of opinions or strayings of errours By the name of substance something certaine and setled is appoynted thee Thou art shut vp within certaine bounds and confined within limits which are certaine for faith is not an Opinion but a certainty But concerning this Text of S. Paul more shall be sayd herafter out of excellent words of S. Chrisostome The same Apostle Heb. 6. V. 17. 18. 19. sayth God meaning more aboundantly to shew to the heires of the promise the stability of his counsell he interposed an Oath That by two things vnmooueable wherby it is impossible for God to lie we may haue a most strong comfort who haue fled to hold fast the hope proposed which we haue as an anker of the soule sure and firme But how can we haue a most strong comfort an anker of the soule sure and sirme or how doth he shew to the heires of his promise the stability of his counsell if the faith of Christians be reduced to probabilityes which are not stable but of themselues subject to change and falshood and for ought we know may finally prooue to be such as long as we haue no other certainty to the contrary Or how can we be assured of that concerning which God interposed an Oath if we be not sure that he euer interposed an Oath or euer witnessed or reuealed any thinge 1. Thessall 2.12 We giue thankes to God without intermission because when you had receiued of vs the word of the hearing of God you receyued it not as the word of men but as it is indeed the word of God which must signify that they receyued it by an Assent proportionable to such an Authority Motiue and Formall Object and therfore certaine infallible and aboue all humane faith opynion and probability For this cause the Apostle giues thanks to God because when they had receyved the word of God they receyued it as such declaring that they belieued with an assent requiring Gods speciall Grace for which thankes are to be giuē eleuating the soule aboue the forces of nature to a super naturall certaine Act proportionable as I sayd to so sublime an Authority 2. Tim. 1.12 I know whom I haue belieued and I am sure that he is able to keepe my depositum vnto that day Where S. Paule speakes of God as a judg and of the day of judgment and reward of the just which are Articles of Christian Faith not knowne by the light of reason This Text is alledged by S. Bernard Ep. 190. to this very purpose saying Scio cui credidi certus sum clamat Apostolus tu mihi subsibilas Fides est aestimatio tu mihi ambiguum garris quo nihil est certius The Apostle cryes out I know whom I haue belieued and I am certaine and dost thou whisper Faith is opinion dost thou prate as of a doubtfull thing concerning that than which nothing is more certaine Act. 2.36 Let all the house of Israel know most certainly not only probably that God hath made him both Lord and Christ this Iesus whom you haue crucifyed 2. Pet. 1.19 We haue the propheticall word more sure which you doe well attending vnto as to a cādel shining in a darke place In which words the Apostle compares the saying of the Prophets which we belieue by faith concerning Christ our Sauiour with the sight of the eyes and hearing of the eares of the Apostles on Mount Thabor when they sawe our Sauiours glory and heard the voyce of his Father saying This is my beloued Son and yet saith that the Propheticall word is more sure And by this place we also gather that faith though it be jnfallible ād certaine yet is ineuident and obscure like to a candle in a darke place which obscures the light of the candle against the doctrine of Chillingworth that certainty and obscurity are incompatible Luke 21.33 Heauen and Earth shall passe but my words shall not passe Surely if his words were belieued by vs only with a probable assent we could not in good reason thinke they were more stable than heauen and earth which by euidence of sinse and reason we see to be constant firme and permanent 1. Ioan. 5. Yf we receyue the testimony of men the testimony of God is greater But as I sayd aboue what imports it that the testimony of God is greater in it selfe if we can assent to it no more firmely than the Arguments of Credibility or history and humane tradition and testimony of men enable vs For by this meanes we shall finally be brought as low as humane faith 1. Cor. 2.5 That your faith might not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God The contrary wherof we must affirme in his principles who reduceth Christian Faith to the Power or rather jmpotency of humane tradition and reason Which last Texts do clearly ouerthrow his doctrine that we belieue the Scripture for humane fallible Tradition and testimony of men not for the jnfallible Authority of Gods Church 2. Pet. 1.21 For not by mans will was prophecy brought at any tyme but the holy men of God spake inspired with the Holy Ghost What neede of diuine inspiration for assenting probably to a Conclusion euidently deduced from premisses euidently probables or how can the Holy Ghost inspire an assent which may prooue false 1. Pet. 5.9 Whom resist ye strong in Faith Tob. 3.21 This hath euery one for certaine that worshippeth thee that his life if it be in probation shall be crowned Ioan. 10.35 If he called them Goddes to whom the word of God was made and the Scripture cannot be broken May not the Scriptures be broken in order to vs if for ought we certainly know their Authority is not divine nor the poynts they contayne true Act. 2.24 Whom God hath raysed vp loosing the sorrowes of Hell according as it was impossible that he should be holden of it Now if our belief of Scripture and contents therof be only probable we cannot be certaine that the contrary assertions or objects are impossible or that it was impossible he should be holden of it since possibility of being true is excluded only by a contrary certainty and whosoeuer belieues any poynt only with probability hath in his vnderstanding no disposition which of it selfe is repugnant to probability and much less to possibility for the contrary part Coloss. 1. V. 21. 22. 23. And you wheras you were sometyme alienated and enemyes in sense in euill works yet now he hath reconciled in the body of his flesh by death to present you holy and immaculate and blamelesse before him if you continue in the Faith grounded and stable and vnmoueable from the Gospell which you haue heard which is preached among all creatures that are vnder Heauen Obserue that the Apostle not only speakes of a Faith which is stable and ground of immobility but also declares that such a Faith is necessary to be reconciled to God from being alienated and enemyes and to be
to vvhat purpose you say in your second Ansvver that it is one thing to be a perfect Ruâ—e of Faith an other to be proved so vnto vs seing your adversary expressly spoke of scripture in order to vs affirming Pag 41. N. 6. that it could not be proved vnto vs to be the word of God by its owne saying so which you also grant vnless it were to giue a blow to Protestants who calumniate vs as if we did subject the word of God to the judgment of the Church wheras we say no more then here you acknowledg that Scripture is in it self true but not knowen or proved so to vs otherwise than only by Tradition which say you is a thing credible of it self against other Protestants who hold the Church to be only the first externall Motiue or inducement and direction to belieue scripture as Potter speakes Pag 193. and 141. but not that for which we chiefly belieue it which they hold to be either the privat Spirit or the Majesty or other signes found in scripture it self 190. Object 6. That all may vnderstand in Scripture enough for their salvation you endeavour to proue Pag 93. N. 105. out of S. Austine whose words you cite thus Ea quae manifestè posita sunt in Sacris Scripturis omnta continent quae pertinent ad Fidem moresque vivendi The place you cite not which is your ordinary custome I conceiue you meane de Doctrina Christiana Lib 2. Cap 9. Where S. Austine speaking of the Bookes of Holy Scripture sayth Illa quae in eis apertè posita sunt vel praecepta vivendi vel regulae credendi solertius diligentiusque investiganda sunt Quae tanto quisque plura invenit quanto est intelligentiâ capacior In iis enim quae apertè in Scriptura posita sunt inveniuntur illa omnia quae continent Fidem moresque vivendi spem scilicet atque charitatem 191. Answer You know very well that S. Austine believed we are obliged to belieue more then can be clearly and certainly and particularly proved out of scripture taken alone without the authority and Declaration of Gods Church Did he not belieue and most zealously defend the validity of Baptisme conferred by Heretikes and taught it as a Point to be believed and practised by all And yet de vnit Eccles Cap. 22. he teacheth expressly that we must in this Point rely vpon the authority of the Church as we haue seene by his words This Testimony of S. Austine was alledged by Cha Ma Part 1. Ch 2. N. 27. Pag 74. and you take notice of it in your Page 118.119 N. 163. and yet returne to alledg against vs the words of the same saynt in iis quae apertè posita sunt c which shewes that I was not rash in saying you could not but know that S. Austine held that more points are to be believed and practised then can be proved out of scripture Nay your owne Answers to this authority of S. Austine demonstrate that you believed what I say about his judgment For 192. You answer First you say to Catholiques In many things you will not be tryed by S. Austines judgment this you proue by instances which are answered by an absolute denyall that S. Austine is contrary to vs in those points and therfor can with no reason or equity require vs to do so in this matter 2. To S. Austine in heate of disputation against the Donatists and ransaking all places for Arguments against them we oppose S. Austine out of this heate delivering the Doctrine of Christianity calmely and moderately where he sayes In ijs que apertè posita sunt c. 193. Answer It is strang or rather ridiculous I will not say Boyes-play as you thought good to speake that you should except against our allegation of S. Austine because say you in many things we will not be tryed by him and that you in this very place alledg S. Austine against vs you I say who togeather with your fellow Socinians speak more contemptibly of that holy learned glorious Saint than of any other Father And no wonder seing you find that zealous Doctour to be most direct cleare and efficacious for the Visibility Splendour Amplitude Perpetuity Succession and Infallibility of Gods Church and vnwritten Traditions which is our present Question This spirit you discover Pag 152. N. 44. where you speake in this manner To deale ingenuously with you and the world I am not such an idolater of S. Austine as to thinke a thing proved sufficiently be cause he sayes it nor that all his sentences are oracles and particularly in this thing that whatsoever was practised or held by the vniversall Church of his tyme must needs haue come from the Apostles But good Sr. what play is this To bring for an Argument and proofe against vs a saying of S. Austine and yet to professe not to thinke a thing proved sufficiently because he sayes it And which is most strang to bring for an Argument against vs a place of S. Austine to proue by his authority the contrary of that which you acknowledg him to affirme namely that whatsoever was practised or held by the vniversall Church of his tyme must needs come from the Apostles as if with reason and equity you may require vs to beleeue S. Austine when you bring him against vs and yet yourselfe not belieue him when in the very selfe same matter for which you alledg him against vs yourself acknowledg him to stand for vs to wit that whatsoeuer the vniversall Church holds must be believed to come from the Apostles and consequently to be believed although it be not expressed in Scripture which is directly against that for which you alledg him even here that all necessary Points of Faith are set downe in scripture alone But of your little respect to B. Saint Austine more may beseene through your whole Booke particularly Pag. 258. N. 16. Pag 259 N. 20.21 Pag 301. N 101. c 194. In your second answer you do not only slight S. Austines judgment but wickedly taxe his will and piety as if he had overlashed out of heate or had bene more excessiuely earnest in impugning heresyes than zealous in delivering the Doctrine of Christianity as you speake out of which Book you cite his words against vs or as if that can be called heate of disputation which is delivered in writing at leasure vpon mature study and never rétracted But as I sayd you cannot endure that B. Saint because he is so great a defender of Gods Church and you could not haue done a service more acceptable to the Divell and pernitious to soules than to giue a ground for every one to despise S. Austines Writings against the Donatists as being but exaggerations and effects of heate in disputation wheras of all those holy learned and pious volumes of his none can be of greater profit to Gods Church then those which he wrote against the Donatists who were Schismatikes
