he speakes Montague the pretended Bishop first of Chichester then of Norwich in the articles of visitation Ann 1631. Tit. Articles concerning Divine service and administration of the Sacraments N. 9. sayth thus Is the wine as it should be representing bloud not sacke whyte wine water or some other liquor but yet for the further satisfaction of the Reader I think sitt to transcribe the words of Brereley who Tract 2. Cap. 2. Sect. 10. subdivis 7. doth to this purpose cite punctually the opinions of divers learned Protestants in these words Concerning the forme of words requisite to a Sacrament Luther (a) To 2 Wittenberg Lib de Captivit Babilon Cap de Baptis Fol 75. affirmes Baptisme to be good with whatsoever words it be ministred so the same be not in the name of man but of God Yea he sayth I doubt not but if one receyue Baptisme in the name of God although the wicked Minister giue it not in the name of God he is truly baptised in the name of God Also Brentius (b) In Catheches Cap de Bap and Zwinglius (c) To 2. Lib de vera falsa Religione Cap de Baptism sub finem Fol. 202. And see Zuinglius more plainly To 2. Lib. de Baptis Fol 66 affirme that no prescript forme of words is necessary in Baptisme to omitt that Bullinger (d) in his Decads Decad. 5. Ser 6. Pag. 969. paulo post med and 975. and 976. and 974. doth discourse at large against the necessity of any forme of words to be pronounced And that Bucer in Matth. C. 26 teacheth recitall of Christ's words in the Sacrament of the Eucharist not to be necessary one of their owne martyrs Iohn Lassells in his letter Apologeticall recorded for the supposed worth therof by M. Fox in his Acts and monâ— Pag 678.679 affirmes ehat S. Paul durst not take vpon him to say Hoc est Corpus meum This is my body but omitted those words affirming yet further that The Lord Iesus sayd it once for all Whervpon he maketh the necessity to consist not in any words pronounced but in the breaking and giving of bread Wherevnto might be added the agreeable doctrine of Muscolus (e) in Lo comm C. de Caen Dom Pag 336. circa med post medium and the like answerable practise of the reformed Church in Scotland f As appeares in the booke of the vsage of the kirk of Scotland printed at Rochell 1596. Pag. 189.190.191.192.193 41. The same I may say of the Forme Matter and Manner to be vsed in the Ordination of Bishops Priests and others Degrees in the church All which poynts being of great importance in Gods church which cannot consist without true Governours and Sacraments and yet not being determinable by scripture alone as is manifest both by the thing it self and by the different and contrary Opinions of learned Protestants concerning them we must infer that all things necessary are not evidently contayned in scripture 42. Which is so manifest a truth that Dr. Field one of the greatest Clerks amongst English Protestants L. 4. C. 20. summeth togeather divers traditions not contayned in scripture saying we admit first the Bookes of Canonicall Scriptue as delivered by tradition what more fundameÌ„tall article than this to Protestants who profess to haue no Faith but by scripture which this man acknowledges to be receyved and believed by traditions Secondly the chief heads of Christian Doctrine and distinct explication of many things somwhat obscurely contayned in Scripture Mark that a poynt contayned obscurely in scripture may become evident by explication of the church as I sayd in the beginning of this chapter and mark that he specifyes the chief heads of christian Doctrine Fourthly the continued practise of such things as are not expressed in scripture Fiftly such observations as are not particularly commanded in scripture Amongst which and the former he numbreth the Fast of Lent the Baptisme of infants of which he sayes it is not expressly delivered in scripture that the Apostles did baptize Infants nor any express precept there found that they should do so and observation of our Lords day and afterward he confesseth that many other things there are which
our Sauiour to the Jewes Joan. 5.39 I answer first if they will haue their purpose they must add solas earch the Scriptures alone as Luther in the Text where it is sayd Rom. 3.28 We account a man to be justified by Faith without the works of the Law in favour of justification by Faith alone translats justified by Faith alone otherwise they are not to purpose For the question is only whether scripture alone contayne all things necessary to salvation 2. Indeed they cannot add solas nor can any vnderstand Search the Scriptures in that sense of taking Scriptures alone since our B Saviour in that Chapter of S. Iohn to proue that he was the Messias alledges the testimony of S. John Baptist and a greater testimony then John the very works which I doe miracles and also the voyce of his Father Matth. 3.17 Therfor our Sauiour beside Scriptures alledgeth other very powerfull meanes the voyce of John the voyce of works the voyce of his eternall Father 3. This Text speaks only of one Article of Faith to witt that Christ was the Messias and it is no good consequence the scriptures are cleare in one poynt of Faith rherfor they are cleare in all 4. Even for this one Poynt he doth not absolutely command them to search the scriptures as necessary of themselves but only ex hypothesi For vpon supposition that they did not beleeue for the other threefold testimonyes and that they believed scripture to be the word of God then it only remayned that they should search the scriptures and so our Sauiour sayth search the scriptures and expressly adds Joan. 5.39 For you thinke in them to haue life everlasting shewing that he speakes as it were ad hominem seing you ô Jewes will not belieue the testimony of John of Miracles and of my Eternall Father at least search the scriptures in which you thinke to haue life everlasting and the same are they that giue testimony of me As we Carholikes may say to Heretikes who reject the Authority of Gods Church and Tradition and admitt only scripture since you will not belieue the voyce of the Church and yet belieue scriptures search the scriptures which giue testimony of the Church And yet it were strang if Protestants should from such our daily speech infer that we belieue no other Rule or Judg besides scriptnre alone and I hope Protestants will not deny but that the testimony of S. John our Sauiours Miracles and the voice of his Eternall Father were sufficient to oblige men to belieue that our Sauiour was the Messias though they had not searcht the scriptures as we see Infidels to be converted to the Faith of Christ by Miracles and other Arguments of Credibility without helpe of scripture which they beleeue not to be the word of God except by force of those Arguments and I suppose they will grant that our Saviours Miracles and those other Arguments which he vsed were more forcible than any can be brought by any Apostolicall man for the conversion of Gentils So that vpòn the matter this Text search the scriptures pondered as it should be shews not only that scripture alone is not necessary but absolutely proves it is not so but may be supplyed by othermeanes as S. Irenaeus witnesseth of people that were converted to the Faith of Christ without knowledg of scripture 5. Protestants cannot proue that scrutamini search is the imperatiue mood S. Cyrill Lib. 3. in Joan Cap 4. holds that it is of the indicatiue and some learned Catholike Divines are of the same mynd yea Beza saith I agree with Cyrill who clearly waâ—nes vs that this is to be vnderstood rather by a verbe of the indicative and so our Saviour reprehends the Jewes who did search the scriptures and yet did not belieue in him of whom those scriptures spoke According to this Opinion or explication of this text our Saviour in this place neither commands nor forbids approves nor disallowes the reading of scripture but only signifyes what they did and supposing they did so blames them for not doing it with such a hart and disposition of soule as to find in them the true Messias At least seing this exposition cannot be evidently disproved it is evident that this text doth not evidently convince that the scripture alone contaynes evidently all things necessary to salvation yea rather since those men did read scripture and yet not belieue in Christ it is a signe that scripture alone is not so very cleare as to necessitate a mans vnderstanding to the true meaning therof without some dispositions on our behalf of which dispositions no man being absolutely and evidently certaine he cannot be certainly assured that he hath attayned the right sense by scripture alone without some other helpe as was the preaching and Miracles of our Saviour and the Testimony of s. John and of his Eternall Father and as to vs is the Authority and voyce of Gods Church But if we will follow the other opinion that our Saviour commanded those men to reade the scriptures it cannot be vnderstood as an absolute command seing they had other meanes more than sufficient and more effectuall than scripture to beget in their soules a belief that Christ was the Messias to witt Miracles voyce of his Father c but only as I sayd vpon supposition that they by their owne fault not making vse of those other meanes were obliged to make vse of this of scripture yet so as they might free themselves from that hypotheticall and voluntary necessity by applying themselves to those other meanes for neglect of which our Saviour reprehends them V. 38. His the Fathers word you haue not remayning in you because whom he hath sent him you beleeue not and yet they believed the scripture and this reprehension he prosecutes to the end of that Chapter The obligation then of searching scripture was voluntary and the command only to Jewes and Jewes so incredulous that they would neither belieue s. John nor our Saviour Christ nor the Eternall Father And if Protestants will imitate those Jewes and reject all Authority of a living Guide and rely only on scripture they for finding the true Church shal be obliged to search scriptures by a voluntary culpable necessity which they ought not to impose vpon others but contrarily they ought by all possible meanes to free themselves from it by submitting to Gods Church and her Preachers as so many Nations haue done before they knew scripture and in that case were obliged to attend to other Motives and Meanes and so thete is a far more vniversall and necessary command to Heare the Church than to search the scriptures 6. Our Saviour spoke only of the Old Testament And shall we out of his words infer that in the old Testament alone all Articles of Chrstian Faith are particularly and evidently contayned This Objection then proves too much and therfor indeed proves nothing 7. Scrutamini search signifyes diligence care endeavour labour
say in your Answer to the Direction where having first set downe your nynth Motive to be a Catholique in these words Because the Protestant cause is now and hath been from the beginning mayntayned with grosse falsifications and calumnyes wherof their prime controversy Writers are notoriously and in high degree guilty Your answer is this N. 43. To the 9. Iliacos intra muros peccatur extra Papists are more guilty of this fault then Protestants Which though it be very false as it touches vs and not so much as offered to be proved by you yet it clearly destroyes your owne kind of Tradition For if both Protestants and Catholiks be notoriously and in high degree guilty of gross falsifications in these tymes why may not the same be sayd to Heretiks in former Ages according to your deduction from the six Ages last past to the six last Ages before them and vpward till we come to Christ himself And so neither Catholikes nor Protestants need now corrupt Authors or Historyes but will find it done to their hands vnless your meaning be that Protestants maintayne their cause with more gross falsifications and Calumnyes and are more notoriously and in a higher degree guilty therof than any Heretiks before them But why do I speak by Inferences and argue by parity of reason Since you also expressly directly and immediatly assirme what I inferred while you say to vs If you take this Authority vpon you vpon the six Ages last how shall we know that the Church of that tyme did not vsurpe the same Authority vpō the Authors of the six last Ages before thē and so vpwards till we come to Christ himself In which words you say much more then I inferrd that by your reasō we could not be sure but that as Protestāts are by your owne confession notoriously guilty of gross falsifications in a high degree so former heretiks haue bene For you speake even of the Church and aske how shall we know that the Church of that tyme did not Vsurpe the same Authority of corrupting vpon the Authors of the last six Ages before them and so vpwards till c And this will appeare more easy to haue bene done in the tymes nearest our Saviour and the Apostles when fewer Authors did write in so much as some Protestants affirme S. Justine to be the first whose Writings are not spurious and that helived Aº 140. And if the first writings and storyes be once corrupted what certainty can we haue of the rest And then Good Sr. If we cannot know but that the Church hath done this what is become of your tradition which for ought you proofess to know will deliver only fained Authors corrupted Storyes forged Miracles Apocriphall Scriptures But in this lyes a mystery not knowen to every one vnless he haue some acquaintance with Socinian Writers who press Protestants with this Argument If the Church might erre and is belieued by you to haue erred in the Ages next precedent to Luther and so vpwards from Age to Age till the first six hundred yeares after Christ which you say were pure what certainty or solid Reason can you alledg why the Church might not also erre in those yeares since you do not hold Her to haue bene Infallible An Argument vnanswerable by Protestants who ther for must either admit the Church in all Ages to be infallible or els can haue no certainty that she did not erre or corrupt or permitted the corruption of Authors and Storyes and Scriptures and forging of Miracles in any Age farr from or neere to the Apostles 83. 3. If the motives of Honour and profit which you Object against the Roman Church Would be very apt to make suspicious men belieue that Christian Religion was a humane invention taught by some cunning Impostors to make themselves rich and powerfull if there were no difference between the Christian and Roman Church I beseech you either informe vs what Christian Church distinct from the Roman or such as agreed with Her against Protestants was there before Luther to wipe away this your cause of suspition Or els giue vs leaue to inferr that you grant there was indeed cause of that suspotion You say Pag 14. N. 14. I know no Protestants that hold it necessary to be able to proue a perpetuall visible Church distinct from yours If this be not necessary it remaynes either that it is not necessary to free Christian Religion from being esteemed a humane invention taught by some cunning Impostors or that you are highly and even ridiculously injurious against the Roman Church as if she a one though not distinct from the Protestant Church could give occasion of any such wicked suspicion and finally that if still you will say there is any thing which would be apt to make suspicious men belieue that Christian Religion is a humane invētion it must be the Christian church herself which is a blasphemy fit for such as you are who reduce our belief of Scripture and the assent of Christian Faith to Probability Opinion and meere humane Tradition and such as being according to your Principles for ought you know corrupted is no better than a humane invention 84. 4. What you say of vs Whose questioned Doctrines none of them came from the fountaine of Apostolike Tradition but haue insinuated themselselves into the streames by litle and litle some in one Age and some in another some more Anciently and some more lately makes as I touched aboue a faire way to say the same of some Bookes or parcells or clauses of Scripture and of any Point of Christian Faith which some insidel or Heretike or other enemy of Christian Religion will say came not from the fountaine of Truth but haue insinuated themselves into the streames by litle and litle c which being once granted as possible to happen and we are not sure but in fact that happened if we deny a Living watchfull Guide assisted infallibly by the Direction of the Holy Ghost Your Tradition will also loose all credit as being subject to the like danger of not coming from the fountaine of Apostolike Tradition but of being corrupted forged and having insinuated itself by litle and litle c For if this may happen so easily to Authors Historyes Tradition and Doctrine your Tradition being confessedly no other but humane Historye is manifestly subject to the same exception and totall vncertainty 85. 5. You say of vs who make a profession of corrupting all sorts of Authors a ready course to make it justly questionable whether any remaine incorrupted I beseech you where or when made we profession of corrupting all sorts of Authors Yourself know this to be a vast vntruth But if it were true and were a ready course to make it justly questionable whether any remaine incorrupted it seemes by this your owne saying you cānot haue your Traditiō frō any sort of Authors which may not be justly questioned whether or no they remaine vncorrupted And is
purpose in these words We vtterly deny the Church to be an Infallible Guide in Fundamentalls for to say so were to oblige ouerselves to find some certaine society of men of whom we might be certaine that they neither do nor can erre in Fundamentalls nor in declaring what is Fundament all And consequently to make any Church an Infallible Guide in Fundamentalls would be to make it Infallible in all things which she proposes and requires to be believed To which Assertion of yours I subsume thus But there must be alwayes a visible Church discernable from all false Congregations which Church cannot erre in Fundamentall Points of Faith Therfore there must alwayes be a discernable Church Infallible in all things she proposes and requires to be believed 83. Thirdly It is deduced That even according to the most rigid Protestants God doth not ordinarily affoard his Grace for bringing men to Faith by the only consideration of his Creatures or by the Law written in our harts or by other secet meanes but by teaching preaching and the like By which consideration we haue not only confuted what you sayd Pag 100. N. 123. that men might be made Faithfull without either necessity of Scripture or Church but that also is answered which you Object Pag 356. N. 38. where you aske Why should not I be made a true and Ortodoxe Christian by believing all the Doctrine of Christ though I cannot deriue my descent from a Perpetuall Succession that believed it before me To which demand the Answer is very easy and convincing to all such as against the Pelagians belieue true Christian Faith to be the Gift of God and producible only by his speciall Grace and Inspiration which he gives only by the meanes appointed in his Holy providence that is Preaching Teaching and Ministery of his visible Church as we haue heard Calvin saying God inspires Faith by Meanes of the Gospell as Paul tells vs that Faith comes by hearing And if any will take vpon them to belieue by force of naturall ReasoÌ„ or by RevelatioÌ„ in Scripture vnderstood by their owne wit aÌ„d interpretatioÌ„ they shall be sure to be miserably deceyved aÌ„d be far enough from exercising any true Act of Divine supernaturall Faith necessary to Salvation Now the Church by Divine Institution cannot consist without a Succession of Bishops from the Apostles to the worlds end and therfore God gives not his Assistance for the production of true Faith except by the Ministery of such a Church as is governed by Bishops though no man denyes but that he might haue done otherwise by ordaining and ordering another course of his holy Providence as Protestants will grant that God might haue saved men without Scripture though in their opinion de facto he will not do it but that it even taken alone is not only sufficient but necessary to salvation 84. Fourthly I deduce That the Premises considered it may justly appeare to every Christian very strange that Pag 150. N. 41. having cited these words of Charity Maintained If the Church be not an Infallible teacher why are we commanded to seeke to heare to obey the Church You would answer in this manner For commands to sâ—eke the Church I haue not yet met with any and I belieue you if you were to shew them would be yourself to seeke But yet if you could produce some such we might seeke the Church to many good purposes without supposing her a guide Infallible And then for hearing and obeying the Church I would faine know whether none may be heard and obeyed but those that are infallible Whether particular churches Governours Pastors Parents be not to be heard and obeyed Or whether all these be infallible I wonder you will thrust vpon vs so often these worne out objections without taking notice of their Answers But all this is clearly confuted by what hath bene sayd already And 1. What Christian would not wonder as I sayd to heare you affirme that you haue not met with any commands to seeke the Church If the Ministery of the Church be the ordinary Meanes to attaine Faith and as even yourself confess a necessary Introduction to it if Faith come by hearing if in Her only we con expect to find true Pastours and Doctours if it be necessary to know her as Calvin confesses if Faith remission of sins and salvation cannot be had except by her Meanes I beseech you are not these sufficient commands to seeke Her or rather may we not call this command of seeking her either the command of Commands or els a command implyed in all the commands of Believing Hoping Loving Repenting and seeking salvation seing these cannot be had but by seeking and finding her and is it not evident that if we be obliged to attaine an End we are bound to seeke out the Meanes which are necessary for that End Nay do you not speake inconsequently to yourself while you deny not but that there is a command to heare and obey the Church and yet deny that there is any command to seeke her It seemes you are indeed a child of Adam who would hide yourself from God and from those Superiours whom he hath appointed to guide and governe you in his place If one belieue that there are some whom by Gods appointment he is to heare and obey in order to Heaven and Happyness is it not his part or hath he not a most strict obligation to do his best endeavour to find out such persons or such a Congregation But say you we might seeke the Church to many good purposes without supposing Her a Guide Infallible No doubt but speaking in generall we may seeke one without supposing him to be a Guide Infallible as one may seeke some lost sheepe such as you are to bring them from Heresy to the Church and from Socinianisme to true Reason Which will not be guided by itself but by a Superiour Maister appoynted by God without supposing them to be Infallible Guides But when we seeke a Church from which alone we con learne with certainty required to Faith what Scripture is Canonicall and all Points of Faith necessary to salvation neither of which we can learne from Scripture we must suppose that Church to be Infallible Thus all they who belieue the Scripture to be a Rule of Faith whether totall or not consequently belieue it to be infallible And Pag 35. N. 7. you confess that the Meanes to decide controversyes in Faith and Religion must be indued with an Vniversall Infallibility in whatsoever it propoundeth for a Divine Truth And if the Church were not Infallible one of those many good purposes which you fancy to yourself in seeking Her would be that we should certainly expose ourselves to danger of being perniciously deceived in matters concerning Eternall Salvation seing as I sayd we haue no other certaine and sufficient Meanes to belieue scripture and other Articles of Faith And now I beseech you tell me whether we heare and obey all particular