in England subscribing to the 6 of their 39 Articles That scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation in effect subscribe to nothing but may reject all those Articles whensoever they please But of the absurdity of this your doctrine herafter 5. For the present I must obserue some things delivered by you in the places which I haue cited First Pag. 66. N. 33. where you teach that scripture is an instrumentall Object of our Faith which is a strang kind of speach Philosophers tell vs of a materiall and formall Object of a totall and Partiall of an Adequate and Inadequate and some other Divisions of Objects but of an instrumentall Object I never heard Nothing can be stiled an Object of any act of our vnderstanding vnless it be apprehended by that act and nothing consequently can be called the Object of an Act of Faith vnless it be believed by an act of Faith and if it be believed by an act of Faith as a thing revealed it is a materiall Object of Faith and so your phrase of an instrumentall Object serves only to confute your owne doctrine and proue that scripture is a materiall Object of Faith Besides who ever dreamed that either the divine Revelation which is the formall Object of Faith or the things revealed which are the Materiall Objects therof can be called according to Philosophy the Instruments of an act of Faith Or who ever heard that an Instrument is divided into a Formall and Materiall Instrument 6. 2. You say in the same place All the divine Verityes which Christ revealed to the Apostles and the Apostles taught the Churches are contained in scripture Against which words I haue these just exceptions That they are against yourself who expressly teach that the Apostles declared diverse things to the Church of their tyme which declarations are not extant as also that they are against this doctrine of yours that scripture is not a materiall object of Faith For I aske whether or no the Apostles taught the Churches that the Bookes or Epistles or Prophecyes written by Canonicall Authors were the word of God If they did then the divine authority of scripture is a materiall object of our Faith as being a thing taught by the Apostles with divine infallible assistance which is the reason why we belieue that other mysteryes delivered by them are to be believed by an Act of Faith If the Apostles did not teach the Churches this Truth by what authority do you now belieue it to be the word of God Yourself speaking of the CaÌ„onicalness of some scriptures say 142. N. 28. If it were not revealed by God to the Apostles and by the Apostles to the Church then can it be no Revelation as on the other side you teach in the same place that if the Apostles delivered it it was to be believed as an article of Faith 7. 3. In your Pag 217. and 218. N. 49. which I cited aboue you say Is it not manifest to all the world that Christians of all Professions do agree with one consent in the belief of all those Bookes of scripture which were not doubted of in the Ancient Church without danger of damnation And how then say you Pag. 116. N. 159. that men might reject the scripture God requiring of vs vnder payne of damnation only to belieue the verityes therin contained and not the Divine Authority of the Books wherin they are conâ—ayned Will you make vs belieue that not to be damnable which yourself acknowledg Christians of all Professions to agree with one consent to haue bene damnable namely not to belieue all those Bookes which were not doubted of in the ancient Church Or how are not those bookes an Object of our Faith and belief in the Belief wherof Christians of all professions agree with one consent Or how can you say in the same Pag. 218. N. 49. Is it not apparent that no man at this tyme can without hypocrisy pretend to belieue in Christ but of necessity he must do so That is he must belieue all those Bookes of Scripture which were not doubted of in the Church seing he can haue no reason to belieue in Christ but he must haue the same to belieue the scripture And Pag. 116. N. 159. you say It were now very strange and vnreasonable if a man should belieue the matter of the Bookes of Scripture and not the Authority of the Bookes and therfor if a man should profess the not believing of these I should hane reason to feare he did not believe that How I say can you write in this manner who teach that scripture is not a materiall object of faith which we are bound to belieue vnder payne of damnation and yet that we are bound to belieue the verityes contained therin of which Christ is one Is there the same reason to belieue a thing revealed aÌ„d another acknowledged not to be revealed I hope your meaning is not that it is reasonable not to belieue the authority of scripture aÌ„d yet that it is resonable for the authority therof to belieue the matter of it which were not only vnreasonable but impossible also as no man can possibly assent to a Conclusion in vertue of Premises which he believes not to be true 8. But in this last place Pag 116. N. 159. you haue a subtilty expressed in these words There is not alwayes an equall necessity of the belief of those things for the belief wherof there is an equall reason We haue I belieue as great reason to belieue there was such a man as Henry the eighâ— King of England as that Iesus Christ suffered vnder Pontius Pilate yet this is necessary to be believed and that is not so So that if any man should doubt or disbelieue that it were most vnreasonably done of him yet it were no mortall sin nor no sâ—â—ne at all God having no where commanded men vnder payne of damnation to believe all which Reason induceth them to belieue Therfor as an Executor that should performe the will of the dead should fully satisfy the law though he did not belieuo that parchment to be his Written will which indeed is so so I belieue that he who believes all the particular doctrines which integrate Christianity and lives according to them should be saved though he neither believed nor knew that the Gospell were written by the Evangelists or the Epistles by the Apostles This is your discourse which deserves detestation rather then confutation Yet I must not omitt to make some reflexions on it 9. First then wheras you say There is not alwayes an equall necessity for the belief of those things for the belief wherof there is an equall reason I answer that you speake very confusedly and imperfectly and either vntruly if your words be so vnderstood as they may make any thing to our present Question or impertinently if they belong nothing to it I say therfor if the belief of one thing be necessary for the belief of another
in the Church they meane not those only of whose Authority there was simply no doubt at all by any man in the Church But such as were not at any tyme doubted of by the whole Church or by all Churches but had attestation though not vnâ—versall yet at least sufficient to make considering men receaue them for Canonicall In which number they may well reckon those Epistles which were sometimes doubted of by some yet whose number and Authority was not so great as to prevaile against the contrary suffrages 47. Nothing could more lively set before our eyes the necessity of believing that Gods Church from which we receaue Holy Scripture is infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost than these your Assertions and pernicious Errours which yet do naturally result from the Opinyons of those Protestants who deservedly laughing at the pretended private spirit of rigid Calvinists and yet denying the infallibility of the Church are driven to such Conclusions as you publish and for which those others had disposed the Premises For if the Scripture be receaved vpon the Authority of the Church considered only as a company of men subject to errour and not as infallibly directed by the Holy Ghost who can blame one for inferring that if those men once doubted of some Bookes of Scripture such books cannot chalenge so firme a belief as others in which all haue alwayes agreed Though even these in which all haue agreed can never arriue to be believed by an infallible assent of Divine Faith while these men though never so many are believed to be fallible 48. But to come to your Errour If it be granted that we belieue some bookes of Scripture more vndoubtedly then other by reason of a greater or less consent and so giue way to more or less in the belief of Gods word we shall soone come to end in nothing For why may not those bookes of which somtyme there was doubt and were afterward receyved for Canonicall in tyme loose some voices or sussrages and by that meanes come to be discanonized You teach that we haue not infallible certainty but only a probability for any part of Scripture how farr then shall we be removed from certainty for those bookes which participate of that probability in a less and less degree The common Doctrine of Protestants is that Scripture became a totall Rule of Faith when the Canon was perfited because they cannot determine with certainty in what particular bookes necessary Points are contayned If then some parts of Canonicall Scripture be more vndoubted than others in case some fundamentall points chance to be set downe only in these others it followes not only that they cannot be so certaine of the Truth of those necessary Points as of other truths not fundamentall or of no necessity at all being considered in themselves but also that they cannot be certaine at all since it is supposed that they do not belieue those bookes with absolute certainty but with a lower degree even of a probable assent Your pretended Bishop of London D. King in the beginning of his first Lecture vpon Jonas sayes comparisons betwixt scripture and scripture are both odious and dangerous The Apostles names are evenly placed in the writings of the holy Fundation With an vnpartiall respect haue the children of Christs family from tyme to tyme receyved reverenced and embraced the whole volume of scriptures Marke that it is both odious and dangerous to make comparisons betwixt scripture and scripture and that the children of Christs family with an vnpartiall respect receyve the whole Volume of scriptures Yourself Pag 68. N. 42. say that the controversy about scripture is not to be tryed by most Voyces and what is the greater number of which we haue heard you speake in the next N. 43. that it was sufficient to prevaile against the contrary suffrages but only most voyces or consent in one judgment seing you attribute infallibility or the certaine direction of the Holy Ghost to no number great or small And as for the greater authority which in the same N. 43. you ascribe to one part more than to another what can it be in your Principles except greater learning or some such kind of Quality nothing proportionable to that authority on which Christian Faith must rely Take away the speciall assistance of the Holy Ghost and few for number even one single person may for waight haue as good reason for what he sayes as a great multitude for the contrary There is scarcely any part of scripture which hath not bene Questioned by so many as would haue made men doubt of the works of Cicero Livie c as we see men doubt of some workes which haue gone vnder the name of Old Authours because for example Erasmus or others haue called them in Question vpon meere conjecturall reasons as seeming difference of Stile or the like If then men haue not presumed to doubt of scripture as they would haue done of other Writings it is because they belieue Gods church to be equally infallible in all that she propounds though some perhaps doubted before such a Proposition or Definition I haue proved that in your grounds we haue greater certainty for what is related in humane storyes then for the contents of the most vndoubted Bookes of scripture What strength then can those Books of scripture haue which you receaue with a less degree of belief 49. You Object Pag 67. N. 36. and 38. Some Saints did once doubt of some parts of scripture therfor we haue no warrant to damne any man that shall doubt of them or deny them now having the example of Saints in Heaven either to justify or excuse their doubting or deniall 50. Answer This very Objection proves the necessity of an infallible Living Judg as will appeare after I haue first told you that by this forme of arguing we may now be saved though we belieue no part of the whole Bible because the tyme was when no part of it was written We may now adhere to many old Heresyes condemned by the whole Church which before such a condemnation or definition Saints might haue held without damnation or sinne We may now reject the Faith of Christ because many were Saints and saved in the Law of Nature and Moyses without it Yourself Pag 280. N. 66. affirme That what may be enough for men in ignorance may be to knowing men not enough That the same errour may be not capitall to those who want meanes of finding the truth and capitall to others who haue meanes and neglect to vse them Howsoever we Catholikes are safe by your owne words since we haue the example of Saints in Heaven and holy Fathers as is confessed even by Protestants for those Practises and Doctrines which you will needs call Errours beside S. Bernard S. Bonaverture and others whom Protestants confess to be Saints in Heaven and therfor by your owne rule you haue no warrant to damne vs having such examples either to justify or
practicè and effectually we judg the Articles of Christian Faith to deserue and require of vs vnder payne of damnation a most certaine infallible belief beyond all precedent Motives of credibility which judgment being the beginning of supernaturall Faith and of it self an Act of great difficulty to humane Reason requires a particular assistance of Divine Grace 72. 4. If we receyue Scripture vpon this your fallible Tradition we shall haue greater certainty of the Bookes of prophane Authours that they were written by such men than that the Books of Scripture were written by those whom we belieue to haue written them because the Tradition is more full for those than for these as I sayd aboue as also there are many works of those men which never any Christian or other called in question wheras scarcely any Book of Scripture hath not bene questioned even by Christians as they are despised and denyed by all the enemyes of Christian Religion It will also follow for the like reason that we are more certaine that there was such a man as Henry the eight King of England Coesar Pompey c. Then that there was such a man as Jesus Christ as I haue shewed already and yet what Christian can heare such blasphemyes without just indignation and horrour 73. 5. Protestants are wont to object that we giue greater credit to men than to the word of God because we belieue the scripture for the authority of Gods church This is of no force against vs who belieue the church to be infallibly assisted and inspired by the Holy Ghost and that God speakes by the church and consequently that the voyce of the church is the voice of God and so we belieue the word of God for the authority and Testimony of God as all must acknowledg the Primitiue of Christians to haue receyved and believed the Scriptures vpon the authority of the Apostles who yet were men but men inspired and infallibly directed by the Holy Ghost But the Objection turned against you is vnanswerable because you ground the belief of scripture and all the contents therof vpon men expressly as they are fallible and subject to Errour whose words you must belieue more than the word of God according to your owne Rule Pag. 377. N. 59. we must be surerof the Proofe than of the thing proved otherwise it is no Proofe 74. This Argument I confirme by your words Pag. 143. N. 30. There is not the same reason for the Churches absolute infallibility as for the Apostles and Scriptures For if the church fall into Errour it may be reformed by comparing it with the rule of the Apostles Doctrine and scripture But if the Apostles haue erred in delivering the Doctrine of Christianity to whom shall we haue recourse for the discovering and correcting their errour Againe there is not so much strength required in the Edifice as in the Foundation and if but wise men haue the ordering of the building they will make it much a surer thing that the Foundation shall not fail the building then that the building shall not fall from the Foundation Now the Apostles and Prophets and Canonicall writers are the foundation of the Church therfor their stability in Reason ought to be greater then the Churches which is built vpon them Again a dependent infallibility cannot be so certaine as that on which it depends But the infallibility of the Church depends vpon the infallibility of the Apostles as the streightness of the thing regulated vpon the streigness of the Rule Therfor the Churches infallibility is not so certaine as that of the Apostles This is your discourse which I pray you apply to our present purpose in this manner There is not the same reason for the Scriptures infallibility as for Tradition For if some Apocryphall Scripture be obtruded for Canonicall it may be reformed by comparing it with vniversall Tradition But if vniversall Tradition hath erred in delivering the Canon of Scripture to whom or to what shall we haue recourse for the discovering and correcting that errour of proposing Apocryphall Scripture Againe if but wise men haue the ordering of a building they will make it a much surer thing that the Foundation shall not faile the building then that the building shall not fall from the foundation Now vniversall Tradition of men subject to errour is to you the Foundation of Scripture therfor their authority in your reason ought to be greater then the Scripture which is built vpon them Againe a dependent infallibility cannot be so certaine as that on which it depends But the infallibility of Scripture depends vpon the infallibility of vniversall Tradition of men Therfor the Scriptures infallibility is not so certaine as that of the Tradition of men that is neither the one nor the other is certaine What say you to this application and to your Doctrine which forces vs to make it But this application rests not here For as you haue told vs that the infallibility of the Apostles must be greater then that of the Church so for the same reasons the infallibility of the Church must be to vs greater then that of the Apostles yea of Christ himself seing you belieue the Apostles and our Saviour Christ to haue bene infallible and to haue proved their infallibility with Miracles only by your vniversall Tradition of the Church which therfor is the foundation on which your belief concerning the Apostles and our Saviour depends and consequently their infallibility is not so certaine to you as the fallible Tradition of men For we must examine and measure our knwledg of the words and workes of the Apostles and our Saviour by Tradition and not Tradition by them because Tradition to you is a Principle in nature and precedent to our belief of Christ the Apostles and Scripture which depend on it as the streightness of the thing regulated vpon the streightness of the Rule 75. 6. Before we belieue Scripture in your way there is no Principle but Reason placed between Motives which you confess make it only probable that Scripture is the Word of God and Arguments which seeme very strong and convincing that the Mysteries contained in Scripture are contrary to the sayd only Principle Reason besides the difficultyes which to the same Reason seeme great and insuperable in answering seeming contradictions of Scripture to it self which are so many and so intricate as certainly they will appeare to any judicious Man vnanswerable without submission to some infallible Authority as a support for humane Reason against the strength of them as appeares by the great paynes taken by learned men and the difference of wayes in satisfying such difficultyes and finally by a true confession that when they haue done their vttermost the last and best refuge is to captivate their vnderstanding to the Obedience of Faith and one thing is most certaine and evident that Protestants reject divers Bookes of Scripture receyved by Catholikes for Canonicall vpon incomparably less seeming difficultyes or
haue it a necessary introduction to Faith I do not see how you can say this seing you profess to disallow S. Austines saying as we haue seene a little before That Whatsoever was practised or held by the vniversall Church of his tyme must needs haue come from the Apostles and how can that be a necessary introduction to Faith which either contaynes a falshood or is confessedly subject to errour as de facto you Protestants proclaime that the whole Church before Luther was fallen into grosse and as you speake damnable errours and you also say Pag 148. N. 36. An Authority subject to errour can be no firme or stable foundation of my belief in any thing and if it were in any thing then this Authority being one and the same in all proposalls I should haue the same reason to belieue all that I haue to belieue one and therfore must either doe vnreasonably in believing any one thing vpon the sole warrant of this Authority or vnreasonably in not believing all things equally warranted by it And therfor you expressly conclude in these words we belieue Canonicall Books not vpon the Authority of the present Church but vpon vniversall Traditiō But then how is that true which we haue heard you say The Church is though not ā certaine Foundation and proofe of my Faith yet a necessary introduction to it For seing Scripture is the certaine foundation and proofe of your Faith and that you belieue the Scripture not for the private spirit or other criteria as some Protestants doe nor vpon the Authority of the present Church but vpon vniversall Tradition it followes evidently that Vniversall Tradition of the Church is the certain Foundation and proofe of your Faith And this you cannot deny if you remember your owne Doctrine That men may belieue and be saved without Scripture but not without the Church according to your owne saying I must learne of the Church or of some part of the Church or I cannot know any thing Fundamentall or not Fundamentall and in particular that the Scripture is the Word of God