most Fundamentall of all Articles in the Church that Iesus Christ the Son of God and the Son of Mary is the only Saviour of the world Surely one of you must be in such a most important and most Fundamentall errour that you cannot both be saved though you were inculpably ignorant of it as we haue seene out of Potter Pag 243. even concerning this particular Article And now I pray you consider this agreement of Protestants in the foresayd Articles of Repentance and Faith in Christ Iesus the Son of God and Saviour of the world which yet you confess to be simply necessary 24. Object 3. In the same Pag 159. N. 52. You say Suppose a man in some disease were prescribed a medicine consisting of twenty ingredients and he advising with Physitians should find them differing in opinion about it some of them telling hem that all the ingredients were absolutly 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 receypt hid in it all things necessary for the recovery of his health and that if he made vse of it he should infallibly find it successfull what wise man would not thinke they agreed sufficiently for his direction to the recovery of his health I ust so these Protestant Doctours with whose discords you make such Tragedyes agreeing in Thesâ— thus far that the Scripture evidently containes all things necessary to salvation and that whosoever believes it and endeavours to find the true sense of it and to conforme his life vnto it shall certainly performe all things necessary to salvation and vndoubtedly be saved what matters it for the divection of men to salvation though they differ in opinion touching what Points are absolutly necessary and what not 25. Answer You Socinians who adore naturall reason and take pleasure in being esteemed considering men are much delighted in proposing similitudes which make a faire shew and may seduce the ignorant but being examined proue nothing against any except yoursel ves First This similitude can proue nothing vnless you begg the Question and suppose one receypt to haue in it all things necessary for the recovery of the diseased mans health that is Scripture to containe all Points necessary to salvation which you know we deny and say you erre in Thesi If with Scripture you would joyne the Tradition and Definitions of the Church your suppositions were true and your parity good Otherwise your receypt cannot haue all necessary ingredients 26. Secondly Suppose the sick man had great reason to belieue that the ground vpon which the Physitians build their opinion and agreement were not good nor such as he had any obligation at all to credit what sick man if he were also wise could judg their agreement to be sufficient for an vndoubted direction to the recovery of his health Heere then as in other severall occasions I must put you in mynd of your doctrine that we are not bound to belieue as an Object of our Faith Scripture to be the word of God but that we may reject it What then availes it me towards the belief of such or such Points that they are evident in Scripture if I do not belieue Scripture itself 27. Thirdly Suppose the ingredients were very soveraine and sufficient in themselves but that it were not in the sick mans power to procure them were the speculatiue agreement of the Physitians sufficient for his recovery So here It is impossible for most men to know all evideÌ„t texts of scripture which yet according to your grounds must make vp that number of Truths wherin one shall be sure to find all Fundamentall Points and so the agreement of Protestants that all necessary Truths are evidently contayned in Scripture is to little purpose since they cannot distinguish them from Points not necessary and for all men to know all Points evident in Scripture but not necessary is impossible and though it were possible yet being not of obligation for any man even though he be learned to know all such Texts defacto he might without sinne be ignorant of necessary Points which he can be certaine to know only by knowing absolutly all cleare places of Scripture and so be damned for want of believing some Point absolutly necessary necessitate medij which is a plaine contradiction that some Points should be necessary to salvation and yet that we are not bound to attaine the knowledg of them or that the End which is the knowledg of such Points should be necessary and the only meanes to attaine it be either impossible or at least not of obligation to any as certainly no man is obliged to know precisely all and every particular evident Text of Scripture which â—et in your way is the only meanes to know all Fundamentall Points as in your example if a sick man were obliged to procure the recovery of his health he must be obliged to make vse of that receypt which alone could be effectuall in order to that end 28. Fourthly Suppose I could not take such a receypt without danger of drinking poyson togeather with the wholsome ingredients your similitude which goes vpon the contrary supposition doth clearely proue nothing Thus it passes in our case Men left to themselves without the Direction and Traditions of the Church yea with direct opposition to her Definitions and Authority cannot chuse but by occasion of reading Scripture alone fall into many errours against some Divine Revelation delivered either in Scripture or by Tradition that is in the written or vnwritten word of God as we see by experience of old and new Heretikes and particularly by the dissensions of Protestants wherof some must needs contradict some Truth delivered in Gods Word either by detracting from or by adding to the true sense therof Now in divets places you affirme that every errour contrary to any revealed Truth is in its owne nature damnable without Repentance and you add Pag 158. N. 52. that for the most part men are betrayed into errours or kâ—â—t in them by their fault or vice or passion And therfore the true Conclusion will be that men presuming to reade and interpret Scripture by their owne wit without dependance on the Church ought to conceaue that they expose themselves to certaine danger of erring against some Divine Truth or Revelation that is to a thing in itself damnable Neither can they hope for any helpe from Sectaryes whom they see infinitly divided among themselves And if they take such men for their Physitians some of them will affirme some ingredients to be necessary or profitable which others will sweare to be ranke poyson and so every Protestant is left to himself and a particular Catalogne of Fundamentalls is necessary for every one All which is strongly confirmed by calling to mynd that even the most learned
the Church haue no Charity and therfore that it is manifestly vntrue that if Charity be wanting the vnity of the Church is disturbed her vnion dissolved seing men may be members of the Church though they want all Charity and consequently if Charity be wanting it is not necessary that the vnion of the Church must be dissolved Or if you grant to Potter that Charity is the cause that the vnity of the Church is not disturbed and Her vnion not dissolved what is this but to say with Charity Maintayned That All the members of the visible Church are by Charity vnited in one mysticall Body Why is Her vnion dissolved if Charity be wanting but because by Charity it is conserved You say Pag 273. N. 56. That if we suppose a visible Church extant before and when Luther arose conformable to him in all Points of Doctrine necessary and profitable then Luther separated not from this Church but adjoined himselfe to it Not indeed in place which was not necessary not in externall Communion which was impossible but by the vnion of Faith and Charity If one should aske how do you know that Luther had Charity or whether he might not haue been a member of that imagined Church though he had been in deadly sin what would you answer sure I am whatsoever you answer for Potter ād yourselfe will confute your objection against Charity Maintayned and shew how familiar Contradictions are with you as in our present case you must either grant that Luther if he chanced to be in deadly sin could not vnite himselfe to that imaginary Church or els that Charity is not necessary to constitute one a member of a Church and consequently that one may be a member of the Church and free from the sin of Schisme though he want that Charity which is incompatible with deadly sin and inseparable from justifying Grace vpon condition that he be innocent of that vice against Charity which we call Schisme and puts a man so farr out of Charity with the Church or with his neighbour as a member of the Church as not to communicate with him in Sacraments Liturgy and publike Worship of God Neither is there any necessity that whosoever offends against a vertue for example Charity must offend in all Excesses or Defects or other offenses that may be committed against it To be a good Man a good Citizen a good Magistrate are considerations very different and separable one from another And therfore Charity Maintayned Chap 5. N. 3. told you that our neighbour may be considered either as one private person hath a single relation to an other or as all concurre to make one company or congregation which we call the Church And who sees not that a man who is in state of deadly sin and therfore loves not God aboue all things may loue his neighbour in such a degree as not to wish or procure his death as also one may want Charity to an other as a private person without separating from him as a member of one Church in which they agree ād communicate 99. Object 6. Pag 255. N. 5. You cite the words of Charity Maintayned as if he sayd All those which a Christian ought to esteeme neighbours do coucurre to make one company which is the Church And then you add these words Which is false For a Christian is to esteeme those his neighbours who are not members of the true Church 100. Answer It were strang if you did not know that in this particular we haue no common or vniversall Tenet neither can there be any difficulty in the thing it selfe but the Question must haue much only de nomine and Bellarm teaches Faith to be necessary that one may be sayd to be vnited by internall vnion to the Body of Christ which is the Church And though he holds that secret infidells belong to the Church yet he expressly declates that some other Catholique Writers are of a contrary opinion and Lib 3. de Eccles Cap 10. He saith We follow the manner of speaking of the greater number declaring therby this Question to be only de modo loquendi of the manner of speaking So farr is he from judging the contrary to be repugnant to our grounds as you intolerably overlash But suppose it were as you say Where I pray you doth Charity Maintayned say that the Catholike Church signifyes one company of Faithfull people faithfull I say by internall Faith and not only by the externall profession of it He saith no such thing as appeares by his words cited in the beginning of your Objection And therfore seing he doth not express whether they must be faithfull by true internall Faith or only by externall profession of the true Faith but his words being generall they are certainly true in all opinions to witt that Faith is required to make one a member of the Church not determining whether that Faith must be internall or whether an outward profession be sufficient to that effect Sure I am this is no faithfull dealing in you 101. Object 7. In this same Pag 255. N. 5. You alledge Charity Maintayned as if he sayd All those which a Christian ought to esteeme neighbours do concurre to make one company which is the Church And then you add these words which is false For a Christian is to esteeme those his neighbours who are not members of the true Church 102. Answer Charity Maintayned never said that all those which a Christian is to esteeme neighbours do make one company which is the Church But these be his words Part 1. Pag 152. N. 3. Our neighbour may be considered either as one private person hath a single relation to another or as all concurre to make one company or congregation which we call the Church Is not all this evidently true May not our neighbour be considered either as he is a private person or as a member of the Church concurring with other members to make one congregation De facto diverse persons concurre to make one Church and therfore they may be so considered But where doth Charity Maintayned say all those which a Christian is to esteeme his neighbours do concurre to make one Church This particle all and the words is to esteeme are your falsifications not the words of Charity Maintayned who spoke of Heresy and Schisme which can happen only amongst Christians And therfore allthough even Pagans and infidells ought to be esteemed our neighbours yet they cannot concurre to make one congregation which we call the Church which were the words of Charity Maintayned And so they could not enter into this consideration but we may say in this case what is it to me to judge of them that are without 1. Cor 5.12 103. Object 8. Charity Maintayned Part 1 Pag 154 N. 4. saith The Catholique Church signifyes one Congregation or Community of faithfull people and therfore implyes not only Faith to make them faithfull believers but also Communion or common vnion to make them
they foorsooke themselves or their owne Communion And if you vrge that they themselves joyned to no other Part therfore they separated from the whole I say it followes not in as much as themselves were a part of it and still continued so and therfore could no more separate from the whole than from themselves Thus though there were no part of the people of Rome to whom the plebeians joyned themselves when they made their secession into the Auentine Hill yet they divided themselves from the Patritians only and not from the whole people because themselves were a part of this people and they divided not from themselves The like evasion you haue Pag 295. N. 94. 108. Answer How many shifts to decline a true confession First Protestants had cause to separate 2. they are not excused by reason of the cause or corruptions For then differēt Sects of Protestāts must separate from one another no less than from vs which sequele you deny 3. They did not separate from the Church though they did separate from the externall Communion of all Churches 4. They separated not from the whole Church because they separated not from themselves Of the former evasions we haue spoken already This last is not hard to be confuted 109. First it contradicts yourselfe For Pag 273. N. 55. you say As for the externall Communion of the visible Church we haue without scruple formerly granted that Protestants did forsake it that is renounce the practise of some observances in which the whole visible Church before them did communicate Now if the whole visible Church did communicate in corruptions or was corrupted by leaving those who were corrupted they left all or the whole Church for those corruptions which according to Protestants happening de facto to be in the Liturgy publike worship of God vse of Sacraments and the like in which externall communion cōsists they left the externall communion of the visible Church as we haue heard you grant in your owne words now cited 110. Secondly This evasion is but a begging of the Question while you suppose they who divided themselves from the rest continued a Part of the Church to the vnion and Communion wherof externall Communion is essentiall and therfore that being altered it is impossible that it remaynes the same Church in order to all Parts or that the dividers continue to be a Part of that former Church but they become a whole Schismaticall conventicle of their owne Your errour proceeds from not distinguishing between being a man and being a member of the Church as I declared hertofore Suppose Luther and his followers had denyed some Fundamentall Point of Faith they had even in your opinion ceased to be a Part of the Church but not of the Community of men who before their separation were also members of the Church as Pagans Turkes Jewes c may be Parts of one Commonwealth but not of one Church Therfore it is one thing to remayne a Part of a Community of men and another to be still a Part of Gods Church whatsoever that Church be supposed to be whether Roman or any other For this principle That agreement in externall Communion is necessary to make men members of the same Church is vniversally true Wherby is confuted your example of the Roman Plebeians who if they did separate from the rest not only materially in place or the like but also formally in the Lawes customes and Government they remained not Parts of the former Commonwealth for as much as belonged to them seing they wholy divided themselves erecting a new Community or Commonwealth of their owne though still they be Parts of the whole member of men consisting of Patritians and Plebeians as you call them which is the thing affirmed by vs namely that Luther and his fellowes ceased to be a Part of the former Church and erected a new whole Community of their owne and so your Argument comes to be retorted against yourselfe 111. Thirdly Wheras you suppose that we will not go about to perswade you that Luther and his followers forsooke themselves or their owne Communion I answer I haue small hope to perswade you any truth that may seeme to favour vs Catholiks And for others I need not perswade them to belieue that which is evident of itselfe namely that you will needs remaine in a perpetuall equivocation not distinguishing between being a man and being a member of the Church or between substance and accidents or between the same man considered phisically and morally Which even in your Principles is cleare in one who falls into any errour repugnant to some Fundamentall Article and so instantly ceases to be a member of the Church as he was before and in that respect is morally divided from himselfe as much as est and non est are opposite If of the same reall common subject not destroyed for example of Socrates we could say existit non existit though for different tymes we might truly say that he were physically and really divided from himselfe Now the same subject is really capable of being and not being a member of the Church successively Therfore we may say he is divided from himselfe and from his owne Communion For as S. Ambrose saith most elegantly Lib 7. in Cap 15. Lucae of the prodigall Child Peregrè profectus est in regionem longinquam Quid long inquius est quà m a se recedere nec regionibus sed moribus separari not only in place but in relation to a different and contrary mysticall Body Community or Church studiis discretum esse non terris quasi interfuso luxuriae saecularis aestu we may say in our case charitatis defectu proximorum odio divortia habere Sanctorum to be divided from the Church the only seate of Saints on earth Etenim qui se a Christo separant and Potter confesses that whosoever separates himselfe from the Church is divided from Christ exul est patriae civis est mundi He is separated from the Church and becomes a member only of the world both as the world is taken for wicked men divided from Christ or as it signifyes the number of all men as men of which a Schismatike remaines a part though not a part of the Church as hath beene sayd 112. Besides in the Opinion of those Calvinists who teach that the whole Church could and did perish which is a damnable heresy yet for explicating the nature of things we may for the present suppose it ad hominem they who first separated themselves from the primitiue pure Church and brought in corruptions in Faith Practise Liturgy and vse of Sacraments may truly be sayd to haue beene Heretiks by departing from the pure Faith and Schismatiks by dividing themselves from the externall Communion of the true vncorrupted Church though it be supposed to be destroyed therfore one may depart from his owne Faith and remaine no more a part of that Body of which he was once a