Therfor say I the Church is a more necessary not only introduction to Faith but also Foundation and proofe of it then Scripture can be but if you will persist in this your Assertion that the Church as you take it for a fallible aggregation of men is not the Foundation of Faith and that Scripture both in truth and according to your owne Principles must be receyved from the Church what remaynes but that the Church must be infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost in all matters belonging to Religion 91. Lastly to ptoue how easily men may be deceyved vnless they rely vpon some infallible Authority may appeare by what happened to myself who some yeares agoe falling vpon a wicked Book vnder a false name of Dominicus Lopez Societatis Jesu about the Authority of Scripture and as printed in a Catholique cittie it came to my minde that in tyme the Book might come to be accepted for such as the title professes My thoughts proved Propheticall For since that tyme a Catholique learned Writer cites it for such though vpon better information he declares afterward in the same Work that the Book was written by an Heretique and printed among Heretiques 92. And here I will end this Chapter having proved divers wayes that according to severall Doctrines of yours Scripture cannot be any Rule of Faith and much less a perfect one although we should falsely suppose that it did contayne evidently and in particular all Points necessary to be believed Wherfor it remaynes that seing Scripture alone cannot be a sufficient and totall Rule of Faith we declare what that Meanes is Which we will endeavour to performe in the next Chapter CHAPTER IV. A LIUING INFALLIBLE IVDG IS NECESSARY FOR DECIDING CONTROVERSYES IN MATTERS OF FAITH THE Premises set downe in the precedent Chapters did Virtually and implicitely containe and leaue it easy for Vs to infer explicitely and expressly as a conclusion the Title of this Chapter For since Christian Faith is the Gift of God and infallible since Scripture alone doth not evidently containe all necessary Points of Faith since your particular way of receiving Scripture as the word of God cannot be sufficient to erect an Act of infallible Faith no nor can be any Rule of Faith and much less a perfect Rule it followes necessarily that there must alwayes be extant a Living Uisible Judg which can be no other but the Church of God against which our B. Saviour promised that the gates of Hell should not prevaile This Deduction is so cleare that you are forced to acknowledg it Pag 326. N. 4. Where you affirme That Catholikes would faine haue the Doctrine of the infallibility of Christian Faith true that there might be necessity of our Churches infallibility Seing then both Catholikes and Protestants and al Christians firmely belieue Christian Faith to be infallible and that this cannot be defended without believing the infallibility of the church it followes that we must either acknowledg in Her such an infallibility or tell Christians that for ought they know all that they belieue of God of Christ of Scripture of the Resurrection of the Dead of Heaven of Hell of all the Articles of Christian Religion may proue no better than a dreame or an imposture or fiction Blessed be the infinite Wisdome and Goodness of God who destroyes the Wisdom of the Wise and the prudence of the prudent 1. Cor. 1.19 This Man was picked out among all the men in England to impugne the Roman Church his Book was approved by three chiefest men of an University and was excessively cryed vp by his friends neither did any Writer ever shew greater malice against the Roman Church than hee But with what success No other but this That Protestants must either deny with this man all Certainty of Scripture and Christianity or els acknowledg not the Scripture but the Church to be Judg of Controversyes in matters cōcerning religiō that is they must either renoūce Christianity by denying the infallibility of Christian Faith or abandon Protestancy by condēning their capitall doctrine of the fallibility of the Church and sufficiency of Scripture alone and so must returne to belieue and obey the Decrees and Definitions of Generall Councells and with them condemne the Heresyes which now themselves maintayne This then may be my first Argument to proue the infallibility of Gods Church and indeed this alone might suffice with Christians yet 2. 2. This Truth of the necessity of an infallible Judg appeares also by what hath bene sayd about Translations Additions Detractions Corruptions and loss of some Scriptures which would leaue vs in doubt and perplexity vnless we believed an infallible Authority able to supply all such defects and provide for all events 3. 3. Out of Charity Maintayned Part 1. Pag 64. N. 19. There must be some Judg fit for all sorts of Persons learned and vnlearned which the ignorant may
thither If then we may learne all things necessary to salvation without a writing or Scripture as you grant we may and as all Christians must grant for the tyme before Scripture was written we must say therfor it is not necessary for that end and though it were necessary yet it is not necessary that it be so plaine as every man may vnderstand it by himself seing that end of vnderstanding may be compassed by another meanes which is the Declaration of Gods Church And here I beseech you reflect on your owne words Pag 79. N. 68. That it is altogether abhorrent from the goodnesse of God to suffer an ignorant Laymans soule to perish meercly for being misled by an vndiscernable false Translation which yet was commended to him by the Church which being of necessity to credit some in this matter he had Reason to rely vpon either aboue all other or as much as any other Therfore say I we are to belieue that the Church on which we must relie ought to be infallible that so we may trust her without danger For if her Authority be fallible vncertaine and doubtfull yea if de facto she erred she is liable to your censure Pag 37. N. 20. A doubtfull and Questionable Guide is for mens direction as good as non◠at all 10. But here againe Pag 93. and Pag 94. N. 108. which is put to two § § You object how shall an vnlearned man amongst vs know which is the true Church or what that Church hath decreed seing the Church hath not bene so carefull in keeping of her Decrees but that many are lost and many corrupted and that even the learned among vs are not agreed concerning diverse things whether they be de fide or not Or how shall the vnlearned be more capable of vnderstanding the sense of the Decrees of the Church than of plaine Texts of Scripture especially seing the Decrees of divers Popes and Councells are conceyved so obscurely that the learned cannot agree about the sense of them and are all written in languages which the ignorant vnderstand not and therfor must of necessity rely herein vpon the vncertaine and fallible Authority of fome particular men who informe them that there is such a Decree And if they were translated into vulgar languages why the Translators should not be as fallible as you say the Translatours of the Scripture are who can possibly imagine And N. 109. you say How shall an vnlearned man or indeed any man be assured of the certainty of any Decree seing a Councell depends on a true Pope which he cannot be if he came in by Simony or were not babtized which depends on the due Intention of the Minister or were not rightly ordayned Priest and this againe depends vpon the Ordainers secret Intention and also vpon his having the Episcopall Character 11. This is the summe of what not only you but other Protestants are wont to object and it is the vtmost of your endeavours But will be easily answered by laying this ground That both in this and other Poynts we must distinguish between the certainty of a generall ground or foundation and the certainty of that particular meanes by which we actuate or apply to particular occasions that Generall ground which vnless it be first belieued with certainty cannot haue strength to moue vs to vndertake with resolution and perseverance mattters of great difficulty You say Pag 143. N. 30. There is not so much strength required in the Edisice as in the Foundation And if but wise men haue the ordering of the building they will make it much a sever thing that the foundition shall not faile the building then that the building shall not fall from the Foundation 12. This Truth will better be vnderstood by Examples That we may prudently yield Obedience Piety and Observance and be obliged to doe so towards Magistrates Parents and Superious it is sufficient that we haue a morall and prudent practicall judgment that they are such because that judgment is sufficient to apply the generall ground that Obedience Piety c are due to Magistrates Parents c But if that Generall ground were not certaine as an evident dictamen of Reason but only probable men would not thinke themselves obliged to such dutyes but rather would stand for their liberty by pleading possession and following that other dictamen of Reason Equity and Justice Meliorest conditio possidentis To Hope for the reward promised to the just after this life it is sufficient that we haue good Reason though not certainty that we are just or in the state of Grace But if this generall Principle The just shall be eternally rewarded were not certaine few I feare would be perswaded to preferr a future vncertainty before that which they enjoy certainly and for the present You say Pag 172. N. 71. The Spirit of Truth may teach a man Truth and yet he may fall into some errour even contrary to the truth which is taught him if it be taught him only sufficiently and not irresistibly But if one were not certaine of this generall ground That God of his part teaches every one sufficiently men would not easily thinke themselves obliged or would be induced to vse their best endeavours to learne things which they belieue cannot be learned vnless God alone teach them sufficiently if they had no certainty that they can hope for any such teaching And to come neerer to our purpose If one do verely belieue some particular Poynt to be evidently contained in Scripture who can oblige him to belieue that Point with absolute certainty vnless he first belieue Scripture itself to be the infallible word of God Neither is this enough to make his Assent really infallible though it were supposed to be casually true vnless Scripture were not only believed to be the word of God but that indeed it be so For Infallibility of Assent signifyes two things the one that de facto the thing for the present is true the other that it depends on such constant Causes or Priciples as cannot in any possible case or occasion consist with falshood or vncertainty which could not be verifyed vnless Scripture in truth and reality and not only in opinion or belief be the word of God For though in some one occasion it might chance to speake truth yet in some other it might faile and cause vs to fall into some errour But if we make another kind of supposition That one is told by his Pastour or Prelate whom he might prudently belieue that some Point is contained in Scripture which indeed is so contayned ād he beleeue it as cōtayned in that booke which he believes to be the word of God ād in itself is such and consequently infallible in that case he of whom I spoke may exercise an infallible act of faith though his immediate instructour or proposer be not Infallible because he believes vpon a ground which both is believed to be Infallible and is such indeed
to wit the word of God who therfor will not deny his supernaturall concurse necessary to every true act of Divine Faith Otherwise in the ordinary course there would be left no meanes for the Faith and salvation of vnlearned persons from whom God exacts no more than that they proceed prudently according to the measure of their severall capacityes and vse such diligence as men ought to vse in a matter of highest moment All Christians of the primitive Church were not present when the Apostles spoke or wrote yea it is not certaine that every one of those thousands whom S. Peter converted did heare every sentence he spoke but might belieue some by relation of others who stood neere 13. Three things then are necessary and sufficient for exercising an Act of Faith 1. That the ground itself be infallible 2. That it exist in that case for example that God haue indeed revealed such a truth 3. That he who believes proceed prudently Now to determine in particular when one may be judged to proceed prudently depends on divers circumstances of Persons capacity instruction c. What I haue exemplifyed in Scripture may be applyed to Divine Revelation in generall which could not be the Formall Object or Motiue of our Faith if it colud beare witness to any least vntruth and yet we may belieue by an Act of true Faith that which we only prudently belieue that God hath revealed if indeed he hath revealed it And so the first ground which I layd is true that the Foundation vpon which we finally rely must be absolutly certaine whatsoever the particular meanes by which such Foundation or Principle is applyed may chance to be This I say is true speaking of particular persons cases motives and as I may say in actu exercito without touching for the present other Questions 14. This ground being premised I demonstrate That both learned and vnlearned Catholikes haue a firme Foundation vpon which they build their Faith and that Protestants whether they be learned or vnlearned haue no such ground 15. First we haue proved that Scripture doth not contayne all necessary Points of Faith and therfor for those necessarie Points which are not to be found in Scripture they must either be ignorant of them or erre by denying them or els belieue them vpon the Authority of the Church which they expressly and obstinately hold to be fallible and so we may apply against them your owne words Pag 148. N. 36. where you expressly grant that vnless the Church be Infallible in all things we cannot rationally belieue her for her owne sake and vpon her owne word and Authority in any thing For an Authority subject to errour can be no firme or stable Foundation of my belief in any thing 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 believe all that I haue to belieue one and therfor 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 Out of which words it followes that you cannot believe any one Point of Faith for the Authority of the Church and that it were vnreasonable in you to doe so and an vnreasonable and imprudent Act cannot be supernaturall or be pleasing to God nor proceed from the speciall motion of the Holy Ghost as every Act of Divine Faith must doe Therfor since Protestants rely vpon Scripture alone which contaynes not all necessary Points of Faith the best learned amongst them must be destitute of somthing necessary to salvation and then what shall we say of the vnlearned who depend on their teachers But it is cleare that Catholikes learned and vnlearned who belieue the infallibility of the church may learne of Her and by tradition or the vnwritten word of God what is not particularly contained in his written word or Scripture 16. But here as in divers other occasions I must vnexpectedly yet necessarily make some stay Charity Maintayned Part 1. Chap 3. N. 15. Pag 94. hath these words If I doubt of any one parcell of Scripture receyved for such I may doubt of all and thence by the same parity I inferr That if we did doubt of the Churches infallibility in some Poynts we could not belieue Her in any one and so not in propounding Canonicall Bookes or any other Points Fundamentall or not Fundamentall At these words you take exception Pag 148. N. 36. and say By this Reason your Proselyts knowing you are not infallible in all things must not nor cannot belieue you in any thing Nay you yourself must not belieue yourself in any thing because you know that you are not infallible in all things Indeed if you had sayd we could not rationally belieue her for herowne sake and vpon her owne word and Authority in any thing I should willingly grant the consequence which you proue in the next words alledged by me aboue For an authority subject to errour can be no firme or stable foundation of my belief in any thing c 17. Answer You haue no reason to cavill at the words of Charity Maintayned which are very cleare and containe no more then what we haue heard yourself expressly teaching That an Authority subject to errour can be no firme Foundation of my belief in any thing And therfor He sayd expressly if we did doubt of the Churches infallibility in some Points we could not belieue her in any one Where you see he speakes of Infallibility which is destroyed by any one least errour and consequently cannot possibly be vnderstood otherwise than of believing the Church for her owne infallibility and Authority and being so vnderstood yourself profess willingly to grant the consequence which is the very same which Charity Maintained did inferr and even out of the very same reason which you did giue Besides he speakes expressly of Scripture and the Church in order to the proposing of Canonicall Scripture or believing other Points of Faith Fundamentall or not Fundamentall which require a Proposer vniversally infallible as yourself grant And so to answer your Objection no body can belieue me nor I can belieue my self for my owne authority in matters which require certainty and Infallibility as all Points of Faith doe vnless I were believed to be infallible in all things for the same reason which we haue heard yourself giue that an Authority subject â—o errour can be no firme FouÌ„dation of my belief in any thing But you say there is no coÌ„sequeÌ„ce in this Argument which you say is like to myne the dâ—vell is not infallible therfor if he sayes there is one God I cannot belieue him No Geometrician is infallible in all things therfor not in the things which he demonstrates N. N. is not infallible in all things therfor he may not belieue that he wrote a Booke entituled Charity Maintayned 18. Answer It is very true that I cannot
belieue the Divell with an infallible Assent for his owne Authority in saying there is one God vnless I belieue him to be infallible But if he proue what he sayes by some evident demonstration I do not belieue him for his Authority but I yield Assent to the demonstration proposed by him for the evidence and certainty of the thing itself proved by such a demonstration and so alwayes infallibility in our Assent requires infallibility in the Ground or Motiue therof As de facto the Divell himself knowes with an infallible internall Assent yea and as I may say feeles to his cost that there is a God but whether you can belieue him with certainty when exteriourly he vtters that or any other Point meerly for his Authority is nothing to our purpose though it seemes you can best diue into his intentions by what you say in your Answer to your Eight Motiue where you say The Divell might perswade Luther from the Masse hoping by doing so to keepe him constanâ— to it or that others would make his disswasion from it an Argument for it as we see Papists doe you should add and as yourself did before you were a Papist and be afrayd of following Luther as confessing himself to haue bene perswaded by the Divell This your strang answer to your owne Motiue I do not confute in this occasion it having bene done already in a litle Treatise intituled Heantomachta or Mr. Chillingworth against himself and in an other called Motives Maintayned Certainly you haue not observed that saying We must not bely the Divell 19. The same Answer I giue to your example of a Geometritian whom in those things which he demonstrates we do not belieue for his Authority but for evidence of his demonstration which is infallible neither did the Author of Charity Maintayned belieue for his owne fallible Authority that he hath written such a Booke but by evidence and infallibility offense And here you should remember your owne words Pag 325. N. 2. Faith is not knowledg no more then three is foure but eminently contained in it so that he that knowes believes and somthing more but he that believes many tymes does not know nay if he doth barely and meerly belieue he doth never know Therfor according to your owne Doctrine he who assents in vertue of some evident demonstration doth know and not belieue for the Authority of another And who sees not that if I belieue a thing for some other reason and not for the Authority of him who affirmes it I cannot be sayd to belieue it for his Authority but I assent to it for that other reason Yea if we consider the matter well when I know one affirmes a thing and yet do not belieue it for his Authority but for some other Motiue or reason I may be sayd of the two rather to disbelieue then belieue him at least I do not belieue him at all for that Point but either some other Person or for some other Reason Wherfor You do but trifle when Pag 138. N. 36. You speake to Charity Maintayned in these words You say we cannot belieue the Church in propounding Canonicall Books if the Church be not vniversally infallible if you meane still as you must doe vnless you play the Sophister not vpon her owne Authority I grant it For we belieue Canonicall Bookes not vpon the Authority of the present Church but vpon vniversall Tradition If you meane not at all and that with reason we cannot belieue these Bockes to be Canonicall which the Church proposes I deny it In these words I say you do but trifle For you know that Charity Maintayned did speake of believing the Church vpon her owne Authority which is so true that you say he must meane so vnless he play the Sophister and what then shall we think you play in imputing to him such a sense wheras you deny not but that his words may be taken in a good sense as indeed they could not be taken otherwise Beside I do not at all belieue the Church when I chance to belieue that which she proposes if I belieue it for some other reason and not for her Authority and therfor it is a contradiction in you to say I belieue the Church at all when I belieue for some other reason as I haue declared aboue You say Pag 35. N. 7. I grant that the meanes to decide Controversyes in Faith and Religion must be indued with an vniversall infallibility in whatsoever it propoundeth for a Divine Truth For if it may be false in any one thing of this nature in any one thing which God requires men to belieue we can yield vnto it but a wavering and fearfull assent Is not this the very same thing which Charity Maintayne sayd If now one should turne your owne words against yourself and say Indeed if you had sayd we can yield vnto it but a wavering and fearfull Assent in any thing for its owne sake I should willingly grant your consequence But if you meane not at all I deny it Would you not say that he did but cavill Remember then Quod tibi non vis fieri alteri ne seceris But let vs goe forward 20. The second difference between learned and vnlearned Catholikes and both those kinds of Protestants is this You say Pag 87 N. 94. The Scripture is not so much the words as the sense If therfor Protestants haue no certaine Meanes or Rule to know the true sense of Scripture to them it cannot be Scripture nor the infallible Word of God But I haue proved that Protestants haue no such certaine Meanes or Rule Therfor we must inferr that by pretending to follow Scripture alone they do not rely vpon any certaine ground and that Scripture to them cannot be an infallible Rule And this being true even in respect of the learned the Faith of the vnlearned who depend on them cannot possibly be resolved into any infallible ground wheras the vnlearned amongst Catholikes believing their Pastors who rely on the Church which both is and is believed to be infallible their Faith comes to be resolved into a ground really infallible The like Argument may be taken from Translations Additions Detractions and Corruptions of Scripture of which the learned Protestants can haue no certainty and much less the vnlearned and so their Faith is not builded vpon any stable Foundation and consequently the vncertaintyes which we object to you touch the very generall grounds of your Faith and not only the particular meanes by which they are applyed to every one 21. 3. I appeale to the conscience of every vnpartiall man desirous to saue his soule whether in Prudence one ought not to preferr the Roman Church and those who agree with Her before any companie of Sectaryes who disagreeing among themselves cannot all belieue aright and yet none of them is able to satisfy why their particular sect should be preferred before others who pretend Scripture alone no less then they Of