Church acknowledged to be Infallible in Fundamentall Points rather than forsake her communion for Points not necessary to salvation especially with danger of forsaking her in some necessary Point Or if you say It is Fundamentall to the Faith of a Christian to belieue whatsoever is sufficiently propounded as revealed by God as Dr. Potter grants and the thingh it selfe is evidently true then you must either affirme that the Church did not erre in any Point of Faith or els that she erred Fundamentally and ceased to be a Church which is against your present supposition and against Potter who P. 126. teaches that to say the church remayned only in the part of Donatus was an errour in the matter and nature of it properly hereticall And much worse must it be to say she remayned no where and so while you pretend to fly the fained errours of the Church you fall into a formall and proper heresy 131. If we consider what may be inferred not absolutely but vpon some impossible supposition That the Church erres in Points of Faith not Fundamentall we must inferr that she may be forsaken because she erres in matters of Faith and yet may not be forsaken because as we have seene out of the Holy Fathers it is never lawfull to forsake the Church What then is to be concluded but that as I haue sayd hertofore she cannot erre and therfore cannot be forsaken vpon any termes Divines teach that at least per se loquendo non potest dari perplexitas that is there cannot happen a case wherin a man whatsoever he doth is sure to commit some sinfull thing because it is a first principle in nature that nothing is is more in our freedome than to sin or not to sin And yet this cause of perplexity must perpetually happen if the Church could erre that is one must judge that she were to be forsaken and not to be forsaken and so remaine miserably perplexed We must therefore for avoyding this absurdity conclude that the Church cannot erre in any matter of Faith 132. But yet to come to the last part of my Advertisement If we persist in the supposition That one is perswaded the Church doth erre must he therfore forsake her communion as Luther and his fellowes did In no case For then we must call to mynd the Doctrine of Divines in case of perplexity that if one be in a vincible or culpable errour for one of the contradictory parts it is in his power and he is obliged to depose that errour which if he do not he shall not be excused from sin notwithstanding his perplexity and seeming excuse of a necessity to sin whatsoever he does If we suppose his errour to be invincible for example he beleeves the Church may not in any case be forsaken and yet that she erres and that he should sin in pro fessing those supposed errours this supposition I say being once made I dispute not whether such a perplexity be possible in this particular matter or no then enters the Doctrine of all Divines that he is obliged to embrace the lesser evill and to follow the generall Axiome exduobus malis minus est eligendum as we see nature exposes the arme to defend the head And in dubijs pars tutior est eligenda And therfore your saying Pag 283. N. 72. We must not do evill to avoide evill taken vniversally and in all cases is manifestly false against the light of Reason and your allegation of Scripture Pag 168. N. 63. you must not do evill that good may come theron is not to the purpose For we speake not of attaining a voluntary greater good but of avoiding a greater evill necessary to be committed vnless a lesser evill be embraced This then being certaine that in case of perplexity one is obliged to embrace the lesser evill the Question may remaine whether by doing so he is excused from all fault or only from being guilty of that greater sin which he avoides by choosing the lesser Certaine it is that he committs not so grievous a sin as if he had betaken himselfe to the other part But diverse great Divines as Amicus Tom 3. D. 15. Sect 3. N. 43. Tho Sanch Tom 1. in Decalog Cap 11. N. 14. alij are of opinion that he commits no sin at all because in that case of invincible Perplexity it is not in his power to avoide that which otherwise were a sin and can be none in him because every sinne essentially requires freedome of will He harh say they freedom to chuse either of those two parts taken as it were materially or considered per modum naturae but not formally and morally so to chuse them as to avoide sin absolutely seing he must of necessity chuse one side and therfore by embracing the lesser evill he does as much as lyes in his power to doe for avoiding sin and consequently is not culpable or blameworthy Now according to these Doctrines whosoever leaves the Church vpon pretence of errours not Fundamentall cannot be excused from Schisme because to profess such errours had been either a lesse sin than to leaue the Church and so in the opinion of all Divines he was obliged to embrace that less evill and not leaue the Church or it had been no sin at all in the opinion of diverse good Divines and then much less can he be excused for leaving the Church without any necessity at all Yea seing this last opinion is probable he might prudently conforme his conscience to it and by that meanes free himselfe from not only sin but also from danger therof by following a probable and prudent dictamen that to profess errours not Fundamentall were no sin at all in that case and vpon that supposition of insuperable perplexity Nay I say more that if this latter opinion of Divines be true a man shall not sin though he be of a contrary mynd and thinke in his conscience that he sins by choosing the lesser evill though not so grievously as he had done by adhering to the other part My reason is because this latter opinion is grounded vpon the impossibility which the perplexed person hath to avoide sin and one cannot sin in doing that which he cannot avoide though by an erronious conscience he judge that he sins as if one cannot heare Masse vpon a holy day or kills a man with a weapon violently put into his hand and with his hand by like violence carryed to that fact in those or the like cases no sin is committed though the partyes should thinke they sin And this is true though that part or less ill which is embraced be intrinsecè malum evill of it self or of its nature which is well to be observed for our case of professing knowne errours which of it selfe is evill because no sin of any kind can be committed when it is impossible to avoid it According to which considerations to elect the profession of errours rather then the desertion of the
say that the Church ought not to be forsaken in any least Point least perhaps that proue to be Fundamentall Neither can you say that Protestants were certaine that the Points wherin they left the Church were errours For to omit the reasons which I haue already giuen here I must put you in mynd that diverse learned chiefe Protestants agree with vs in very many yea I may say in all the maine differences betwixt Protestants and vs And therfore your preence of so great evidence and certainty against the Doctrine of the Roman Church is meerly voluntary and verball And besides I would know how the Church can be supposed to be infallible in fundamentall Points and yet may be in danger to fall into such errours as are pernicious and pestilent and vndermine the very Fundations of Religion and Piety 139. These maine dissicultyes being taken away your other Objections cited aboue are answered by only mentioning them The Question is not whether we should erre with the present Church or hold true with God Almighty as you vainly speak but whether the word and will of God Almighty be better vnderstood and declared to vs by Gods vniversall true Church or by any private person or particulat Sect. 140. If particular Churches haue been liberall of their Anathemas which yet were never conceaved infallible What is that to the Anathemas of the vniversall Church granted to be infallible in fundameÌ„tall points in which whosoever disobeyes her puts himselfe in state of damnation And seing you confess that men cannot know what points be fundamentall it followes that we cannot with safety disobey her in any one point for feare of leaving her in some fundamentall Article 141. That the visible Church of Christ holds itselfe to be infallible cannot be doubted seing even her enemyes belieue she cannot erre in fund mentall Points and she proposes all her definitions of faith to be believed without distinguishing betweene Points fundamentall and not Fundamentall which she could not doe without great temerity and injury to Faithfull people if she did not hold herselfe to be vniversally infallible Of which point Ch Ma P. 2. Ch 5. N. 20. P. 132. spekes at large in answer to a demand or objection of Potter and in vaine you say God in Scripture can better informe vs what are the limits of the Churches Power than the Church herselfe For the Question is only whether God will haue his meaning in Scripture declared by the Church or by every mans private spirit wit or fancy Besides God declares his sacred pleasure not only by the written but also by the vnwritten word 142. That there is no danger in being of the Roman Church Protestants must affirme who hold that she had all things necessary to salvation as shall appeare herafter and whosoever denyes it must grant that Christ had no Church vpon Earth when Luther appeared and that there is danger to leaue her experience makes manifest by the infinite multitude of different Sects and opinions wherof all cannot be true and so must be esteemed a deluge of Heresyes 143. The Heresy of the Donatists did consist formally in this that the Church might erre or be polluted and by that Meanes giue just cause to forsake her communion For if without any such errour in their vnderstanding they did only de facto separate by the obstancy of their will they were indeed Schismatikes but not Heretikes as not dividing themselves from the Church in Matter of Faith And yet Potter saieth they were properly Heretiques Yea if it be not an Heresy to say in generall that the Church may erre and be corrupted or polluted to say that in such a particular case she is corrupted comes to be only a matter of History or fact whether she hath done so or no but it is not a point of Faith and so is not of a nature sufficient to constiute an Heresy supposing as I saied it be once granted that she may erre For example the Donatists gaue out that the Catholique Church was defild by communicating with those who were called traditors The Heresy consists precisely in this Point That the whole Church may be corrupted and so give just cause to be forfaken not in that other Point whether or no the possibility of the thing being supposed de facto Catholikes did communicate with those traditours Since therfore it is supposed by you aÌ„d affirmed by Potter that the Donatists were heretiks their heresy must coÌ„sist in this that the Catholique Church spredd over the whole world might erre and be polluted And is not this the very heresy of Protestants And do they not pretend to leaue the Church vpon this same ground that she erred And this particularly is evident in those Protestants who say the whole visible Church before Luther perished The names of which Protestants may be seene in Charity Maintayned Part 1. N. 9. Pag 161. and more may be read in Brierley Tract 2. Ca 3. Sect 2. And therefore I wonder you would say that Charity Maintayned had not named those Protestants who hold the Church to haue perished for many Ages That it is a fundamentall errour of its owne nature properly hereticall to say The Church Militant may possibly be driven out of the world is the Doctrine of Potter as we haue seene as also that Whitaker calls it a prophane heresy and more Protestants may be seene to that purpose in that place where we cited Whitaker And Dr. Lawd holds it to be against the Article of our Creed I belieue the Holy Catholique Church and that to say that Article is not true is blasphemy 144. That he which is an Hererike in one Article may haue true Faith in other Articles is against the true and common Doctrine of all Catolique Divines and vniversally against all Catholikes to say That such a Faith can be sufficient to salvation because his very heresy is a deadly sin And therfore to say the Church can erre in any one point of Faith is to say the whole Church may be in state of damnation for faith which is an intollerable injury to God and his spouse the Church For if she may be in state of damnation by any culpable errour she must be supposed to want some thing necessary to salvation namely the beliefe of that truth which such culpable errour denyes But more of this herafter 145. By the way How can you say N. 56. to Charity Maintayned That when it was for his purpose to haue it so the greatness or smallness of the matter was not considerable the Evidence of the Revelation was all in all For where doth Charity Maintayned say That evidence of the Revelation is all in all Yea doth he not expressly teach Part 1. Chap. 6. N. 2. that evidence is not compatible with an ordinary Act of Faith and therby proves N. 30. that Protestants want true Faith 146. Object 14. Charity Maâ—ntayned in diverse occasions affirmes or supposes that Dr. Potter and other
our freeing you from damnable Heresy and yielding you salvation neither Dr. Potter nor any other Protestant is guilty of it Seing you say that By the confession of both sides we agree in much more than is simply and indispensably necessary to salvation If we belieue much more then is necessary to salvation by what Logicke will you deduce that we belieue not as much as is necessary 150. These so many and so cleare words of Dr. Potter and yourselfe may justly make any man wonder with what pretence of truth or modesty you could say Pag 280. N. 95. As for your pretence that your errours are confessed not to be Fundamentall it is an affected mistake as I haue often told you And Pag 308. 108. As for your obtruding vpon vs that we belieue the Points of difference not Fundamentall or necessary you haue been often told it is a calumny The oftner the worse it being a saying voyd of all truth and a shamefull calumny in you 151. To these testimonyes of Potter and Chillingworth many other might be allelged out of other Protestants as we haue seene diverse other alledged by Potter Dr. Lawd Pag 299 saith I do aknowledge a Possibility of salvation in the Roman Church But so as that which I grant to Romanists is not as they are Romanists but as they are Christians that is as they beleeve the Creed and hold the foundation Christ himselfe Behold not only a possibility of saluation but also the reason therof because we belieue the Creed c which is the very reason for which Protestants hold that they themselues may be saved though they differ in many Points from one another This I say is the reason of Dr. Lawd which other Protestants must approue though in true Divinity it be of no force at all for though one belieue the Creed and hold the foundation Christ himselfe that is that he is God and Saviour of the world yet if he deny any point evidently delivered in Scripture or otherwise sufficiently propounded as revealed by God he cannot be saved even according to Protestants who therfore doe in this as in many other things speake inconsequently and contradict themselves Pag 376. he sayth The Religion of the Protestants and the Romanists Religion is the same nor do the Church of Rome and the Protestants set vp a different Religion for the Christian ReligioÌ„ is the same to both but they differ in the same Religion Therfore say I we hold no Fundamentall errours wherin whosoever differ cannot be of the same but must be of a different Religion And Pag. 129. The Protestants haue not left the Church of Rome in her Essence not in the things which constitute a Church And P 282. he saith The possibility of salvation in the Roman Church I thinke cannot be denyed aÌ„d in proofe hereof P 281. he alledges Luther Field Jos Hall Geo Abbot Hooker Mornaeus Prideaux Calvin And Dr. Jer Taylor in his Liberty of Prophecying Pag 251. Sect â—0 teaches that we keepe the foundation and belieue many more truths than can be proved to be of simple and originall necessity to Salvation And therfore all the wisest Personages of the adverse party allowed to them possibility of Salvation whilst their errours are not faults of their will but weaknesses and deceptions of the vnderstanding which as I sayd may easily be believed of vs Catholikes who suffer so much for our Religion so that there is nothing in the foundation of Faith that can reasonably hinder them to be permitted The foundation of Faith stands secure enough for all their vaine and vnhandsome superstructures And in particular he shewes that Prayer for the dead and the Doctrine of transubstantiation are not Fundamentall errours and also saieth these two be in stead of the rest Yea he affirmes Pag 258. that there is implied as great difficulty in the Mystery of the B. Trinity as in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and shewes that we are not in any danger of sinning by idolatry in adoring the Sacrament For further satisfaction in this matter the Reader will find the words of learned Protestants in Brierley Tract 2. Sect 14. As That we are of the Church That we are of the family of Iesus Christ a part of the house of God That it was evill done of them who first vrged a separation That we are the Church of God That the Catholike and Reformed make not two but one same Religion agreeing in all principall points of Religion necessary for Salvation That Catholikes and Hugonots are of one Faith and Religion That they are Domestikâ— of Faith and branches of the same viâ—e And Tract 1. Sect 6. Subdiv 1. That Those who live and dy in the Church of Rome may notwithstanding be saved and they are charged by very learned Protestants of ignorance and absurdity who are of the contrary opinion 132. I hope now it appeares that even in the judgment of learned Protestants Catholikes do not erre in points Fundamentall or necessary to salvation and therfore that Luther could not be excused from Schisme in dividing himselfe from all Churches for matters which do not exclude vs from eternall happynesse especially seing they who forsooke vs maintayne errours at least not Fundamentall as Potter Pag 67. plainly confesses and appeares manifestly by the disagreement of Protestants amongst themselves and the agreement of diverse of them with vs even in diverse of those points in which Luther pretended the Church to be corrupted as appeares by what we haue demonstrated heretofore Yet to leaue nothing vntouched I will goe forward not so much because indeed there remaines any Objection of moment against vs as to take away all pretence of cavills as also to take occasion of delivering some Considerations of importance against our Adversaryes 153. Object 15. Although the errours of the Roman Church be not fundamentall in themselves yet they are against Gods Revelation and Command not to deny any least truth testifyed by that supreme Uerity and consequently such errours are damnable and for which the Roman Church might be forsaken 154. Answer First This Objection is not only against the whole Church of Christ which you pretend to haue been corrupted with such errours but also against the Reformers therof seing of Protestants holding contradictoryes some de facto must be in errour wherof Grotius Rivetiani Apologetici Discu P 15. saith Protestantium Confessiones in multis rebus ita dissident vt conciliari nullo modo possint Uidentur autem Genevenses cum Harmoniam Confessionum edidere ita credidisse Harmoniam esse dissidentes Confessiones in vnum Uolumen compingere The Confessions of Faith of Protestants do so disagree that it is impossible they can be reconciled It seemes that they of Geneua when they sett forth the Harmonie of Confessions were of opinion that the Harmonie or agreement of Confessions did consist only in bindeing vp in one Uolume disagreeing Confessions Nay Protestants do further teach that it cannot be otherwise