pretended Bishop I meane for the consequence which he makes that if Episcopacie be Juris Divini it is damnable to impugne it and with Molin agrees Dr. Taylor of Episcopacy teaching § 46. That to separate from the Bishop makes a man at least a Schismatike and § 47. That it is also Heresy And in his Liberty of Prophesying Epist Dedic Pag 32.33 having sayd that the Lutheran Churches the Zuinglians and the Calvinists reject Episcopacy he adds which the Primitive Church would haue made no doubt to haue called Heresy More of this and of the Notes of the Church may be seene in Charity Maintayned Part 1. Chap 9. this not being a place to treat at large of these matters It is sufficient for our present purpose to demonstrate that we are no way guilty of walking in a Circle Only it will be necessary to note here two Points 5. First That the Arguments of credibility fall primarily vpon the Church not vpon Scripture which confirmes what I sayd that the Apostles were not Infallible because they wrote but their writings deserue credit because the writers were Infallible Thus in the Old Law Moyses gained authority by working Miracles and by other Arguments of credibility wherby the people accepted him as a Man sent by God to declare his word and will and in such manner as they were sure to belieue God by giving credit to Moyses They believed our Lord and Moyses his servant Exod 14.31 and 19.9 and ther vpon they belieâ—ed the Scripture which he wrote and proposed as the Infallible word of God and by it other particulars even concerning Moyses himself In the New Law the Apostles proved and settled the Authority of their Persons before their writings could be prudently receaved as Diuine or the Word of God The Reason therof is because the Motives or Arguments of credibility immediatly make that credible of which they are effects which immediatly manifest their cause Now the Motives to embrace Religion agree immediatly to the Church or Persons and not to writings and so Marc Vlt it is sayd These signes shall follow those who belieue And therfore though there were no Scriptures if the Church did still remaine these motives would also remaine for example Sanctity of life Miracles conversion of Nations Martirdomes Victory over all enemyes the name Catholique c Which could not agree to Scripture though we did falsely suppose that it did remayne and the Church perish For no Writing is capable of Sanctity of life Succession of Bishops c yea the Scripture can haue no efficacy vnless it be first believed to be the word of God and it must be beholding to the Church for such a Testimony and therfor whatsoever perfections or attributes may seeme to belong immediatly to the Scripture must depend on the Church as the Scripture itself doth in order to our believing it to be the word of God But contrarily the Perfections or priviledges of the Church are independent of Scripture as the Church itself is which was before Scripture And here it is also to be considered that we haue no absolute certainty that the Apostles ever wrought any particular Miracle to proue immediatly that Scripture is the word of God but we are sure they did it mediatè by gaining Authority to their Persons and then to their writings And thus you say in your Answer to the Direction N. 43. That the Bible hath bene confirmed with those Miracles which were wrought by our Saviour and the Apostles But now if we be obliged to believe the Scripture in all things by reason of Arguments which bind vs to belieue it to be the word of God we must also be obliged to belieue the Church in whatsoever she proposes as Divine Verityes since the Arguments and Reasons of credibility do more immediatly proue the true Church than they proue Scripture 6. The second thing to be observed is That when we are obliged to receave some Persons as messengers of God appointed and assisted by him to deliver Divine Truths as the Apostles were we are bound to belieue them in all things which they propound for such Truths For as I haue often sayd if they might erre in some things of this nature we could not belieue theÌ„ in any other thing for their sole Authority as all coÌ„fess of Scripture that being once delivered by meÌ„ of the forsayd Authority as the word of God it must be receyved as vniversally true in all and every least passage though the Apostles did not confirme by seve rall Miracles the matter of every particular Text and yet every one is an object of Faith nor of every particular Truth which they spoke but it was sufficient that people did and were obliged to receaue them as men who by commission from God taught the true way to eternall Happynes and therfore were to be credited in all particulars which they did propose 7. Out of this true Ground I inferr That it cannot be sayed without injury to Gods Church to the Apostles and God himself that when men of our Church worke Miracles and produce other Reasons to proue that they preach the true Faith and Religion to gentils Jewes Turks or Heritikes those Miracles are not sufficient Proofes of all that which our Church propounds as Divine Truth but of some particular Points for example not of Purgatory Prayer to Saints Reall Presence c. but of such Christian verityes as Protestants belieue with vs. This cannot be sayd For it is evident that the same might haue bene objected against the Apostles to wit that God intended to proue by their Miracles only some verityes believed by Jewes or Heretikes and not every one of the particular Mysteryes of Christian Religion Neither can it be sayd that the Preachers of our Catholique Church when they convert Nations doe worke Miracles to bring them to I know not what Faith in generall or in abstracto or an Idea Platonica but to the Catholique Roman Religion which if it were false God in his Goodness could never permitt so many and great Miracles to be wrought and other so evident Arguments of credibility to be produced that people must be obliged to receiue such Preachers as Teachers of the true way to Heaven as he could not permit the Apostles to worke Miracles intending that they should be trusted in some not in all Points For this generall Reason taken from Gods Goodness and providence is the same in all who bring the like Arguments of Credibility as our Church never wants Arguments like to those whereby the Apostles made good their Authority Besides if the sayd Objection were of force men de facto can haue no certainty that Scripture is the word of God for all Points contayned therin because it will be sayd that although Miracles were wrought to proue that the Bible is the word of God they might be vnderstood not to confirme every passage or Text but only some Truths contayned therin And likewise according to
either to be perplexed and doubtfull of Christian Religion or vtterly to forsake it ād become Jewes or Turks Such were Castalio David Georg Ochinus Neuserus Alemannus and others as may be seene exactly set downe in Brierly Tract 2. Cap. 1. Sect. 5. 12. These things considered we must say that if it be once believed against wicked Atheists that there is a God that he hath Providence over his creatures and is to be worshipped in some Religion it is impossible that he can bestow so great Prerogatives vpon the Roman Church and affoard so many forcible and evident Reasons convincing Her to be the true Church and yet that she should not be so indeed For such an errour could not be ascribed to man following the best guidance of evident Reason but to God alone which cannot be affirmed without blasphemy And how is it possible that Gods will should be that we embrace his true Worship and Religion and yet affoard to the contrary errour so great strength of Reason that in all prudence and reason men should embrace not the true but the false Faith and Religion 13. And this may suffice for the present to demonstrate that we are free enough from walking in a circle and that you speake very vntruly when you say Pag 377. N. 59. and in your Answer to the Direction N. 8. and 14. that we can pretend no proofe for the Church but some Texts wherin you contradict even yourself who Pag 66. N. 35. say that our Faith even of the Fundation of all our Faith our Churches Authority is built lastly and wholly vpon prudentiall Motives If wholly vpon prudentiall Motives how do you so often tell vs that we build it only vpon Scripture And that by so doing we run round in a Circle proving Scripture by the Church and the Church by Scripture 14. But now let vs consider a litle whether your pretended Brethren the Protestants can themselves avoyd that which you and they do so vehemently object to vs. First then They who profess to know the private spirit cannot avoyd a Circle while they proue Scripture by that spirit and that spirit by Scripture by which alone according to their Principles they can try whether or no it proceede from God Wherof Ihaue spoken heretofore 15. Secondly they who pretend to know the Scripture by certaine internall criteria or signes found in Scripture itself as light majesty efficacy or as Potter speakes Pag 141. a glorious beame of divine light which shines in Scripture must fall into the same Circle with those men of the private spirit For seing those criteria which they fancy to themselves are nor evident either to sense or naturall reason they must be knowen by some other meanes which can be none except some internall private spirit or Grace within as Potter expressly speakes Pag 141. and Pag 142. saith There is in the Scripture it self light sufficient which the eye of Reason cleared by Grace may discover to be Divine descended from the Father and fountaine of light If then we aske these men why they belieue Scripture to be indued with such light majesty c. seing these things appeare not evidently to any of our senses nor to our vnderstanding as prima principia of naturall Reason which are manifest of themselves their Answer must be that internall Gracē assures vs therof and so this Grace is necessary not only ex parte subjecti or potentiae to assist our soule aboue our naturall forces in order to supernaturall Objects but it is the reason motiue and medium ex parte objecti for which we belieue for other reason these men can giue none and then enters the Argument which I made even now How can they know that this light or spirit is infused by God and proceeds not from some bad spirit except by Scripture and consequently by first knowing Scripture wherby that light must be examined and yet they cannot know scripture except they be first inspired with this light and know it to be a true light and not an illusion which is a manifest Circle placing this light before Scripture and Scripture before this light and finally they are in effect cast vpon the private spirit Catholikes I grant belieue that the particular assistance of the Holy Ghost is necessarie for exercising an Act of Faith but they require it only ex parte potentiae to enable our vnderstanding to assent to an object represented and proposed by Motives sufficient to oblige vs to an infallible Act having for its principall and formall Object the Divine Revelation which Revelation and Motives are adequately and perfectly distinguished from the sayd Assistance as in proportion we belieue by the vertue and strength of the Habit of Faith ex parte potentiae but we do not belieue for it neither is it apprehended or considered or represented to our vnderstanding when we belieue but that which we apprehend moves the Act of our vnderstanding is the reason and motiue for which we beleeue as also the facultie of our vnderstanding is necessary for vs to belieue and yet we do not belieue for but by it And therfore Protestants avoyd a Circle as we evidently do 16. Thirdly As for you who profess to belieue the Scripture for the Church if you be free from an vnprofitable Circle we also who receyue and belieue the Scripture for the Authority of the Church are secured from it for the same reason and therfore you must either acquit vs or condemne yourself though you will never be able to be proved not guilty of vntruth and injustice in objecting to vs alone that very thing of which yourself are guilty 17. But now because in this Controversy about the Church Protestants seeke to make great vse of a distinction between Fundamentall and not Fundamentall Poynts I must in the next Chapter say somthing therof that is wheras Charity Maintayned hath shewed against Dr. Potter the falshood and impertinency of that distinction as it is applyed by Protestants yea and that they contradict themselves therin I will now endeavour to proue that notwithstanding all that you haue written in defense of the Doctour the Arguments of Charity Maintayned remayne in force as also that you in this matter contradict both Protestants and yourself CHAP. VI. ABOVT FVNDAMENTALL AND NOT FVNDAMENTALL POYNTS OF FAITH 1. THis Question concerning Fundamentall and not Fundamentall Poynts of Faith is stated at large by Charity Maintayned Chap 3. N. 2. The summe is Some Points are called Fundamentall or necessary because every one is obliged to know and belieue them expressly and explicitely and Potter Pag 243. speaking of some Points of Faith sayth These are so absolutely necessary to all Christians for attaining the End of our Faith that is the salvation of our soules that a Christian may loose himself not only by a positive erring in them or denying of them but by a pure ignorance or nescience or not knowing of them Other Points are called not
Fundamentalls I cannot in wisdome forsake her in any Point or parte from her Communion If you thinke it impossible not to sorsake her Communion in case she fall into Errours not fundamentall and yet belieue that you must not forsake her which is a plain Contradiction there remaines only this true and solid remedy against such an inextricable perplexity that you belieue her to be infallible in all Points be they Fundamentall or not FundameÌ„tall which is a certaine Truth and followes from the very Principles of Protestants that the Church cannot erre in Fundamentalls if they vnderstand themselves though you be loath to grant this so necessary a Truth Yea my inference that you must belieue the Church to be infallible in all Points even not Fundamentall if you belieue her to be infallible in Fundamentalls is your owne Assertion P. 148. N. 36. Where you expressly grant that vnless the Church were infallible in all things we could not rationally belieue her for her owne sake and vpon her owne word and Authority in any thing For an Authority subject to errour can be no firme or stable foundation of my beliefe in any thing And if it were in any thing then this Authority being one and the same in all proposalls I should haue the same reason to belieue all that I haue to belieue one and therfore must either do vnreasonably in believing any one thing vpon the sole warrant of this Authority or vnreasonably in not believing all things equally warranted 127. You say the Church of Rome was only a Part of the Church vnerring in Fundamentalls before Luther arose But I would know what other Church could be such an vnerring Church except the Roman and such as agreed with her against the Noveltyes which Luther began to preach Certainly there was none such and therfore since Protestants profess that the vniversall Church is infallible we must say it was the Roman togeather with such as were vnited in her Communion This Ground being layd and your maine Objection being retorted against your selfe let vs now examine in particular your other Objections 128. You aske Pag 164. N. 56. Had it not been a damnable sin to â—rofess errours though the errours in themselves were not dâ—mnable Then N. 57. You goe about to proue that it is impossible to adhere to the Roman Church in all things haâ—â—ng no other ground for it but because she is infallible in some things that is in Fundamentalls because in reason no Conclusion can be larger than the Principles on which it is be founded And therfore if I consider what I do and be perswaded that your infallibility is but limited and particular and partiall my adherence vpon this ground cannot possibly be Absolute and vniversall and totall This you confirme with a Dialogue which adds nothing to the reason which now I haue cited in your owne words saue only that it proves at large that which we chiefly desired to be granted That if the Church be believed to be infallible in Fundamentall Articles as Protestants say she is we must belieue her to be infallible in all Points In the end of this Dialogue you say It may be very great imprudence to erre with the Church if the Question be whether we should erre with the present Church or hold true with God Almighty 128. In the N. 60. You say Particular Councells haue bene liberall of their Anathemas which yet were never conceaved infallible And N. 61. For the visible Churches holding it a Point necessary to salvation that we belieue she cannot erre you know no such tenet And N. 62. God in Scripture can better informe vs what are the Limits of the Churches Power then the Church herselfe And N. 63. That some forsaking the Church of Rome haue forsake Fundamentall Truths was not because they forsooke the Church of Rome for els all that haue forsaken that Church should haue done so which we Protestants say they haue not but because they went too far from her It is true say you in the name of Protestants if we sayd there were no danger in being of the Roman Church and there were danger in leaving it it were madness to leaue it But we protest and proclaime the contrary And N. 64. You say It was no errour in the Donatists that they held it possible that the Church from a larger extent might be contracted to a lesser nor that they held it possible to be reduced to Africa But their errour was that they held de factâ— this was done when they had no just ground or reason to do so and so vpon a vaine pretence separated themselves from the Communion of all other parts of the Church And that they required it as a necessary condition to make a man a member of the Church that he should be of their Communion and divide himselfe from all other Communions from which they were divided Which was a condition both vnnecessary and vnlawfull to be required and directly opposite to the Churcheâ— Catholicisme You add morover that Charity Maintayned neither had named those Protestants who held the Church to haue perished for many Ages neither hath proved but only affirmed it to be a Fundamentall errour to hold that the Church militant may possibly be driven out of the world and abolished for a tyme from the face of the earth And N. 65. You say To accuse the Church of some errour in Faith is not to say she lost all Faith but he which is an Heretike in one Article may haue true Faith of other Articles These be your objections which being diverse and of different natures the Reader may not wonder if I be somwhat long in answering them Therefore I 129. Answer In this Question whether it be not wisdome and necessary not to forsake the Church in any one Point if she be supposed infallible in Fundamentall Points we may either speake First of things as they are in themselves or secondly according to the grounds of Protestants or ad hominem or thirdly what we may or ought to inferr vpon some false and impossible supposition as this is that the Church may erre in Points not fundamentall differently from an inference proceeding from a suppofition of a truth or fourthly what may or ought to be chosen at least as minus malum when there intervenes a joynt and inevitable pressure of two or more evills This Advertisment premised 130. I answer to your demand whether it had not been a damnable sin to profess errours though in themselves not damnable that a parte rei and per se loquendo it is damnable to profess any least knowne errour against Faith and for that very cause it is impossible the Church should fall into any errour at all But that I haue proved already that according to the Groundes and words of Protestants it is not damnable to do so if the errour be nor opposite to some Fundamentall Truth and consequently that they ought in all Reason to adhere to the
vpon prudent reasons and extrinsecall considerations which not to be wanting in our case appeares by reflecting That for the points controverted we haue the judgment and Authority of the Churches existent when Luther appeared that is of the vniversall Catholique Church if God had any Church on Earth as you grant he alwayes had And even yourselfe speaking of Councells say Pag 200. N. 18. I willingly confess the judgment of a Councell though not infallible is yet so farr directiue and obliging that without apparent reason to the contrary it may be sin to reject it at least not to affoard it an outward submission for publike peace-sake Potter also Pag 165. Speaks fully in these words We say that such Generall Councells as are lawfully called and proceed orderly are great and awfull representations of the Church Catholique that they are the highest externall Tribunall which the Church hath on earth that their Authority is immediatly derived and delegated from Christ that no Christian is exempted from their censures and jurisdiction that their decrees bind all persons to externall Obedience and may not be questioned but vpon evident reason nor reversed but by an equall Authority that if they be carefull and diligent in the vse of all good meanes for finding out the truth it is very probable the good Spirit will so direct them that they shall not erre at least not Fundamentally Behold Councells are not only directiue but obliging they cannot be rejected Their Decrees bind to externall Obedience and may not so much as be questioned but vpon apparent and evident reason nor reversed but by an equall Authority if they be carefull and deligent in the vse of all good meanes for finding the truth it is very probable the good Spirit will so direct them that they shall not erre at least Fundamentally that their Authority is immediatly derived and delegated from Christ 161. Here it is reason I make a pause and obserue some points out of our very Adversaryes First The vniversall Church according to Potter and other chiefe Protestants is infallible in fundamentall points and even according to â—hillingworth is infallible as long as she exists which he saith hath been from the beginning and shall last to the worlds end and so de facto she is infallible that is he is as sure that she shall not erre in any fundamentall