and yet not to haue beene inspired by God himselfe against such men there were no disputing out of the Bible In which words you confess that one cannot gather that a writing is inspired by God even though he did belieue that the contents therof were all true You make him also contradict yourselfe who resolue the beliefe of Scripture into the tradition of all Churches aÌ„d C Ma specifies not the present Church but saith oÌ„ly that Hooker acknowledged that we belieue Scripture for the Authority of the Church He must also contradict himselfe who I suppose liking not the Puritans privat spirit and proving that it is not the word of God which doth or possibly can assure vs as may be seene in Charity Maintayned Pag 42. N. 7. citing the place of Hooker leaves nothing for our motiue to belieue it except the Church Yet no man denyes but what we first belieue for the Authority of the Church may afterward be illustrated and confirmed by Reason as Hooker saith The former inducement the Authority of Gods Church prevailing somwhat with vs before doth now much more prevaile when the very thing hath ministred farther reason And yourselfe in this Chapter N. 47. explicate some words of Potter in this very sense which now I haue declared And therfore consider whether you do well in relating Mookers words to leaue out these words which are immediatly joyned to those which you cite If I belieue the Gospell yet is reason of singular vse for that it confirmeth me in this my beliefe the more Is this to say that naturall reason as it is distinguished from tradition or Authority of the Church in which sense we now speake of it is the last thing into which our beliefe of Scripture is resolved seing such a confirmation by Reason comes after we haue believed You say that when Hooker saith When we know the whole Church of God hath that oâ—inion of the Scripture c the Church he speakes of seenes to be that particular Church wherin a man is bredd where I put you in mynd of what you sayd in another place that A Church signifyes a particular Church and The Church as Hooker speakes signifyes the vniversall How then do you say That by The Church he signifies a particular Church Or how is the Distinction of A and The Church such as you would haue men belieue But this I let passe and aske you what finally you will haue Hookers opinion to be concerning the meanes for which we belieue with certainty Scripture to be the word of God The private Spirit You know he was an Anti-Calvinist and the private spirit could not sute with his genius Naturall Reason That is evidently against reason as we haue shewed and you grant And when he speakes most of reason he speakes of infidells or Atheists calling in question the authority of Scripture who may be perswaded by Sanctity of Christian doctrine c So there remaines only the Authority of the Church if you will haue him to say anything Dr Covell in his defence of Hookers Bookes Art 4. Pag 31. saith clearly Doubtless it is a tolerable Ovinion in the Church of Rome if they goe no further as some of them do not he should haue sayd as none of them doe to affirme that the scriptures are holy and divine in themselves but so esteemed by vs for the Authority of the Church These words of Covell were cited by Cha Ma N. 26. but it seemes you would take no notice of them and who could better vnderstand Hookers mynd than this his Defendant By the way we may obserue how hard it is to agree about the sense of holy Scripture which is more sublime than humane Writings if we cannot agree about the meaning of men 2. And by this occasion I must turne backe to your N. 11. where you quarrel at some words of Charity Maintayned and giue them a meaning clearly contrary to his sense and words You speake thus You in saying here that scripture alone cannot be Iudge imply that it may bo called in some sense a Iudge though not abone yet to speake propâ—â—ly as men should speake when they write of Controversyes in Religion the scripture is not a Iudge of CoÌ„troversyes but a rule only aÌ„d the only rule for Christians to iudge theÌ„ by But in this imputation you haue no reason at all to interpret Charity Maintayned as you doe For He in saying Scripture alone cannot be judge in Controversyes tooke only the contradictory of that which even in this place you affirme Protestants to belieue Scripture alone is the judge of Controversyes and therfore it was necessary for Him to declare his mynd by the contradictory proposition that Scripture alone is not the judge of Controversyes which is very true though iâ— be not a judge of Controversyes either by itselfe alone or in any other sense and you know he doth expressly and purposely and largely proue that it is against the nature of any Writing whatsoever to be a Judge and therfore when you say men should speake properly when they write of Controversyes in Religion and yet confess that Protestants have called Scripture the. Judge of Controversyes and that to speake properly the Scripture is not a Judge of Controversyes you taxe Protestants only and cannot so much as touch Charity Maintaynâ— 3. Here also I may speake a word to your N. 15. as belonging to interpretation You say To execute the letter of the Law according to rigour would be many tymes vnjust and therfore there is need of a Iudge to moderate it wherof in Religion there is no vse at all I pray you would it not be many tymes vnjust to execute the letter of the Scripture taken without a true and moderate interpretation And for this very caÌ„use there is great vse of a Judge and Authenticall interpreter otherwise some miscreant might murder his mother and brother vpon some mistaken Text of Scripture that idolaters were to be taken out of the world subjects might rebell no warr would be judged lawfull no oathes to be taken in any case c And here I willingly take what you N. 17. giue me that in Civill Controversyes every honest vnderstanding man is sit to be a Iudge but in Religion none but he that is infallible This I take and inferr that you wholy enervate the vulgar Argument of Protestants that Judges are to be obeyed though they be not infallible and therfore that we cannot inferr the Church to be infallible because we are commanded to heare Her not considering this difference which here your selfe giue betweene a Judge in Civill Controversyes and a Judge in Religion wherin such a Iudge is required whom we should be obliged to belâ—â—ue to haue judged right Which are your owne words wheras in Civill matters we are bound to obey the sentence of the Iudge or not to resist it but not always to belieue it â—ust which are also your words 4. Neither will I omitt
impossible one And that he and other Protestants do but cosin the world and speake contradictions or non-sense when they talke of a perpetuall visible Church which cannot erre in Fundamentall Points and whose Communion we are to embrace and yet tell vs that such a visible Church cannot be designed in particular where and which she is For this is all one as to make her invisible and vncognoscible and of no vse at all and therfore they being forced by manifest Scripture to assert and belieue a perpetuall visible Church we must without asking them leaue necessarily inferr that this Church by their owne necessary confession must be designable and cognoscible in particular You say By all societyes of the world it is not impossible nor very improbable he might meane all that are or haue beene in the world and so include even the Primitiue Church But this is no better then ridiculous For he saith What remaineth but diligently to search out which among all societyes in the world is that Church of the liuing God which is the Pillar and Ground of Truth that so they may imbrace her Communion c You see he speakes of that society of men which is the Church and which is the Pillar of Truth and would haue men search it out wheras the Primitiue Church neither is but hath beene nor was it for but directly against the Doctours purpose to advise men to search out the Primitiue Church and her Doctrine which had required tyme and leasure and strength of vnderstanding which he saith few men haue and therfore he must vnderstand a Church to be found in these tymes whose Directions they should follow and rest in her judgment To say as you doe that we embrace her Communion if we belieue the Scripture endeavour to find the true sense of it and liue according to it is very fond as if the Doctour spoke of Scripture when he named the Church and in saying we are to embrace the Communion of the Church he meant we should embrace the Communion of Scripture which had beene a strang kind of phrase and in advising vs to seeke out that society of men and that Company of Holy Ones he vnderstood not men but the writings of men Do not your selfe say that the subject he wrote of was the Church and that if he strayned too high in commendation of it what is that to vs Therfore it is cleare he spoke not of the Scripture in commendation wherof you will not say he strayned too high but of the Church and of the Church of our tymes and so saith the Controversyes of Religion in our tymes are growne c But why do I loose tyme in confuting such toyes as these It being sufficient to say in a word that Protestants in this capitall Article of the invisibility and infallibility of the Church are forced to vtter some mayne Truthes in favour of Catholikes though with contradiction to themselves 20. In your N. 87. You do but trifle Charity Maintayned N. 18. said That the true interpretation of Scripture ought to be receâ—ved from the Church is proved c To this you answer That the true interpretation of the Scripture ought to be reveaved from the Church you need not proue for it is very easily granted by them who professe themselves ready to receaue all Truthes much more the true sense of Scripture not only from the Church but any society of men nay from any man whatsoever But who sees not that this is but a cavill and that Charity Maintayned to the Question which was in hand from whence the interpretation of Scripture was to be received answered it is to be received from the Church And I pray if one should say the knowledge or truth of Philosophy is to be received from Philosophers would you say this need not be proved nor even affirmed to them who profess themselves ready to receiue all Truths not only from Philosophers but from any man whatsoever 21. You labour N. 90.91.92 to proue that Protestants receiue not the Scripture vpon the Authority of our Church but in vaine For what true Church of Christ was there when Luther appeared except the Roman and such as agreed with her even in those Points wherin Protestants disagree from vs and for which they pretend to haue forsaken our Communion Doth not Luther in his Booke against Anabaptists confess that you haue the Scripture from vs And Doue in his persw sion to English Recusants c Pag 13. sayth Wee hold the Creed of the Apostles of Athanasius of Nyce of Ephesus of Constantinople and the same Byble which we receyved from them And Whitaker Lib de Eccles c Pag 369. confesseth that Papists hâ—ue Scripture and Baptisme c and that they came from them to Protestants That you receiue some Bookes and reject others which the vniversall Church before Luther received argues only that you are formall Heretikes that is voluntary choosers and that not believing the infallibility of the Church you haue no certainty of any Booke or parcell or period of Scripture And wheras you say N. 90. that we hold now those Bookes to be Canonicall which formerly we rejected from the Canon and instance in the Booke of Machabees and the Epistle to the Hebrewes and add that the first of these we held not to be Canonicall in S. Gregoryes tyme or els he was no member of our Church for it is apparent He held otherwise and that the second we rejected from the Canon in S. Hieromes tyme as it is evâ—dent out of many places in his workes I answer that it is impossible the Church should now hold those Bookes to be Canonicall which formerly she rejected from the Canon and if there were any doubt concerning these Bookes of Scripture they were not doubted of by any Definition of the Church but by some particular persons which doubt the Church did cleare in due tyme as I haue declared heretofore and answered your Objection out of S. Gregory about the Machabees as also Charity Maintayned Part 2. Pag 195. which you ought not to haue dissembled did answer the same Objection made by Potter Concerning the Epistle to the Hebrewes I beseech the Reader to see what Baronius anno Christi 60. N. 42. seqq writes excellently of this matter and demonstrates that the Latine Church never rejected that Epistle as he proves out of Authors who wrote both before and after S. Hierome and that S. Hierome relyed vpon Eusebius and therfore your absolute Assertion that this Epistle was rejected in tyme of S. Hierome is no lesse vntrue than bold Neither ought you to haue concealed the answer of Char Maintayn Part 2. Chap 7. Pag 197. where he saith thus Wonder not if S. Hierome speake not always in the same manner of the Canon of the Old Testament since vpon experience examination and knowledge of the sense of the Church he might alter his opinion as once he sayd ad Paulinum of the
we can be certaine of the fallhood of no Propositions but these only which are damnable Errours For you know that we spoke not of whatsoever truth or falshood but of a Proposition the truth or falshood wherof cannot be knowne by sense or naturall Reason but only by Revelation in which if the vniversall Church may erre for Points not Fundamentall we cannot possibly haue certainty of the truth of them as I haue proved and it is intolerable in you to make this Argument we may be certaine that snow is not blacke nor fire cold therfore we may be certaine of truths which can be knowne only by Revelation for Points in which you say the whole Church of Christ and much more private men may erre 76. To your N. 162. I need only say that a publike and vniversall Authority to decide Controversyes of Faith and interpret Scriptures must be infallible otherwise it might either be disobeyed or els men would be forced to obey exteriourly that which they judge in Conscience to be a damnable Errour as hertofore I haue declared and shewed a large difference betweene a Judge in Civill causes and Controversyes in matters of Faith alledging to that purpose your owne words Pag 59. N. 17. That in Matters of Religion such a Iudge is required whom we should be obliged to belieue to haue judged right So that in Civill Controversyes every honest vnderstanding man is fitt to be a Iudge but in Religion none but he that is infallible And yet so farre you forget yourself as to object to vs in this N. 162. I hope you will not deny but that the Iudges haue Authority to determine criminall and Civill Controversyes and yet I hope you will not say that they are absolutely infallible in their determinations Infallble while they proceed according to Law How then can you distinguish betwene a Judge in Civill and a Judge in Controversyes of Religion vnless you grant not only a conditionall but an absolute infallibility to this latter whereby he is sure never to erre whereas a Judg in Civill matters may erre by not proceeding according to Law If therfore the Propositions which were publikly defended in Oxford that the Church hath Authority to determine Controversyes in Faith and to interpret Scripture be patient of your Explication I can only say that they either say nothing or teach men to dissemble in matters of Faith by obeying the Commandements of the Church against their Conscience I haue read your friend Irenaeus Philalethes Dissertatione de Pace Ecclesiae who teaches that no man ought now after the tyme of the Apostles who were infallible to be punished by Excommunication as long as he followes the dictamen of his Conscience and how do you tell vs that now one may be excommunicated for an errour in Faith Though you admit no infallible Judge to declare the sense of Scripture and that those Texts which seeme evident to some appeare obscure to others as is manifest in the examples which you alledge as evident of our Saviours Passion and Resurection which diverse Heretikes haue either denyed or vnderstood in a different way from the doctrine of Gods Church and yourselfe in particular belieue that his suffering and Death was not the Death and Passion of God and that his Sufferings did not merit and satisfy for mankind and that he remaines in Heaven with a Body of a different nature and Essence from that which he had vpon Earth which is to deny his Resurrection for substance and Death for the fruite therof You say The Doctor who defended the saied Conclusions together with the Article of the Church of England attributeth to the Church nay to particular Churches and I subscribe to his opinion an Authority of determining Controversyes of Faith according to plain and evident Scripture and vniversall Tradition and infallibility while they proceed according to this Rule But how doth this agree with the whole Scope of your Booke that the Bible the Bible the Bible is the only Rule and with your express words heere N. 155. that no vnwritten Doctrine hath attestatten from Tradition truly vniversall Seing beside Scripture you grant a Tradition which you say gives an infallibility to him who proceeds according to it Which shewes that there is some infallible vnwritten word or Tradition You say But what now if I should tell you that in the yeare 1632. among publike Conclusions defended in Doway one was that God predeterminates men to All their Actions I answer That if you will inferr any thing from hence it must only be this that as the Question about Predetermination is not defined by the Church but left to be disputed in Schooles with an express command of our Supreme Pastour that one part do not censure another so if you grant that out of the sayd Propositions defended in Oxford I may inferr that the Scripture alone is not the Rule of Faith or at least that you are not certaine it is so nor can condemne vs Catholikes for holding the contrary if I say you grant this you overthrow that Ground in which alone all Protestants pretend to agree and of which if they be not absolutly certaine the whole structure of their Faith must be ruinous You overlash in supposing we say that the Church cannot erre whether she vse meanes or no. But we are sure that as the Holy Ghost promised Her the End of not erring so also he will not faile to moue Her essectually to vse such meanes as shall be needfull for that End Your N. 163. about a place of S. Austine I haue answered very largly hertofore 77. In your N. 164. you say Why may not the Roman Church be content to be a Part of that visible Church which was extant when Luther began and the Grecian another And if one must be the whole why not the Greeke Church as well as Roman There being not one Note of your Church which agrees not to Her as well as to your owne 78. Answer If you speake of the true Church of Christ in Greece she is so farr from being divided from the Roman that she doth not only agree with but submitts to Her and receives from her Priests ordained in Rome it selfe and brought vp in Catholique Countries The Scismaticall Grecians to their division from the Roman Church haue added Heresy as even Protestants confesse and so are neither the whole Church nor any Church at all it being indeed no lesse than a kind of blasphemy to affirme that Conventicles of Heretikes can be the true Church of Christ Dr Lawde Pag 24. saith of the Errour of the Grecians I know and acknowledge that Errour of denying the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son to be a grievous errour in Divinity And Pag 154. I would faine know what Article of the Faith doth more concerne all Christians in generall than that of Filioque Which Errour of the Grecians hath beene condemned by three Generall Councells in which the Grecians
different natures yea there should be as many formall differences of Faith as there are different Points which men belieue according to different capacities or instruction c And therfore we must say that vnity in Faith doth not depend vpon Points Fundamentall but vpon Gods Revelation equally or vnequally proposed And Protestants pretending an vnity only by reason of their agreement in Fundamentall Points do 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 God it is evident that they forsake the very formall motiue of Faith which is Gods Revelation and consequently loose all Faith and vnity therein In which words we see Charity Maintayned speakes of that vnity of Faith which is taken from the Formall Object and which to oppose is the proper cause of damnation for erring persons in all Objects whether they be great or small like or vnlike of themselves 21 Now in this discourse what false Propositions what confusion can you finde You say Who knowes not that the Essence of all Habits and therfore 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 bespecall from the Act and Object inspeciall Then for the motiue to a thing that it cannot be of the essence of the thing to which is moves who can doubt that knowes that a motiue is an efficient cause and the efficient is alwaies extrinsecall to the effect 22. Answer To what purpose talk you of the Essence of Habits seing the Discourse of Cha Ma concerned only the Act of Faith whereby we belieue some Truths because they are revealed by God and vpon this ground he proved that every contrary Act is damnable and a grievous sinne which cannot be verifyed of Habits which of themselves are not sinnes Now who can deny that an Act of Faith takes its nature Essence and specification as Philosophers speak from the Divine Revelation And I hope you will not tell vs that the Essence of all Acts is taken from their Act and their Object as if the Essence of the Act were derived from the Act. Dr Potter Pag 139. saith expressly The formall Object or reason of Faith the chiefe Motiue mark motiue the first and farthest Principle into which it resolves is only divine Revelation Obserue that Divine Revelation only is the first and last into which Faith resolves without mentioning that it is taken from the Act yea excluding it by the word only only Divine Revelation And Pag 143. he saieth The chiefe Principle and ground on which Faith rests and for which it firmely assents vnto those truths which the Church propounds is divine Revelation made in Scripture Nothing less then this nothing but this can erect or qualify an Act of supernaturall Faith which must be absotutely vndoubted and certaine and without this Faith is but opinion or perswasion or at the most acquired humane beleef Which words not only declare the Essence of Divine Faith but also express how by that Essence it is distinguished from other things and in particular from humane Faith perswasion and opinion as Cha Ma saied the vnity and distinction of every thing followeth the Nature and Essence therof Thus you see that Cha Ma spoke truth in affirming that the Nature and Being of Faith is taken from the Motiue for which a man believes and that Potter vseth the word Motiue directly in this sense and to this purpose 23. What doe you meane in saying If the habit be generall the essence is taken from the Act and Object in generall If the Habit be speciall from the Act and Obiect in speciall I am very sure that every Habit and Act exists in particular though their Obiects be never so generall and so the Acts to which Habits incline are particular Acts producible by those Habits and nothing taken only in generall can be producible 24. Cha. Ma. and Dr. Potter saied that our motiue to belieue is the Divine Revelation and which is more you affirme the same heere That Gods Revelation is an equall Motiue to induce vs to belieue all Objects revealed by him And yet you strangely object That the Motiue to a thing cannot be of the essence of the thing to which it moves who can doubt that knowes that a motiue is an efficient cause and the efficient is alwaies extrinsecall to the effect 25. Answer First The motiue or Formall Object of which we speak is not an efficient cause in respect of the Habit or Act of Faith but if you will reduce it to one of the foure kinds of Causes which are commonly assigned some will saie it is Causa formalis extrinseca and perhaps others will say that you belieue the motiue to a thing to be an efficient cause because Aristotle defines the efficient cause to be Principium motus and you confound motum and motivum or motion and motiue Secondly Though a motiue were an efficient Cause your Argument That it cannot be of the essence of the thing to which it moves because the efficient cause is is alwayes extrinsecall to the effect is of no moment For no man ever dreamed that the motiue or formall Object of Faith is of the intrinsecall essence of the act therof as Genus and Differentia are intrinsecall to the Species or Materia and Forma are intrinsecall Composito physico but that the act takes its essence from the formall Motiue or object and essentially is or includes a Referēce to it as every creature essentially hath a Relation to God who is the Prime and supreme efficient cause of all things and consequently as you say extrinsecall to them For this cause C Ma saied not that the Motiue to belieue is the essence of Faith but that the essence or nature of Faith is taken from the Motiue for which a man believes Which words signify a difference not an identity seing a thing is not saied to take from itself but to be its owne Essence Do not yourselfe say that the Essence of all Habits is taken from their Act and from their Object And yet I suppose you will not grant that the Act and Object are of the Essence of Habits as intrinsecall to them Especially seing naturall Habits are essiciently produced by Acts and Acts by Habits even supernaturall Acts as by their efficient causes And therfore according to your words are always extrinsecall to the effect And so you answer and confute your owne selfe 26. You doubt what Cha ma did meane by these words Gods Revelation is alike for all Objects But his meaning is cleare that Gods Revelation is the same whether it be applyed to Points Fundamentall or not Fundamentall and can no more be disbelieved in one kind of these Objects than in another it being no lesse impossible that the Supreme Verity and Veracity can testify a falshood in
Churches Foundaâ—ions Now such they could not be without freedome from etrour in all those things which they delivered constantly is certaine revealed truths And to proue that the Apostles are the Foundation of the Church you alledge N. 30 S. Paul saying Built vpon the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Fphes 2.20 43. I reply First The Church must be led into such an all as is necessary to judge of controversyes which yourself Pag 35. N. 7. confess to require an vniversall infallibility Secondly seing Scripture containes not all points necessary to be believed the Church must be indued with infallibility for such points Otherwise we could haue no certainty concerning them And if once you grant her infallible for Points not evideÌ„t in Scripture you cannot deny her an Infallibility derived not from evidence of Scripture but from the assistance of the Holy Ghost And as you say the Apostles were vniversally infallible because the Church was builded on them so every Christian is builded vpon the Church and for that cause she must be vniversally infallible Thirdly We are not saied to be builded vpon the writings of the Apostles or Scripture but vpon the Apostles who were the Foundation of the Church before they wrote any thing by their preaching and verbum traditum Tradition So that indeed this Text Ephes 2.20 makes for vs and proves that we are builded on the vnwritten word and might haue beene so though no Scripture had bene written Fourthly you still mistake the Question and seeke diversions but never goe about to proue by some evident Text of Scripture that the infallibility of the Apostles may not be limited to Fundamentall Points as your restraine to such Points the generall Promises of infallibility made to the Church in holy Scripture and limit the word Foundation to the writings of the Apostles which I haue shewed to be a manifestly vntrue limitation S. Paul 1. Tim 3. avouches the Church to be the Pillar and Ground of Truth and yet you deny Her to be vniversally infallible How then can you proue by the word Foundation which cansignify no more than the pillar and Ground of Truth that the Apostles cannot erre in any Point but the Church may Yea even to make this place Ephes 2.20 cleare and convincing in favour of the Apostles the authority of the Church is necessary and the letter alone will not suffice if you will regard the doctrine or authority of some learned prime Protestant And therfore Fiftly you haue cause to reslect on what Cornelius a Lapide vpon this place saieth That Beza and not he alone interprets vpon the Foundation of the Apostles to signify Christ who is the Foundation of the Apostles Prophets and the whole Church and he Beza saieth that it is Antichristian to put an other foundation For no man can put an other Foundation beside that which is put Iesus Christ. If this exposition be admitted the saied Text Ephes 2.20 will not proue that the Apostles but only that our Saviour the Foundation of the Apostles and of the Church was infallible nor will the stability of a Foundation expressed in this place of Scripture belong to the Apostles And albeit indeed this interpretation be not true yet to you it ought not to seeme evidently false being the Opinion of so great a Rabby as also because it is very agreable to the manner which Potestants hold in impugning Catholik Doctrine when for example they argue The Scripture saieth We haue an Advocate Jesus Christ Therfore Saynts cannot be our Advocates though in an infinitly lower degree than our Saviour is Especially if we reflect that it is saied of our Saviour with a Negatiue or exclusiue particle No man can put an other Foundation wheras in those words we haue an Advocate there is only an affirmation that Christ is our Advocate but no negation that any other is Other examples might be given in this kind if this were a place for it We do therfore grant that the Apostles were Foundations of the Church and that they received Revelations immediately from our Saviour and the Church from them so that as I saied she depends on them not they on Her and you wrong vs while N. 30. in your first Sillogisme you speak in such manner as the Reader will conceiue that we make the infallibility of the Church equall in all respects to that of the Apostles the contrary wherof all Catholikes belieue and proue I omit to obserue that you take occasion to descant vpon these words as well which are not found in Charity Maintayned though for the thing itselfe he might haue vsed them Your N. 31. and 32. haue beene already confuted at large and the words of Dr. Stapleton considered and defended with small credit to Dr. Potter and you 44 You say N. 34. he teaches the promises of Infallibility made to the Apostles to be verifyed in the Church but not in so absolute a manner Now what is opposed to absolute but limited or restrained 45. Answer first our Question is not what Dr. Potter saied but what he did or could proue and in particular I say it cannot be proved by any evident Text of Scripture that the words which he confesses to be verifyed in the Church are limited to fundamentall points in respect of her and not as they are referred to the Apostles Secondly wheras you say what is opposed to absolute but limited or restrained I reply absolute may be taken in diverse senses according to the matter argument or subject to which it is applied and therfore though some tyme it may be opposed to limited yet not alwayes Do not you N. 33. oppose to absolute a conditionall moderate secondary sense which being epithetons much different one from an other giue vs to vnderstand that you are too resolute in asking what is opposed to but limited seing more things than one may be opposed to it What Logician will not tell you that in Logick not Limited but Relatiue is opposed to absolute And we may also say that the infallibility of the Apostles was absolute that is independent and the infallibility of the Church dependent as the Effect depends on the Cause and so is not absolute in that sense but hath a Relation of dependance to the infallibility of the Apostles as to its Cause which particular Relation the Apostles haue not to the Church 46. You say also N. 34. that though it were supposed that God had obliged himself by promise to giue his Apostles infallibility only in things necessary to salvation nevertheless it is vtterly inconsequent that he gaue them no more or that we can haue no assurance of any farther assistance that he gaue them Especially when he himself both by his word and by his works hath assured vs that he did assist them farther 47. Answer I know not to what purpose or vpon what occasion you vtter these words Only I am sure that they containe both a manifest falshood and contradiction to
say The Reason and connexion of this consequence I feare neither I nor you doe well vnderstand But you feare where there is no cause of feare For is it not a cleare consequence that if the Church be infallible only in Fundamentall points and I haue recourse to her about any matter not knowing it to be Fundamentall I cannot be sure but that she may erre therin We haue hard yourselfe saying of meere particulars nothing can be certainly concluded and to vse your owne words who would not laugh at him who should argue thus the Church is infallible in some things the Church saith this is true Therfore it is true Or thus the Church is infallible only in fundamentall Points The Church saieth this particular is true which I know not whether or not it be Fundamentall therfore the Church is infallible in this The conclusion should be Therfore I cannot know that the Church is infallible in this You say N. 37. that the Scripture must be vniversally true and not only in fundamentalls because otherwise it could not be a sufficient warrant to belieue this thing that these only points are Fundamentall which shewes your opinion to be that it would litle availe vs to know that Scripture is infallible in fundamentalls only vnless we could know what Points in particular are fundamentall and therfore you impugne yourself while you find fault with Ch Ma for saying that if the Church be infallible only in fundamentalls we cannot belieue her with certainty vnless we know that such and such things are Fundamentall The residue of this Number 39. you spend in distinguishing between being infallible in fundamentalls and being an infallible guide in fundamentalls of which I haue alreadie spoken at larg 51. In your N. 40. you cite these words as out of Char. Maintayn They that knowe what Points are Fundamentall otherwise then by the Churches Authority learne not of the Church Char. Maint speakes more distinctly and sayeth If before they address themselves to the Church they must know what points are Fundamentall they learne not of her but wil be as fit to teach as to be taught by her How then are all Christians so often so seriously vpon so dreadfull menaces by Fathers Scriptures and our blessed Saviour himself counselled and commanded to seeke to heare to obey the Church Which he proves there at large out of S. Austine and S. Chryiostome And is not all this very cleare For how can I be saied to learne of the Church that which I must know before she can teach me that is what Points be Fundamentall Yes say you they may learne of the Church that the Scripture is the word of God and from the Scripture that such Points are Fundamentall others are not so and consequently learne even of the Church even of your Church that all is not Fundamentall nay all is not true which she teaches vs to be 52. Answer First can we indeed learne from the Scripture that such Points are Fundamentall others are not so How then do you say it is impossible to giue a Catalogue of Fundamentall Points seing there is meanes to know that such Points are Fundamentall others are not so Secondly You grant what Charity Maintayned saied That I cannot learne of the Church that which I must know before she teaches me while you tell vs that men learne of the Church one thing that Scripture is the Word of God and an other from Scripture namely what Points be Fundamentall and so we are so far from learning of the Church that fuch points are Fundamentall that we are as fit to teach her as she to teach vs which Points in particular be Fundamentall which we learne from Scripture not from her just as you teach that not from the Church but from Scripture we learne all particular Points of Faith with certainty though we receiue the Scripture from the Church Thirdly If it be a Fundamentall truth that Scripture is the Word of God I must know it to be such before I can be assured that the Church cannot erre therin and so I cannot learne it of the Church and much less can I learne it of the Church with certainty if it be not a Fundamentall Point in which you hold the Church may erre and Pag 116. N. 159. you say it is not a Fundamentall point Fourthly Whereas you say That one may learne from the Church that Scripture is the Word of God and from the Scripture that all is not true which the Church teacheth to be so I answer if we belieue Scripture to be the word of God vpon the sole Authority of the Church it is impossible that I can proue out of Scripture that all is not true which the Church teacheth to be so For by this meanes Scripture would be destructiue of it self if we belieue it for an Authority which it self saieth may affirme a falshood and so we cannot belieue it even in this particular that Scripture is the word of God Yourself say heere N. 36. An Authority subject to errour can be no firme or stable Foundation of my belief in any thing and if it were in any thing then this Authority being one and the same in all proposalls I should haue the same reason to belicue all that I haue to belieue one and therfore must either do vnreasonably in believing any one thing vpon the sole warrant of this Authority or vnreasonably in not believing all things equally warranted by it Therfore you either do vnreasonably in believing the Scripture vpon the sole warrant of the Church or vnreasonably in not believing her in all her proposalls and Luther was and all Protestants are vnreasonable in saying that all is not true which the Church teacheth to be so You say N. 40. Neither do I see what hinders but a man may learne of a Church how to confute the errours of that Church which taught him As well as of my Master in Physick or Mathematicks I may learne those rules ād Principles by which I may confute my Masters erroneous Conclusions But if the ground which I haue laied and corfirmed out of your owne words be considered this your instance will proue against yourself For if I belieue those Rules or Principles because I belieue my Master cannot erre and not for the evidence of them in themselves I do vnreasonably in not believing whatsoever he proposes Otherwise I may feare he erred even in those Rules if once I sinde him to erre in any other thing Now we receiue with certainty Scripture for the sole Authority of the Church and therfore we do vnreasonably if we belieue her not in all her proposalls 53. Your N. 41.42 haue bene answered hertofore In your N. 43. you speake to Ch Ma. in this manner In the next place you tell vs out of S. Austine That that which has bene alwayes kept is most rightly esteemed to come from the Apostles Very right and what then Therefore the Church cannot erre indefining
cockle is to be suffered or as I may say tolerated to growe with the wheate least vntymely weeding the cockle spoile the good corne that is of two vnavoidable evills it is not only lawfull but laudable yea necessary to chuse the lesser which taken formally with comparison to the greater is in some sorte good as in some proportion I declared heretofore speaking of the case of invincible and inculpable Perplexity as heere the Church is necessitated without any fault of hers either to suffer a less or doe a greater evill by vntymely and fruiteless rigor Did not the Apostles and must not all Prelats permit many sinnes of diverse kinds which they cannot hinder without greater damage to the Christian Commonwealth vnless they were Omnipotent to rule the wills of men and effectually drawe them only to good But you speak very vnworthily of the vniversall Church of Christ when you would make the world belieue that the farre greater part of Christians in S. Austines tyme was guilty of vaine superstitions and avowed and practised them yea or even dissembled them in silence when prudent Charity and zeale could dictate the contrary As for your parity betwen the whole Church and particular members thereof it hath bene confuted heretofore infallibility being promised to the Church not to private persons and you might make the same Argument to proue that the Apostles might erre in matters which they delivered as Points of Faith and yet remaine parts of the Church as well as particular men might erre and remaine members of the Church if their errours were inculpable If you say the Apostles were to teach others and so could not erre even inculpably you know we say the same of the Church which is Judge of Controversyes and was before Scripture and from which we receyue true Tradition Scripture and the interpretation thereof But if we suppose that those superstitious persons chanced to erre in any Point against Faith and remained obstinate therein after sufficient Declaration of the Churches Doctrine to the contrary then they became formall Heretiques excluded from being members of the Church and so cannot be saied to be either the greater or lesser or any part thereof 60. In your N. 49. You say But now after all this adoe what if S. AustaneÌ„ sayes not this which is pretended of the Church viz that she neither approves nor dissembles nor practises any thing against Faith or good life but only of good men of the Church Certainly though some Copies read as you would haue it yet you should not haue dissembled that others read the place otherwise viz. Ecclesia multa tolerat tamen qûae sunâ— contra Fidem bonam vitam nec bonus approbat c The Church tolerater many things and yet what is against Faith or good life a good man will neither approue nor dissemble nor practise 61. Answer But who beside yourself hath made all this adoe Which certainly you would never haue made vnless you had believed that the Common Reading goes as Charity Maintayned cites it and for that cause you found it necessary to take so much paines spend so many words and make so much adoe to answer it If an English Protestant should cite the English Translation approved in England as the Text hath it were he obliged to take notice of every different Lection quoted in the Margin And were not such English Protestants obliged to answer according to the Reading which all things considered the Translators though fittest and securest to be placed in the Text itself If the Text condemne can the margent acquit him I haue procured to know what divers Editions haue and amongst the rest one of Basilea Anno 1556 and not one of them all hath in the Text nec bonus only the Edition of Lovaine hath it in the margin But you are much mistaken if you conceyue that our Argument looses its force though we should read nec bonus approbat For to omit your owne manner of arguing els where and even in this place that good men are part of the Church and therefore it is impossible that the whole Church can be saied to approue or dissemble or practise those things we ground our proofe on such considerations as I touched aboue that the Church is saied only to tolerate and is contradistinguished from those who approue or practise the saied abuses as also she is opposed to cockâ—e and chasse yea yourfelf confess that S. Austine affirmes that they were neither contained in Scripture deâ—reed by Councells nor corroborated by the Custome of the vniversall Church Which shewes how innocent she was from being obnoxious to that imputation of approving those presumptions Which also appeares by the whole drift of S. Austines discourse where still he makes a difference betwene the Church and those erring persons Besides when you would haue him say A good man will neither approue nor c by a good man you must not vnderstand every pious or devout or even holy person who may be subject to such abuses as S. Austine speaks of seing you cite him saying Multa hujusmodi propter nonnullarum vel sanctarum vel turbulentarum personarum scandala devitanda liberius improbare non audeo Many of these things for fear of scandalizing many holy persons or provoking those that are turbulent I dare not freely disollow But by good men you must of necessity vnderstand such as haue zeale with knowledg such as are of a right and settled true judgment in matters belonging to Faith and Religion and certainly such they cannot be in the opinyon of S. Augustine who could think that the Church can approue any errour or superstition seing we haue heard him say Ep 118. If the Church through the whole world practise any of these things to dispute whether that ought to be done is a most insolent madness Will you haue an vnderstanding good man to be guilty of most insolent madness If a good man cannot approue such things much less in truth and in the opinion of S. Austine the Church could doe it So that reade S. Austine as you please the sentence which Charity Maintayned alledged proves the infallibility of Gods Church neither can you finde any meanes to avoide this inference except by vnmasking yourself and saying as you doe here N. 44. To deal ingeniously with you and the world I am not such an idolater of S. Austine as to think a thing proved sufficiently because he saies it or that all his sentences ore oracles And so I may returne your owne words and say But now after all this adoe what if S. Austine saies what Charity Maintayned affirmes him to say seing you do not much regard what S. Austine saies 62. For answer to your N. 53. I say that Charity Maintayned had reason to affirme that seing no private persoÌ„s ought to presume that they are endued with greater infallibility than the Church which Protestants teach to be infallible only in Fundamentall Points they cannot
not agree with the Church truly Catholique These words cannot be true vnless he presupposes that the Church truly Catholique cānot erre in Points not fundamētall For if she may erre in such points the Roman Church which he affirmes to erre only in points not fundamētall may agree with the Church truly Catholique if she likewise may erre in points not fundamētall This is the Argumēt of Ch Ma and is it not cleare that if the Church Catholique can erre for example in the Doctrines of Purgatory Invocations of Saynts reall presence and the like as de facto Luther and his followers pretend she did erre and that they were reformers of such errours seing the Roman Church may and doth hold the same Doctrines the Church vniversall and the Roman Church shall agree in the same pretended errours and so Potter saied not truly that if we agree with the Roman Church for example about Purgatory Praiers to saynts c we cannot agree with the Church Catholique Will you deny the Axiom Quae sunt eadem vni tertio sunt eadem inter se If then the vniversall and the Roman Church agree in the belief of errours as you falsly terme them do they not agree one with an other And so contrary to Potters affirmation it must be saied If we did dissent from these opinions of the present Roman Church we could not agree with the Church Catholique if once it be supposed that the Church holds those or the like vnfundamentall errours as you grant she may And further it would follow that seing Protestants dissent from the Roman Church they cannot agree with the Catholique Church But let vs heare how you make good your censure 69. You say let vs suppose either that the Catholique Church may erre but doth not but that the Roman actually doth or that the Catholique Church may erre in some few things but that the Roman errs in many more And is it not apparent in both these cases which yet both suppose the Churches infallibility a man may truly saie vnless I dissent in some opinions from the Roman Church I cannot agree with the Catholique Either therfore you must retract your imputation laied vpon Dr. Potter or doe that which you condemne in him and be driven to say that the same man may held some errours with the Church of Rome and at the same tyme with the Catholique Church not hold but condemne them For otherwise in neither of these cases it is possible for the same man at the same tyme to agree with the Roman and the Catholique 70. Answer Your conscience cannot but witness that the Doctor when he saied If we did not dissent in some opinions from the present Roman Church we could not agree with the Church truly Cathelique did not speak of accidentall cases or voluntary suppositions such as you put but meant and spoke absolutely that if we did not dissent from the Present Roman Church we could not agree with the Church truly Catholique For if he meant only of contingent cases without regard to any particular advantage or prerogatiue of the Church vniversall he might haue made suppositions directly contrary to yours that the Roman Church may erre but doth not but the vniversall actually doth or that the Roman Church doth erre in some few things but the Catholique errs in many more For if once it be granted the Catholique Church to erre to say she may erre in many or few is a voluntary vngrounded conjecture or divination and nothing to any purpose Nay seing if once the Catholik Church be supposed to erre she may multiply errours without end and so to day agree with to morrow disagree from the Roman Church and it must follow that according to your explication the Doctours words may be in a perpetuall alteration to day fals to morrow true which either was farre from his meaning or his meaning was not only impertinent but against his owne scope and Intention which was to make the vniversall Church as it were the Modell or Rule to judge of the necessity which Protestants had to forsake the Roman Church by reason of her dissenting from the Church Catholiques which had bene no good reason if the vniversall Church may erre and erre as much and more than the Roman or any other partioular Church Which appeares also by these words of the Doctor in the same Pag 97. The Catholique Church is carefull to ground all her declarations vpon the divine Authority of Gods written word And therfore whosoever wilfully opposed a judgement so well grounded is justly esteemed an Heretique And P 132. he saieth For vs the mistaker nor his he Masters will never prove that we oppose either any declaration of the Catholique Church or any Fundamentall or other truth of Scripture and therefore he doth vnjustly charge vs with Schisme or Herisie Do not these sayings attribute more to the vniversall than to particular Churches and more than a meerely casualty that either she doth not actually erre or els erres in fewer things than the present Roman Church And vpon the whole matter is not that true which Charity Maintayned N. 22. saied That D. Potter must either grant that the Catholique Church cannot erre in Points not Fundamentall or confess a plain contradiction to himself in the saied words If we did not dissent in some opinions from the present Roman Church we could not agree with the Church truly Catholique Would not Protestants take it in ill parte if one should say If we did not dissent in some opinions from Protestants we could not agree with the Church truly Catholique And yet according to your explication and suppositions it could not be ill taken because either the Church might be supposed not to erre actually or in some few things but that the Protestants erre in many more it being manifest that some of them erre By the way when Potter saieth For vs the Mistaker will never proue that we oppose any Declaration of the Catholique Church or any truth of Scripture I would know whom he vnderstand by vs Seing it is evident that of Protestants holding so many contrary Doctrines some must of necessity oppose some Declaration of the Church or truth of Scripture and since they haue no certaine Rule to know which of them be in the wrong and oppose some Declaration of the Church or Scripture we must conclude that no man desirous of his salvation can commit his soule to any of them all Your Conclusion Either therefore you must retract your imputation laid vpon Dr Potter or doe that c. is obscure but I am sure it is answered seing it goes vpon your fals explication of the Doctors words 71. Your proceding N. 69. puts me vpon a necessity of intreating the Reader to peruse the N. 23. of Charity Maintayned which evidently demonstrates that it was wholy impertinent for you to answer the places which He saieth are wont to be all edged out of Scripture for the infallibility of Gods
Charity Maintayned and the Doctor cite are absolute And Matth 28. V. 20. behold which particle holy Scripture is wont to vse when it speaks of some great or strang thing I am with you all daies even to the consummation of the world Which wordsare both absolutely without any condition and cannot be restrayned to the lives of the Apostles and therfore dato non concesso that the Promise had bene made to the Apostles vpon condition of Loving God it does not follow that the same condition must be required in every one of their successours but for the merit of the Apostles it may be communicated to others in whom the Apostles liue and so what is granted to them is a reward bestowed vpon the Apostles as heroicall acts of particular men are rewarded both in themselves and in their posterity for their sake though their successors be destitute of that worth and desert without which condition theyr first progenitors would never have attained that Dignity or Prerogatiue which afterward is derived to their posterity absolutely and without any such condition as was required in the beginning Morover though it were granted that keeping the commandements were a necessary condition for receyving Infallibility yet you will never be able to proue by any evident Text of Scripture that it is necessary in respect of every particular person it being sufficient that it be veryfied of the Church Catholique of which even Dr. Potter Pag 10. saieth that it is not improbable only but meerely impossible the Catholique Church should be without Charity Our blessed Saviour before he encharged the care of his Church vpon S. Peter exacted of him a triple profession of loue and will you therfore haue none to be lawfull Pastors except such as loue God aboue all things and are in state of Grace and free from deadly sinne Haue you a mynd to fetch from Hell the condemned and seditious heresy of Wicliffe That If a Bishop or Priest be in deadly sinne he doth not indeed either giue Orders consecrate or Baptize As authority and Jurisdiction are not of that nature of things which require Charity and the State of Grace so neither is infallibility no more than working of Miracles Gift of tongues and the like which by Divines are called Gratiae gratis datae and therfore you cannot imagine with any reason that the Holy Ghost cannot be given for some Effects to any who is not in state of Grace and I hope you will at least pretend to be more certaine that Scripture is of infallible Authority than that every Canonicall Writer did loue God and keep the commandements when they wrote Scripture yea of some Bookes of Scripture some call in Question who were the writers of them I will not heere stay to put you in minde that it is common among Protestants to deny the posfibility of keeping the commandements must they therfore deny the infallibility of the Apostles They are so farre from doing so that they hold the Church to be infallible in Fundamentalls notwithstanding the impossibility in their opinion of keeping the commandements 85. Now I hope it appeares that your two Syllogismes goe vpon a false ground that the promise made to the Apostles is conditionall and so proue nothing As also that you breath too much gall and vanity in saying that Charity Maintayned and generally all our Writers of Controversy by whom this Text is vrged with a bold Sacriledge and horrible impiety somewhat like Procrustes his cruelty perpetually cut of the head and foot the beginning and end of it For I suppose you will not hold Dr. Potter for a Writer of Controversy against Protestants and yet he cites this Text and leaves out more than Charity Maintained omitts cutting of not only the head ād foot but also the breast and middle thereof therby shewing his judgment that the other words which you cite out of the precedent 15. and the following 17. verse make nothing to that purpose for which that Text is produced that is the infallibility of the Apostles and Church and that you by citing those different verses without distinction not only joyne head and foot and the whole Body confusedly together which is no less monstrous than to cutt them of but doe indeed vtterly destroy and depriue it of all infalllibility by questioning the infallibility of the Apostles from whom this very Text must receiue all the certainty it can haue Do not I maintayne the most perfect kind of Charity in defending my adversary the Doctor in this occasion of being forsaken and even impugned by whom alone he hoped to be relieved And indeed Dr. Potter only and not Charity Maintayned stands in need of defence seing he alledged those texts which the Doctor cites only to shew in deeds that Scripture alone is not sufficient to interpret itself whereas D. Potter brought them absolutely to proue the infallibility of the Church in all Fundamentall Points which is the common tenet of Protestants and yet you overthrow it by making our Saviours Promise not absolute but depēding vpon a volūtary vncertaine condition 86. In your N. 76. you endeavour divers wayes to elude the Argument which is wont to be alledged for the infallibility of the Church taken out of S. Paul 1. Tim 3.15 where the Church is saied to be the Pillar and Ground of Truth 87. First you say Charity Maintayned is somewhat too bold with S. Paul For it is neither impossible nor improbable these words the Pillar and ground of truth may haue reference not to the Church but to Timothy But this exposition is not only against Calvin and other Protestants who expresly refer those words to the Church but also it cannot well agree with the Greek And even the Protestant English Translation reades it as we doe for as much as belongs to our present purpose Howesoever it appeares by this very example how hard and impossible it is to determine Controversyes by Scripture alone which every one will find meanes to interpret for his best advantage though it be not donne without violence to the Text. Neither is it heterogeneous as you argue that S. Paul having called the Church a House should call it presently a Pillar For you should consider that he calls it a House and Pillar in different respects A House of God the Pillar not of God but of Truth You will not deny that the Primitiue Apostolicall Church was vniversally infallible and so was both the House of God and Pillar of Truth and therefore it is nothing absonous or heterogeneous that the metaphor of a House and of a Pillar be applyed to the same thing Cornelius à Lapide heere saieth Alludit Apostolus ad Bethel de qua viso ibi Domino dixit Jacob Genes 28. verè non est hic aliud nisi Domus Dei porta Caeli If therefore in that place of Genesis to which the Apostle alludes the same is saied to be a House and a Gate in diverse respects a
House of God a Gate of Heaven why may he not say of the Church that it is a House of God a Pillar of Truth What greater repugnance is there betwene a House and a Pillar than betwene a House and a Gate If men may take the liberty to interpret holy Scripture by such light subtilityes what certainty can ever be gathered from any Text What difficulty is there to conceiue that the Church should be the House wherein Gods resides and raignes by infallibly assisting it and yet be a Pillar of Truth to teach others Especially seing God assists the Church to the end she may teach others Passiuè taught Actiuè teaches as yourself avouch heere N. 78. that it is the essence of the Church to be alwayes the maintayner and teacher of all necessary truth But yourself profess not to relie vpon this interpretation and therefore 88. Secondly you put vs in mynd that the Church which S. Paul heere speaks of was that in which Timothy conversed and that was a particular Church and not the Roman and such we will not haue to be vniversally infallible 89. Answer Although S. Paul spoke to Timothy who conversed in the particular Church of Ephesus whereof he was Bishop yet he puts him in mynd of his duty by a Motiue and Reason more vniversall and certaine as Proofes are wont to be than could be taken from that particular Church alone that is he gaue a Reason which did concerne it as a member of the vniversall Church which being the Pillar and Ground of Truth could not but exact of Him and every Bishop a zeale to imitate with care and vprightness their mother the Church in conserving for their parte that Truth which the Church teaches and from which she cannot swarue To which very purpose Cornelius à Lapide vpon these words Quae est columna firmamentum veritatis saieth Addit hoc Apostolus vt innuat Timotheo magno cum studio ad haereses errores devitandos refellendos purae veritati intelligendae praedicandae in Ecclesia sibi incumbendum esse adeoue se non judaizantium aliorumue Novantium sed Ecclesiae fidem sequi praedicare debere vtpote quae sit basis veritatis And so I may retort your Argument and say S. paul speakes of a Church which is the Pillar and Ground of Truth but Protestants teach that no particular Church is such a Pillar even for things necessary to salvation as they saie the vniversall Church is Therefore S. Paul speaks not of a particular but the vniversall Church And by this I confute what you answer 90. Thirdly N. 77. That many Attributes in Scripture are not notes of performance but of duty and teach vs not what the thing or Person is of necessity but what it should be Ye are the salt of the Earth said our Saviour to his Disciples Not that this quality was inseparable from their Persons but because it was their office to be so For if they must haue bene so of necessity and could not haue bene otherwise in vaine had he put them in seare of that which followes if the salt hath lost his savour wherewith shall it be salted So the Church may be by duty the Pillar and Ground that is the Teacher of Truth of all truth not only necessary but profitable to salvation and yet she may neglect and violate this duty and be in fact the teacher of some Errour 91. Answer Even now it hath bene saied that Potter and other Protestants commonly teach that the vniversall Church cannot erre in Fundamantall Articles as a particular Church may and yet every particular Church by duty is a teacher of all Necessary Points Therefore the vniversall Church must be more a teacher by duty and performance Your Proofe that to be the salt of the earth which was spoken to the Apostles signifyes only that it was infallibly certaine they should be so tends plainly to Atheisme if the denyall of Scripture and all Christianity must bring to Atheisme as certainly it must For take away infallibility from the Apostles what certainty can you haue that in fact they haue not neglected and violated their duty as you say the Church may You still fall into the same mistake that God cānot effectually moue vs to the performance of a thing without necessitating our will Neither doth it follow that in vaine our Saviour put them in feare of that which followes if the salt hath lost his savour c For when God doth promise a thing he doth not exclude meanes or our endeavour to the application of which he can also moue vs effectually without prejudice to the freedom of our will The Apostles in the Councell which they held at Hierusalem were certaine not to determine any Errour and yet they vsed great diligence examination and dispute Act 15.7 I suppose you will not deny that S. John was infallibly assisted in writting his Gospell and yet S. Hierom in praef in Evangel Matth saieth that he could not be intreated to set on that holy Work but vpon condition that indicto jejunio in commune omnes Deum deprecarentur the Christians should haue a fett fast and all should joyne in prayer to God Do you not belieue that God did so assist the Writers of Canonicall Scripture that they were infallible in their writings and yet that they might exercise an act of obedience and freely though infallibly follow the Direction of the Holy Ghost It is cleare that you must either deny freedom of will to the Writers or infallibility to their writings or grant that free will and infallibility are not incompatible I might add to all this that men may loose themselves not only by error in Faith but also by an ill life whereby Preachers destroy by deeds what they pretended to build in words Which Answer would evacuate the force of your Argument but I haue saied enough of this matter 92. Fourthly N. 78. you answer that we must proue that by Truth in the saied Text is meant all Truth both Fundamentall and profitable and that you grant it to be the Essence of the Church to be a maintayner and teacher of all necessary truth But this evasion hath bene confuted already out of your owne assertion that we cannot belieue the Church in Fundamentall Articles vnless she be infallible in all and this vrges most clearely in your opinyon who profess it impossible to know what Points in particular be Fundamentall And I beseech you cōsider that S. Paul speaks of the primitiue Church of those tymes which you will not deny to haue bene infallible ād therefore if he speak of the vniversall Church as in this Fourth Answer you suppose he doth you must grant that Church to be infallible in all Fundamentall and vnfundamentall Points And so this Text cannot be restrayned to Fundamentall Truths 93. Your N. 79.80 Pretends to answer the Argument taken out of S. Paul Ephes 4. He gaue some Apostles and some prophets and
from the sayings of ancient Fathers and moderne Divines can only in the opinion of him and all other Protestants be probable and so cannot oblige every one to know the Creed but men may keepe their liberty Melior est conditio possidentis And Potter himselfe confesses it to be only probable that the Creed containes all fundamentall points and so he cannot oblige men to know the Creed because it only probably containes all necessary Articles If then you cannot proue that any is obliged to know the Creed in vaine doe you say belieue all and you shall be sure to belieue all that is Fundamentall but you must say the direct contrary Men are not in the Principles of Protestants obliged to belieue the Creed Therefore they are not obliged to belieue by it any point Fundamentall or not Fundamentall You say Dr. Potter sayes no where that all the Articles of the Creed are fundamentall Neither doth Ch. Ma. ever affirme that he sayes so but the thing being of it self true and you expressly confess it to be true He had reason joyning it with other principles of the Doctor to frame such a Dialague as he did betwene Potter and some desirous to find the Truth And now I hope it appeares that you had no reason to accuse Ch Ma. of vn-ingenious dealing sit for a Faire or Comedy of sirang immodesty of adding to the Doctors words of injustice of blind zeale transporting him beyond all bounds of honesty and discretion and making him careless of speaking either truth or sense That he is a prevaricating Proxy That he patches together a most ridiculous answer That it appeares to his shame c and finally you say certainly if Dr. Potter doth Answer thus I will make bold to say he is a very foole But if he does not then But. I for beare you These be your modest epethitons You say that we Catholiques interpret those divine prescriptions Matth 5. to be no more than Counsells But I pray what Catholique ever taught that our Saviour delivered only a Counsell when he saied whosoever shall say to his brother thou foole shall be guilty of hell fire But all the rest of your acerbity is nothing to that fearefull denunciation which you vtter against Ch. Ma. that our errours as you call them you feare will be certainly destructiue to such as he is that is to all those who haue eyes to see and will not see 52. In your N. 64. you cavill that Ch. Ma. promises to answer D. Potters Arguments against that which he Ch. Ma. said before But presently forgetting himself in stead of answering the Doctors Arguments falls a confuting his Answers to the Argument of Ch. Ma. 53. Answer Ch. ma. N. 20. promises to answer not the Arguments as you say but the Objections of Dr. Potter against that which we had said before which be doth performe N. 21.22.27 and N. 23. he begins to answer the Doctors positive Arguments alledged to proue that the Creed containes all fundamentall Articles of Faith And the Confutations of the Doctors objections are so strong that you abandon your Client and tell vs that he rather glances at then builds vpon thē that they were said ex abundanti and therefore that you conceiue it superfluous to examine the exceptions of Ch. Ma. against them This is an excellent answer if it could be as satisfactory as it is easy I must intreate the Reader to peruse the N. 21.22.27 of Ch. Ma. and he will finde that Dr. Potter needed a Defence which will be suspected you did not giue because indeed you could not and therefore you fly to an other Answer which you will not find in Dr. Potter That Scripture is not a point necessary to be explicitely believed And How ought Protestants to accept this answer who teach that wee can belieue nothing belonging to Christian Faith but by Scripture alone which if they belieue not Actually nor are bound to belieue it how can they Actually believe or be obliged to belieue the contents thereof If the Church in your opinyon be not infallible and that mē are not obliged to belieue the Scripture to be the word of God and infallible which to them who belieue is not it all one as if it were not what certainty can Protestants haue either that the Creed containes all fundamentall Articles of simple beliefe or that those which it containes are true you say Gregory of Ualentia seemes to confess the Creeds being collected out of Scripture and supposing the Authority of it But Ualentia 2.2 Disp 1. Quest 1. Punct 4. saied only that the Creed containes those things which are in different places contayned in Scripture which is evidently true but he saieth not the Creed was collected out of Scripture which was written after the Creed was composed one thinghe saieth which had bene more for your purpose to obserue that in believing the Creed we are to regard the sence Non enim saieth he sufficit haerere in cortice verborum 54. Subtract from your N. 65. what hath bene answered already or may be answered by a meere denyall or which implies a begging of the Question there will remaine only your saying which yet I cannot say deserves any answer that Ch. Ma. speakes that which is hardly sense in calling the Creed an abridgment of some Articles of Faith For I demand say you these some Articles which you speak of which are they Those that are out of the Creed or those that are in it Those that are in it it comprehends at large and therfore it is not an abridgment of them Those that are out of it it comprehends not at all and therfore is not an abridgment of them If you would call it now an abridgment of the Faith this would be sense and signifie thus much That all the necessary Articles of Christian Faith are comprized in it For it is the proper duty of abridgments to leaue out nothing necessary and to take in nothing vnnecessary 55. Answer this your subtility is so farr from being of any solidity that it overthrowes all abridgments contradicts Dr. Potter and yourselfe and proves that the Creed performes not the proper dury of an abridgment as you say it is and therfor you are injurious to it and the composers therof First your objection may be made against every Abredgment by demanding whether it be an abridgment of those points that are out of it or of those that are in it Those that are in it it comprehends at large and therfor it is not an abridgment of them Those that are out of it it comprehends not at all and therfor it is not an abridgment of them Secondly you contradict Dr. Potter who saieth Pag 234. The Creed is an abstract or Abridgment of such necessary Doctrines as are delivered in Seripture or collected ous of it And Charity Maintay saieth it is an abridgment of some articles and so the words of the Doctor are more restrained and limited than
a necessity of some body to deliver it Neither can I discover how this argument is not against yourselfe who teach that the Creed containes all necessary points of Faith and that the article which doth concerne the Church is none of those necessary points from whence it follow that the perfection of the Creed that is the beliefe of all necessary articles excludes a necessity of believing that article of the Church For it implyes contradiction that I should belieue all that is necessary to be believed and yet some other points should be necessary or that a point not necessary should be necessary Neither is this in your grounds to exclude a necessity of some body to deliver the Creed but only to exclude a necessity of believing that this must be done by a perpetuall visible Church which you say N. 34. is not a fundamentall article and the same you teach in divers other places of your Booke You add much lesse can I discover any shew of reason why the whole Creeds containing all things necessary should mak the beliefe of a part of it vnnecessary As well for ought I vnder stand you might auouch this inference to be as good as Dr. Potters The Apostles Creed containes all things necessary therfor their is no need to belieue in God But who makes any such generall or causall inference Because the whole Creed containes all things necessary therfor the beliefe of a part of it is vnnecessary rather we must say the contrary Because it containes divers necessary points therfore the beliefe of divers of them is necessary I hope you will not deny this to be a good consequence the Creed containes all necessary articles togeather with some not necessary Therfor the beliefe of some part of it is not necessary And I wonder you would paralell our beliefe in God with that of the Church since the one is the most necessary article of all others and the other in your opinion is not necessary The rest of your discourse in this Number serves only to confirme the argument of Ch. Ma. who never sayd absolutely that if the Apostles Creed containe all things necessary all other Creeds and Catechismes are superfluous but expresly called it a poore consequence and yet that it was as good as Potters which must be to this effect It is enough vpon the Doctours supposition not in truth or it is only necessary to belieue the article of the Church Therfor it is superfluous to belieue other articles contained in the Creed 66. In your N. 81. you are pleased to spend words in vaine D. Potter says As well nay better they might haue given vs no article but that and sent vs to the Church for all the rest Ch. Ma. having first proved this inference to be of no force by way of superrogation grants the thing inferred not absolutely but thus farr which words you leaue out and yet they overthrow all that you say here that de facto our B. Saviour hath sent vs to the Church by her to be taught and by her alone because she was before the Creed and Scriptures and she to discharge this imposed office of instructing vs had delivered vs the rCeed holy Scripture vnwritten Divine Apostolicall Ecclesiasticall Traditions Thus Ch. Ma. hath granted you all that he pretended to grant as might haue been apparent if you had not omitted his first words Thus farr and not farther nor so farr as you would needs make him to haue pretended 67. Your N. 82.83 haue been answered already For if Dr. Potter meant that the article of the Church might be sufficient as containing all things necessary to be believed and that therfor we needed not the Creed Ch. Ma. sayth truly it is no good argument The Creed containes not all things necessary and that article of the Church is in rigour sufficient Therfor the Creed is not profitable or if the Doctour meant that the article of the Church were enough because the Church afterward would teach all things by Creeds or Catechismes c. that were but to leaue the Creed and afterward to come to it and indeed to tell vs that the Church must doe that which had beene done already and therfor in what sense soever you take the Doctours argument it was confuted by Ch. Ma. But now while you pretend to stand for the sufficiency of the Creed in all necessary points of beliefe you doe indeed overthrow it while you speake to Ch. Ma. in this manner Supposing the Apostles had written â—hese Scriptures as they haue written wherin all the Articles of their Creed are plainly delivered and preached that doctrine which they did preach and done all other things as they haue done besides the compossng their simbol I say if your doctrine weretrue they had done a work infinitly more beneficiall to the Church of Christ if they had never coÌ„posed their simbol which is but an imperfect comprehension of the necessary points of simple beliefe and no distinctiue mark as a Simbol should be betweene those that are true Christians and those that are not so but in steed therof had delivered this one proposition which would haue been certainly effectuall for all the forsaid good inteÌ„ts aÌ„d purposes the RomaÌ„ Church shall be for ever infallible in all things which she proposes as matters of faith who sees not that according to this discourse of yours the Apostles assuring vs that the scripture is infallible aÌ„d evideÌ„t in all necessary points de facto haue done as much service to the Church as you say they would haue done by that article I belieue the Roman Church shall be for ever infallible For this evidence of Scripture being supposed you teach that ther is no need of a guide or an infallible Church when the way is plaine of it selfe And if notwithstanding this your doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture alone the Creed is not vnprofitable and that the Apostles haue done better service to the Church by giving vs both the Creed and Scripture So I say that one article of the Church togeather with the Creed had been more profitable and of greater service then that Article alone yea the Church as I sayd must haue delivered some Creed and it was a great service to vs that the Apostles had done it to her hand If you deny this you must deny the Creed and Scripture to be de facto more profitable then the Scripture alone and so the Creed shall be of no profit For I suppose if either the Creed or Scripture be not profitable you will say it is the Creed rather then the Scripture If you say the articles of the Creed being clearly but diffusedly set downe in the Scripture as Potter speakes haue been afterwards summed vp and contracted into the Apostles Creed which therfor is of great vse I reply that by this answer you teach vs to confute your argumeÌ„t by saying that as Scripture is too large for a Creed or an abridgment so
this case the omission of those observances would be so farr from being evill that the contrary would be a great offence against God and his Church This very same answer serves for your other discourse about a company vniversally infected with some disease and needs only the application from observance to a disease which certainly we should rather endure then make a breach from such a community if by a divine precept we be obliged to remaine therein 27. You cite N. 87. the words of Ch Ma. disadvantagiously He sayth indeed that those few that pretended a Reformation were knowē to be led not with any spirit of Reformation but by some other sinister intention which is very true And N. 29. he shewed it out of Luthers owne words which you thought fit to dissemble and the same may be demonstrated of your other primitiue prime Reformers if it were necessary It is also very true that by going out of the Church no man must hope to be free from those or the like errours for which they left her For they may returne to morrow to their former opinions as heresy is always instable and also to vs Catholiques because out of the true Church they can haue no certaine rule of Faith nor are assisted with plenty of grace for exercising acts thereof as experience teaches vs in the irreconciliable contentions of Protestants and yourselfe say heere P 277. N. 61. The vsuall fecundity of errours is to bring forth others of a higher quality such as are pernicious and pestilent and vndermine by secret consequences the very foundations of Religion and piety It is pretty to heare you say N. 88. that the Church is secured from fundamentall errours not by any absolute promise of divine assistance but by the repugnance of any errour fundamentall to the essence and nature of a Church as you may say men are secured from being vnreasonable creatures or beastes because if they were such they could not be men You know very well that when Charity Maintayned sayd N. 31. You teach that no particular person or Church hath any promise of assistance in points fundamentall he meant of an absolute promise of assistance which Potter affirmes the vniversall Church to haue for all fundamentall points and yet grants it not to any particular Person or Church and therefor you had no reason to call that true saying of Ch Ma a manifest falshood Of Luthers opposing himselfe to all I haue spoken heretofore and answered the objection you bring about that matter in your N. 89. 28. Your N. 91. yealds as much as can be desired against yourself and all Protestants That many chiefe learned Protestants are forced to confesse the antiquity of our doctrine and practice which you doe not deny but goe about to specify some particular points of which learned Protestants doe not confesse the antiquity but indeed they are such that any judicious Protestant will wonder that you did mention them in particular confessing therby that for those which you doe not expresse and they are the chiefest differences betwixt Protestants and vs antiquity stands for vs against Protestants though I must add withall to make vp the number you are forced to bring in some things which are not matters of Faith with vs and some other points which are even ridiculous We deny that any Catholick approved Authour acknowledges the novelty of any of our Doctrines or the Antiquity of yours except in that sense as we are wont to say such were Ancient Heresies and Heretikes But you know Erasmus is no competent witnesse in our account Your Num. 72. containes no new difficulty 29. To your N. 93. In answer that the Profession of true Faith is essentiall to every member of the Church as such but Charity is not and therfor every errour against Faith is incompatible with such a Denomination but not sinnes against Charity If the Church might erre in any point of Faith it is true that ex natura rei and considering only that errour or only that one part of the supposition in itselfe her communion might be forsaken and yet it is also true that taking into consideration all sides ād comparing the greater Inconvenience of leaving the communion of the Church with a lesser of professing an errour not Fundamentall it is necessary to remaine in her communion as minus malum and therefore in case and supposition of perplexity not absolutely and per se loquendo to be perferred and chosen so the saying of Ch. Ma. that the Church might be forsaken if she could fall into any errour against Faith is true per se loquendo and not contrary to his other saying that vpon that impossible supposition it were lesse evill and therfor in case of perplexity necessary not to forsake her all which I explicated heretofore at large For avoyding of which inextricable Labyrinths and perplexities and taking away all shadow of contradiction we must belieue the Church to be infallible and secured from all errour against Faith 30. All that you haue N. 94. hath been answered heretofore when we shewed that to depart from the externall communion of the Church was to depart from the Church Your N. 97 containes no difficulty except against yourself who cannot avoide the Authority brought by Char. Main out of S. Optatus except by saying his sayings are not rules of Faith and I desire the Reader to peruse the words of Ch. Ma. N. 35. that the Protestants departed from the Roman Church and not the Roman Church from them with some other reflections of moment 31. In your N. 98. you grant the thing which Ch. Ma affirmes that the Primacie if Peter is confessed by learned Protestants to be of great antiquity and for which the judgment of divers most ancient Fathers is reproved by them as may be seene in Brereley Tract 1. Sect. 3. Subdivis 10. Which to such as beare due respect to the agreement of so many ancient learned and holy Fathers ought to proue that it is not only ancient but true And I wonder you can say that having perused Brereley you cannot find any one Protestant confessing any one Father to haue concurred in opinion with vs that the Popes Primacy is de Jure Divino wheras he cites divers Protestants confessing forced by evedence of Truth that divers Fathers proved that Primacy out of the Power given and Promise made by our Saviour to S. Peter and that vpon Him he builded his Church And to speak Truth it is no better than ridiculous to imagine that all other Churches did or would or could in prejudice to the Authority of particular Churches confer vpon the sea of Rome an vniversall power over them all to admitt Appeales against them to reverse their decrees c. vnless they had believed such a Power to haue bene granted by a Higher power We see how zealously every one is bent to preserue his owne Right and is more inclined to deny what is due to an other than
Ma cites divers Protestants that say so 49. In your N. 108. There is nothing but a perpetuall begging of the Question and taking that for true which you know we deny and talking of odious matters as of the oath of Allegiance and Supremacy which only shewes your charity to vs and zeale to adde affliction vpon the afflicted if it had beene in your power and which you would haue wished vnwritten if you were now a liue You say our rule out of Uincentius Lyrinensis advers Haere Cap 27. Indeed it is a matter of great moment and both most profitable to be learned and necessary to be remembred and which we ought againe and againe to illustrate ād inculcate with weighty heaps of exāples that almost all Catholiks may know that they ought to receiue the Doctours with the Church and not forsake the Faith of the Church with the Doctours is to no purpos against them that followed Luther seing they pretend and are ready to justify that they forsooke not with the Doctours the Faith but only the corruption of the Church But I pray doe you not teach and proclayme and therby pretend to excuse your Schisme that the whole Church before Luther was corrupted in Faith and so by leaving her pretended corruptions you left her Faith and those doctrines which she believed To your N. 109. it is easy to answer that about interlining Potters words in the pag 209. N. 42. you will finde among the Errata that Ch Ma only askes what the Doctour meanes You do not well to explicate Hooker about externall obedience against ones internall judgment by paying mony vpon the judges sentence which is a thing not evill of it self but in matters of Faith to yeald externall obedience against his internall belief is perse loquendo evill Your N. 110. about the words of Hooker hath bene answered in all those places where I haue shewed that Protestants can haue no certainty out of Scripture against Catholiques as appeares by the agreement of many of them with vs and therefore according to the principles of Hooker Luther and his followers were bound to obey the Pastors of that vniversall Church which he found before his revolt and so you haue no reason to accuse Brereley or Ch Ma of any ill dealing in alledging Hooker as they doe who I do not wonder if sometyme he speak inconsequently seing all Protestants are forced to do so in this matter And heretofore I haue proved at large out of the grounds which Hooker laies that Protestants cannot be excused from Schisme You know your N. 111. is answered by a meere denyall of that which you affirme without any proofe 50. You say N. 112. that Ch. Ma. N. 43. hath some objections against Luthers Person but none against his cause But the Reader will finde the contrary to be true That they concerne his cause in so high a degree as no man desirous to embrace the truth and saue his solue or hath the feare of God can belieue that Luther was a man sent to reforme the world by preaching the true doctrine I beseech the Reader to peruse that whole N. 43. of Ch. Ma. yet I cannot for beare to set downe these words of Luther Tom. 2. Germ. Fol. 9. and Tom. 2. Witt. Anno. 1562. de abrog Missa privat Fol. 244. How often did my trembling hart beate with in me and reprehending me object against me that most strong Argument Art thou only wise Do so many worlds erre Were so many Ages ignorant What if thou errest and drawest so many into Hell to be damned eternally with the And Tom 5. Annot. Breviss Dost thou who art but one and of no account take vpon the so great matters What if thou being but one offendest If God permit such so many and all to erre why may be not permitt the to erre to This belong those arguments the Church the Church the Fathers the Fathers the Councells and Customes the multitudes and greatnes of wise men whome do not these Mountaines of Arguments these clouds yea these seas of Examples overthrow And these thoughts wrought so deepe in his soule that he often wished and desired that he had Colloq Menfal Fol. 158. never begun this businesse wishing yet further that his writings were burned and buried in eternall oblivion Praef. in Tom German Jen. Your glancing at the lives of some Popes makes only against yourselfe considering that God did not vse these men to beginne a new pretended Reformation as Luther did but they continued in that Sea and Place which had beene established by our Saviour and therfore the bad lives of some Popes which had been enough to overthrow that Sea if it were not setled most immoveably by the absolute Divine promise thou art Peter c and the Gates of hell shall not prevaile c. yeild vs an argument against Luther and all those who opposed not the vices of particular Popes but their place and Authority and the Church of Rome The words with which you close this Number containe nothing but calumnie falshood and bitterness and shew with what spirit you were possest In your N. 112. it should be 113. you grant all that Ch. Ma. endeavoured to proue and I haue shewed that in this grant you contradict yourselfe You say that in a Work which C. Ma. professeth to haue written meerely against Protestants all that might haue been spared which N. 45. he wrote against them that flatter themselves with a conceite that they are not guilty of Schisme because they were not the first authours therof But by your leaue seing those men keepe themselves within the Communion of the Protestants Charity Maintayned had reason to write as he did that they might be induced to forsake that Communion in which to persever in them were the most formall sinne of Schisme which consistes in forsaking the externall Communion of Catholicks with whome such men pretend to agree in beliefe Besides perhaps they are not Catholiks so far as to belieue they are obliged to forsake the externall communion of Protestants and returne to vs which if they belieue not they are not Catholicks in all points even of Faith which teacheth vs that it is Schismaticall and damnable to be divided from the externall Communion of the true Church and I pray God this kind of men would reflect on this your grant and consider that their condition is lamentable in the opinion both of Catholiques and Protestants CHAP XV. THE ANSWER TO HIS SIXTH CHAPTER ABOVT HERESY 1. THe neerer I come to an end the swifter the motion of my pen may be in regard that the more is past the more Points I find answered even for that which remaines 2. Charity Maintayned Chap. 6. N. 1. hath these words Almighty God having ordained Man to a supernaturall End of Beatitude by supernaturall meanes it was requisite that his vnderstanding should be enabled to apprehend that End and meanes by a supernaturall knowledg This saying you approue N.
as if the certainty of attayning an end did exclude Meanes of Exhortations Praier and the like or as if God could not effectually moue vs to what he best pleases vnless he also make vs belieue that we may tempt him by omitting all diligence of our owne towards the attaining of that to which he moves vs or interposes a Promise that he will grant it vs. You say if we belieue the Fathers of the Councell of Chalcedon the Prerogatiue of the Church of Rome of being the principall Church was grounded vpon this reason because the City was the principall and imperiall Citie But I conceiue yourself cannot belieue that the Greek Church would or could yeald such a spirituall Prerogatiue to the Latine Church vpoÌ„ so slight a ground though that might be a kind of congruence supposing an other higher and stronger Reason to wit that S. Peter had lived and died Bishop of that Citie which was as I may saie the Primate of Cities Yet I am not sorie to heare you say We do not altogether deny but that the Church of Rome might be called the chaire of Peter in regard he is sayd to haue preached the Gospell there For to omit that you dare not deny that S. Peter was at Rome which some Protestants impudently deny you giue so poore a reason why the Church of Rome hath bene particularlie by the Fathers called the chaire of Peter that every one may see there must be some better ground for it than that which you alledge of his preaching in that Citie as it is graÌ„ted that he not only preached in but was Bishop of the Citie of Antioch and he preached in many other places which yet are not wont to be called the Chaire of Peter I beseech the Reader to peruse that learned Book called Anti-Mortonus against the GraÌ„d imposture of D. Morton § 4. about the Councell of Chalcedon aÌ„d he will find what Power was acknowledged to be in the Bishop of Rome aboue all Bishops through the whole world to say nothing for the present that no Councell without the confirmatioÌ„ of the Pope is of validity 26. Your N. 28. 29. 30. containe long discourses vpon occasion of a place cited by Ch. Ma. out of S. Irenaeus who Lib. 3. Cont. Hoeres Chap 36. saieth Because it were long to number the successions of all Churches we declaring the Tradition of the most great most ancient and most knowne Church founded by the most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul which Tradition it hath from the Apostles comming to vs by succession of Bishops confound all those who any way either by evill complacence of themselves or vaine glory or by blindness or ill opinion do gather conventicles otherwise then they ought For to this Church for a more powerfull principality it is necessary that all Churches resort that is all faithfull people of what place soever in which Roman Church the Tradition which is from the Apostles hath alwayes beene conserved from those who are every where 27. To this authority of S. Irenaeus you giue divers answers which vpon examination will be found insufficient and contrary to yourself You say the words set downe by Ch Ma shew that what Authority in the matter S. Irenaeus attributed to the Roman Church in particular the same for the kind though pâ—rhaps not in the same degree he attributed to all other Apostolique Churches Answer S. Irenaeus is so farre from affirming an equality betwene the Roman and other Churches that he expresly prefers her before the rest in such manner as though the rest had then had no Being yet all Heretiques might haue bene confuted by her sole authority For seing he acknowledges it needless to number the successions of other Churches in order to the force of his Argument he might as well haue supposed them not to exist as not to be necessarily taken notice of which he never saied of any other Apostolique Church Beside since he takes the Roman for as good as all other Apostolique Churches and for the same reason of all other Churches of that tyme whose successours he held it needless to reckon it being impossible that all Churches should faile in Faith we must conclude even out of S. Irenaeus his Reason that the Roman Church cannot faile in points of Belief And as for you I wonder how you would end your N. 28. in these words If v. Irenaeus thought the Testimony of the Roman Church in this point only humane and fallible then surely he could never think either adhering to it a certain marke of a Catholique or separation from it a certain marke of a Heretique For seing Cyou hold hristian Faith te be no more than probable and that the Tradition for which you receyue Scripture is humane and fallible how can you these your assertions supposed affirme that a testimony humane and fallible may not be sufficient to proue one a Catholique or Heretique Vnless you will say he is no Heretique who rejects Scripture and all Christianity nor that he is a Catholique who believes them because you profess that the motives for which you belieue them are fallible 28. You find fault with the noble Translatresse of Cardinall Perron for rendring Ad hane Ecclesiam necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiam To this Church it is necessary that every Church should agree But if you will but consult Cowpers Dictionary you will find that you haue no reason against that noble Translatresse See I say the word Conveni and you will finde Convenit in eum haec Contumelia Cic. This reproach toucheth him justly Conveniunt hae vites ad quemvis agrum Cato Uarro These vines proue well in all grounds Conveniebat in tuam vaginam machaera militis Plautus The solidours sword was meete for thy Scabbard Convenit optime ad pedem cothurnus Cic. The slippar is as meete for the foote as may be Will you say This reproach resorts to him vines resort to the field the sword resorts to the scabbard the slippar resorts to the foote Neither is that Translation either contrary or different from the Translation of Ch Ma for as much as concernes the matter and meaning of S. Irenaeus To this Church it is necessary that all Churches resort For why should all Churches resort to this Roman Church but that they may be instructed by her and agree with her in matters concerning Faith not that they may correct controll and disagree from her Otherwise it had bene a strang Argument to convince Heretiques by the Roman Church if he had not taken that Church as a modell and Rule with which they ought to agree Neither doth resort signify a corporall going to Rome but a recourse for instruction either by going thither themselves or by other meanes as you must say of those who are round about But you say if S. Irenaeus had saied By shewing the tradition of the Roman Church we confound all Heretiques For to this Church all Churches must agree what had
ventis vocatur Ecclesia Quomodo vocatur Vndique in Trinitate vocatur Non vocatur nisi per baptismum in nomine Patris Filij Spiritus Sancti Will you now limit vndique to places round about or adjacent and not grant that it signifies the whole world The learned Fevardentius in his Annotations vpon this place of S. Irenaeus not only affirmes that by eos qui sunt vndique fideles all Churches of the whole world are vnderstood but proves it with much clearness and erudition observing among other things that it is saied Ad hanc Ecclesiam not ad vrbis amplitudinem populorum frequentiam non ad imperij culmen non ad Caesarum majestem sed ad hanc Ecclesiam Thus your first objection being proved to be grounded meerely vpon a confidence that vndique must be taken in this place as you would haue it and withall perceiving that even this will not come home to your purpose without an other voluntary alteration for it is no less difficult a sense to say The Apostolike Tradition hath alwayes bene conserved there froÌ„ those who are euery where than to say The Apostolike Tradition hath alwayes bene conserved there from those who are round about you fall vpon a conjecture that in all probability in stead of conservata it should be observata although no copie either printed or manuscript reads it in that manner and suppose it were observata the difficulty would still remaine what observata might signifie whether observed that is kept and maintayned and then it were all one with conserved or observed that is marked found perceived or the like as you would haue it not considering that by this conceypt you wholy alter the Argument of S. Irenaeus and substitute an other For whereas that holy Bishop and Martyr grounds his proofe against Heretiques vpon the Authority and succession of the Roman Church you make him vrge these Heretiques only by the Testimony of people round about that Citie because they never observed any alteration of doctrine in that Church which therefore according to this your fiction must be judged by the neighbouring people and not they directed by her which kind of reasoning had bene a meere begging the Question and no effectuall confutation of those Heretiques who would instantly answer that both Rome and the adjacent people had altered the Apostlike Tradition by holding doctrines contrary to theirs nor could they haue bene confured otherwise than by supposing that the Roman Church was by the Promise of our Saviour Christ secured from all errour against Faith and to vse your owne lately recited words to say that the people about Rome would haue observed it if there had bene any alteration in the Church of Rome had bene but to giue for a reason that which was more questionable then the thing in question as being still to vse your owne words not evident in it self according to the principles of Protestants who de facto hold that many errours crept into the Church without being observed and plainly denied by S. Irenaeus his adversaries and not proved by him especially if we consider that as yourself speak The Church of Rome had a Powerfull principality over all the adjacent Churches it had bene more probable that she might haue led them into errour which they would haue embraced as an Apostolicall Tradition than that they would or could haue corrected her if indeed she had bene conceyved to be subject to errour no less than the adjacent Churches Now as for the difficulty of those words In which the Tradition which is from the Apostles hath alwayes been conserved from those who were every where yourself must answer it seing you hold your conjecture of observata to be but probable and that all hitherto haue read it and do still reade it conservata and that even though you reade it observata it will be a hard sense to say In which Church the Tradition which is from the Apostles hath alwaies bene observed from those who are every where and if in stead of from you say by hath bene observed by those who are every where though in that acception you must take Ab in a different sense when it is sayd ab Apostolis from and when it is saied ab his qui sunt vndique by we may also say hath bene conserved by those who are every where and the sense will be that in the Roman Church there hath alwaies bene the Tradition from the Apostles which hath also bene conserved in all Churches and in which they must agree with Her propter potentiorem Principalitatem and because she hath an evident and certaine succession as being founded vpon a Rock and in this sense we may also say that the Tradition receyved from all Churches hath bene conserved in the Roman Church as the center of Ecclesiasticall vnity to vse the words of the most learned Perron in his Reply Lib. 1. cap 26. 31. In your N. 30. after other discourses which containe no difficulty which may not be answered by what hath bene saied in divers occasions you come to your old cramben of the Chiliasts or Millenaries of which you say Justine martyr in Dial. cum Tryphon Professeth that all good and Orthodoxe Christians of his time belieued it and those that did not he reckons amongst Heretiques Sr. we haue no â—eason to belieue your word without some proofe And that you may not â—â—use my proofe against you as proceding from one who being a partie may be suspected of partiality I oppose to you a learned ProtestaÌ„t Doctor Ham in his Uiew of c Pag 87.88.89 who convinced by evidence of truth not only confesses and proves the weakeness of that place in S. Iustine to conclude any thing against Catholique Tradition but also demonstrates that your allegation is an egregious falsification while you say Iustine martyr professeth that all good and Orthodox Christians of his time believed it and those that did not he reckons amongst Heretiques For S. Justine expresly affirmes that many doe not acknowledg this doctrine of the 1000. yeares and those many Christians that are of pure and pious opinyon or judgment and that those whom he calls nominall Christians Atheists impious hereticall leaders are they who denyed the resurrection not those that acknowledg the resurrection and denyed the Millennium And the Doctour concludes in these very words By Iustine it cannot be concluded that the 1000. yeares was a matter of Catholike belief in his time but only favourd by him and many others and consequently though that were after condemned in the Church would it not be from this testimony inferred that a Catholick Doctrine much lesse a Tradition were condemned And he gives vs a Rule whereby we may answer all that can be objected out of S. Irenaeus or any other ancient Author saying Pag 91. I confess I acknowledg my opinion that there were in that age men otherwise minded as out of Iustin it appeared I could cite an other highly
qualifyed Protestant who this very yeare 1651. hath putin print that Justin confesses that some good and honest Christians did not acknowledg that Doctrine of the Millenaries which the Doctor Pag 88. shewes very well not to be repugnant to an other saying of S. Justin to which this last Author sayes it is repugnant Now I beseech you consider how you can impugne Gods Church by a pretended tradition which not only Catholiques but even learned Protestants out of S. Justines words denie to haue bene Catholique or vniversall in his time and which this Doctor avouches not to be asserted as vniverfall by the Lord Faulkland himself whereby this Objection so often repeeted in your Booke comes to just nothing and I haue wondered that so worme-eaten and obsolete a thing as this is should be revived and vrged as a Demonstration against the Traditions of the Church But it is Gods Goodness to confound the enemyes of his Church by their owne wisdome and confute them by their owne arguments and is it not a great proofe for the infallibility of the Church that these her adversaries after all labour and study can alledg only such a toy as this to proue the fallibility of the Church for so many Ages wherein she could not but haue fallen into many mote and greater errours if she had bene subject to accept and deliver fals or apocryphall Traditions If you haue a mind to speak to the purpose you must produce some cleare and vndoubted Tradition or some Definition of a Pope or Councell for this of the Chiliasts or any other errour But this is as impossible for you to doe as that God can break his Promise that the gates of hell shall not prevaile against her and that he will be with her to the worlds end You say If this Tradition of a thousand yeares was not conserved and observed in the Church of Rome had Irenaeus known so much he must haue retracted this commendation of that Church Not so by your leaue but as a true child of Gods Church if he had bene perswaded his opinyon to be against her Tradition he would haue retracted his opinyon and not his commendation of the Church vpon which he builded his Doctrine against those Heretiques whom he impugned otherwise his argument takē from her Tradition had bene of no force but petitio principij proving their Heresies to be false because the Church of Rome which in those particulars did not erre taught the particular opinyons of those men to be false Especially since by the confession of S. Justin Many Christians of pure and pious judgment held the contrary 33. Having considered with attention all the rest that you haue in this N. 30. I find nothing which hath not bene answered either by mee or by Ch Ma Part 2. Chap 2. N. 32. for as much as belongs to Him and as for your vaine affected florish against the most learned Cardinall Perron it is both impertinent to my purpose and really so slight that I could not haue imagined you would in modesty haue premised these fond words The words of the Cardinall I will here insert and with short censures dispell and let his Idolaters see that Truth is not afraid of Giants In a word I must say That you do not distinguish betwene matter of Faith and of Fact nor consider that although error against Faith defended with obstinacie be per se loquendo a sufficient cause of excommunication yet it may be also necessary in prudence for some circumstances to abstaine from inflicting such a censure and in the case of Pope Uictor the success shewed that even for matter of fact he was in the right For after his death the Councells of Nice Constantinople and Ephesus which Protestants receiue as Lawfull Generall Councels excommunicated those who held the same Custome with the Provinces which Uictor had excommunicated I haue no tyme to take notice of your seditious speach Pag 35. letter f that inferiors may excommunicate superiors if they did any thing which deserved it By which Doctrine you or any other Socinian might haue excommunicated thē who excommunicated all such as held the 39. Articles to containe any errour as is knowne you believed them to containe divers 33. To your N. 31.32.33.34.35 I answer that in the Authorityes alledged out of the Fathers by Ch. Ma. you will still find a particular preheminence of the Roman Church and you could not haue done vs a greater favour than to touch the matter of Appeales to Rome from the whole world if it had bene handled by Ch. Ma. as it was not and therefore I must refer the Reader to Catholique Writers and in particular to the learned Cardinalls Bellarmine and Perron from whom he may receyue full satisfaction Only to what you say N. 31. that S. Austine Lib. 1. retractat Chap. 26. retracts what he had saied that the Church was builded vpon Peter I must answer that Chap. 26. Retract there is no such matter as you mention and what he hath Chap. 21. is so answered by Bell. De Rom. Pont. Lib. 1. Chap. 10. as your objection will be found to make rather for than against vs. In your N. 32. you haue no reason to find fault with Ch. Ma. for translating Apostolicae Cathedrae semper viguit principatus the principality of the sea Apostolique did alwayes flourish seing it is cleare that S. Austine in that place attributes a particular priviledg to the Sea of Rome as the Chaire of Peter and a Rock which the proud Gates of Hell do not overcome as he speakes In psalm Con. partem Donati Whereby it appeares that he makes but one chiefe Apostolique Sea and it seemes this Translation of Ch. Ma. was so good that yourself could not perceiue or tax it till an excess of desire to trifle made you at length put it in your margent it not occurring tyme enough to find a place in the Text. Maximianus of whom you speak N. 36. is cited by Onuphrius Lib de primatu Petri parte prima and by Adamus Tannerus a knowen learned Divine Tom. 3. Disp 1. de Fide Quest 5. Dub. 3. Epistolâ ad Orientales in these words Omnes fines terrae quae Dominum sincerè receperunt vbique terrarum Catholici veram fidem profitentes in potestatem Romanorum Pontificum tanquam in solem respiciunt c Hunc enim Petrum de caeteris mortalibus ex toto terrarum orbe conditor orbis elegit cui Cathedram magisterij principaliter possidendam perpetuo privilegij jure concessit vt quis quis Divinum aliquid aut profundum nosse desiderat ad hujus praeceptionis oraculum doctrinam que recurrat You say Of that Maximianus who succeeded Nestorius I find no such thing in the Councells Neither can I belieue that any Patriarch of Constantinople twelue hundred yeares a goe was so base a parasite of the Sea of Rome But if that be true which you often inculcate that deeds are better witnesses
Protestants vpon one of these two accounts or titles are in state of damnation and is not this to contradict the title of your Book The Protestant Religion a safe way to salvation But I could not but wonder how you could induce yourself to say so absolutely To proue Protestants in state of sinne while they remaine separate from the Roman Church there is not one word or syllable in that N. 12. seing if they forsake those opinions eo ipso they come to agree therein with the Roman Church and if they persist in their errours and for that cause be forsaken by their Brethren these forsakers in that respect come to agree with the Roman Church and divide themselves from those other Protestants Besides if once it be granted that Protestants are obliged to forsake one an other no man to whom the salvation of his soule is deare will not spedily returne to that Church from which all of them departed whatsoever you may speculate or fancy to the contrary As for your instance that Catholiques differ about the Doctrine of Perdetermination or absolute Election it is not to the purpose seing all Catholiques profess to hold them no otherwise than as they may consist with freewill which those Protestants of whom Ch. Ma. speakes deny and therefore his Inferences are of force against Protestants not against Catholiques There is no doubt but that the consequences of mens opinions may and will be imputed to them when they might see them if it were not for some fault of their owne as even yourself grant in this place 4. To your N. 5. so it should be but is omitted It is vanity in you to say It was needless to proue that due order is to be obserued in any thing much more in Charity seing all Divines treating of Charity propose this Question and in particular S. Thomas 2.2 Q. 26. Art 1. asks expresly Vtrum in charitate sit ordo and for proofe thereof he alledges the same Text Cant 1. which Ch Ma alledges Ordinavit in me Charitatem and yet you with your wonted confidence say It if stood in need of proofe I feare this place of the Canticles would be no enforcing demonstration of it But Cornelius à Lapide from this place proves literally and learnedly that in Charity there is an order to be kept 5. 2. You say to Ch Ma The reason alleaged by you why we ought to loue one object more then an other because one thing participates the Divine Goodness more then an other is phantasticall and repugnant to what you say presently after For by this Rule no man should loue himself more then all the world Vnless he were first vainely perswaded that he doth more participate the Divine Goodness then all the world But the true reason why one thing ought to be loved more then an other is because one thing is better then another or because it is better to vs or because God Commands vs to doe so or because God himself does so and we are to conforme our affections to the will of God 6. Answer It can be nothing but excess of pride in you to call the reason of Ch Ma phantasticall it being nothing different from that which S. Thomas in the place alledged assignes and all his Commentators follow and which is strang you yourself giue the same as we shall see instantly Your errour arises from ignorance of a double Order in Charity Physicall and morall The first is taken from the perfection of the object in itself the second is considered in order to the obligation which God hath imposed vpon vs to loue things in that manner and order as he hath appointed and therfore although we cannot loue ourselves more than all the world by the Physicall order of which we spoke as if we did conceiue ourselves to be of our owne nature more perfect than all Creatures yet we are obliged by the morall order or obligation which God hath imposed to prefer the spirituall good of our owne soule before the whole world and so your objection appeares very vaine and must be answered by yourself who giue for a reason because one thing is better than an other and I beseech you is it not all one to say One thing is better than an other and one thing participates of God more than an other And then as I sayd you must answer your owne Objection that by this rule no man should loue himself more than all the world vnles he were first vainely perswaded that he doth more participate the Divine Goodness then all the world In your other reason because one thing is better to vs then an other you forget that we speake of Charity not of Hope which respects a thing as good to vs and therefore in this reason you pass from one vertue to an other and giue a reason nothing to our present purpose In your last reason because God himself does so and we are to conforme our affections to the will of God you either speak non-sense or els you say the same which Ch Ma saied and which you were pleased to call a phantasticall reason For God loves things as they are in themselves or as one thing is better then an other which was your other reason though indeed not distinct from this which yet you pretend to be different or as one thing doth more participate of the Divine Goodness or perfection which though you call phantasticall yet it is the same with your owne first reason and with this last and therefore to conforme our affections to the will of God is no other reason than that which you call phantasticall To these absurdities your pride brings you 7. 3. You say It is not true that all Objects which we belieue doe equally participate the Divine Testimony or Revelation But you ought to be ashamed to conceale the immediatly following words of Ch Ma which declare the matter most evidently For sayth he For Divine Testimony or Revelation we belieue a like all things propounded for such For it is as impossible for God to speak an vntruth in a small as in a great matter Is not this true Is not the contrary plaine blasphemy 8. In your N. 6. you say 1. It is not true that we are to wish or desire to God a nature infinite independent immense for it is impossible I should desire to any person that which he hath already if I know he hath it 9. Answer Ch Ma speakes in the phrase of the holy Scripture and spirituall men who to shew the ardent loue they beare to God and deepe complacence they take in the Perfections and Attributes which they know he enjoyes declare their affection by wishing them to him as hee in the Panegyrick could say to his Emperour etiam praesens desideraris Desire in our soule is like to hunger and thrist in our body and yet we reade Eccl. 24.29 Qui edunt me adhuc esurient qui bibunt me adhuc sitient S.