point as he is sure that Christ shall alwaies haue a Church on earth which ought to be a great inducement not to reject her Authority without evident reason Yea seing he holds Councells to be fallible in fundamentall points aÌ„d yet that they oblige men to an outward submission much more he should say so of the Church which is confessed to be infallible in all Fundamentalls 162. Secondly seing Potter Chilling and Dr. Lawd whom I cited aboue teach that we are bound vnder sin to affoard outward obedience to Generall Councells and that we cannot do this in matters of Faith vnless we belieue as we professe we must belieue them to be infallible in all things least either we sin against Obedience due to them or against our Conscience professe what we do not belieue 163. Thirdly seing their Authority is immediatly derived and delegated from Christ their right to be obeyed is de jure Divino of which they were in possession when Luther arose and therfore it is a grievous sin not to obey them vnless it can be demonstrated with evidence that they teach or command somthing clearly repugnant to the law or word of Christ 164. Fourthly seing their Decrees cannot be questioned but vpon evident reason it followes that the reasons are not first purposely to be sought and then found because people prepossessed by passion haue a mind to breake with the Church as it happens in all Schismatiks and Heretikes but their Arguments must be so pressing and irresistible by ceason of their evidence that the vnderstanding cannot by any meanes of contrary reason or command of the will forbeare to assent which to any judicious man must needs appeare to be a strange and no better than an imaginaty kind of evidence and indeed impossible in objects of Faith which are obscure and exceed the naturall light of all humane reason 165. Fiftly Since they cannot be reversed but by an equall Authority and Dr. Lawd delivers the same Doctrine as we haue seene aboue we are assured that the Decrees of Councells before Luther could not be reversed by Luther or any other private person nor by all Protestants Who never could pretend to haue a Generall Councell and in those Colloquiums or Conferences or particular Synods which they held could never establish any vniversall Vnion among themselves but only declared to the world that they had no possible meanes of Vnion and Concord And indeed who should call such a Generall Councell Or who should preside therin Or if they would haue recourse to secular Princes it would make little to their purpose seing absolute Princes are no more subject one to another than different Sects of Protestants will confesse any mutuall subordination 166. Sixtly Seing if they be carefull in the vse of all good meanes for finding the Truth it is very probable the good spirit will direct them that they shall not erre at least fundamentally they could not be opposed except by reason more than probable but men were to presume that they did not erre Neither should you say if they be carefull c. it is very probable the good spirit will direct them that they shall not erre which may be said of any two or three gathered togeather in Christs name if they be carefull in the vse of all good meanes for finding the truth yea the same may be sayd of every particular person but contrarily seing you confesse them to be derived from Christ and that they are the highest externall Tribunall which the Church hath on Earth and that all are obliged to obey them which none could be in errours against Faith you should say because they cannot erre God will not faile to affoard his effectuall Grace that they be carefull in the vse of all good meanes for finding the truth For accordingly as God hath decreed to bring vs to an End He will not faile to moue vs effectually to apply all those Meanes which on our behalf are necessary for such an End And it were but a most rash vncharitable foolish and false imagination to thinke that Generall Councells before Luther replenished with men of learning sanctity and zeale of the Truth were not carefull in the vâ—â— of all good meanes for finding the Truth and therfore they could not but be assisted by God to find it nor Luther excused from Schisme and Heresy by opposing them and it 167. These things considered it cannot but appeare to any judicious vnpartiall man how impossible it is that any such evidence should offer itselfe against the Faith and decrees of the Church or Generall Councells as can force the
vniversall Why might not the Church of that tyme haue held some vniversall errour and yet haue beene still the Church You must answer your owne Argument which is easy for vs Catholikes to doe by saying 5. First No particular man or Church may hold any sinfull and damnable errour and yet be a member of the Church vniversall Which is a truth to be believed by all Protestants if they vnderstand themselves and as I haue often sayd Potter confesseth that it is Fundamentall to the Faith of a Christian not to disbelieue any point sufficiently knowne to be revealed by God and that he who does so is an heretike and that heresy being a worke of the flesh excludes from the kingdome of Heaven And what a Church would you haue that to be which consists of Heretikes 6. Secondly To put a parity between particular men or Churches and the Church vniversall may very well beseeme some Socinian who makes small esteeme of the Authority of the Church but resolves faith into every mans private judgment and reason and therfore no wonder if such a Church be subject to corruptions no lesse than private men whose naturall witts and reason must integrate as I may say the whole Authority of and certainty in such a Church and therfore if particular persons may fall into errours the Church cannot be free from them yea she must containe in her bosome or rather bowells such corruptions and errours and so many poysons contradictory one to another and yet not breake A noble latitude of hart and a vast kind of hellishlike Charity But for vs your Argument hath no force at all For we belieue the Church to be the Meanes wherby Divine Revelations are conveyed to our vnderstanding and to be the Judge of Controversyes as hath beene proved hertofore at large and this being supposed we must make vse of your owne words Pag 35. N. 7. That the meanes to decide Controversyes in faith and Religion must be endued with an vniversall Infallibility in whatsoever it propoundeth for a Divine Truth From whence it followes that every errour in Faith is destructiue of that infallibility which is required in the meanes to decide Controversyes in Faith and Religion Which is further confirmed by those words of yours Pag 9. N. 6. No consequence can be more palpable then this The Church of Rome doth erre in this or that therfore it is not infallible Therfore say I to affirme that the Church can erre is to say she is not infallible nor can be judge of Controversyes nor the meanes to convey Divine Revelations to our vnderstanding nor could she be a Guide even in matters Fundamentall as we haue proved els where and yourselfe grant this last sequele to be good And in a word she would cease to be that Church which we are sure she is 7. Thus you say that Scripture which alone you hold to be the Rule of Faith and decider of Controversyes must be vniversally infallible and that any the least errour were enough to blast the whole Authority therof As also if the Apostles who were appointed to teach Divine Truths could by word or writting haue taught any falshood we could not haue relyed on their Authority in any point of faith great or little 8. You say Pag 143. N. 30. There is not the same reason for the Churches absolute infalliblity as for the Apostles and Scriptures For if the Church fall into errour it may be reformed by comparing it with the Rule of the Apostles Doctrine and Scripture But if the Apostles haue erred in delivering the Doctrine of Christianity to whom shall we haue recourse for the discovering and correcting their errour These your words prompt vs a ready Answer and disparity between the Church and private persons who if they fall into errour the errour may be reformed by comparing it with the Decrees Traditions and Definitions of Gods Church But if the Church erre to whom shall we haue recourse for the discovering and correcting her errour Nay I do take a forcible Argument by inverting and retorting your owne words For supposing your Doctrine that we belieue Scripture to be true and the word of God for the Authority of the Church and another saying of yours that a proofe must be more knowne to vs than the thing proved otherwise say you it is no proofe I argue thus There is not the same reason for our beliefe of the absolute infallibility of the Apostles and Scripture as for the Church For if false Scripture be obtruded it may be discovered by comparing it with the Tradition and consent of the Church from which we receiue the Scripture as the word of God and consequently all the certainty we haue of the contents therof But if the Church may erre to whom shall we haue recourse for discovering and correcting her errours seing as I sayd to compare it with the Rule of the Apostles doctrine will be to no purpose because that very Rule cā be of no force with vs but for the Authority of the Church which therfore must be as great or greater with vs then Scripture it selfe according to your owne saying The proofe must be more knowne than the thing proved Our B. Saviour sayd Matt 5. Uos est is sal terrae you are the salt of the earth But if the salt leese his vertue wherwith shall it be salted Vpon which words S. Austine L. 1. de serm Domini in monte C. 6. saith Si vos c. If you by whom others are to be as it were seasoned forfeite the kingdome of heaven vpon feare of temporall persecution what other persons shall be found to free you from errour seing God hath chosen you to take away errours from others So we may say If the Church which God hath appointed to teach others and deliver them the Scripture should erre who could be found to discover and correct that errour Your Argument is no better than this If a man may be a man though he be deprived of some vnnecessary part of his Body as fingers feete c. why may he not remaine a man though he want some parts absolutly necessary for the conservation of him in Being as hart head braine c. For infallibility in the Church is a priviledge necessary and as I may say essentiall to her as she is the judge of Controversyes in Faith which office belonging to no private persons infallibility is not necessary for them 9. To your vaine subtility That we say It is nothing but opposing the Doctrine of the Church that makes an errour damnable and it is impossible that the Church should oppose the Church I meane that the present Church should oppose it selfe From whence you would collect that if the Church should erre yet her errour being not damnable as not opposite to the Church herselfe she might still remaine a Church I answer By the same reason you may say the Apostles might erre and yet remaine of the Church and their
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
here your saying N. 27. When Scripture is affirmed to be the Rule by which all Controversyes of Religion are to be decided those are to be excepted out of this generality which are concerning the Scripture it selfe â—or as that generall saying of Scripture He hath put all things vnder his feeâ—e is mâ—st true though yet S. Paul tells vs that when it is sayd he hath put all things vnder him it is manifest he is excepted who did put all things vnder him So when we say that all Controversyes of Religion are decidable by the Scripture it is manifest to all but cavillers that we do and must except from this generality those which are touching the scripture it selfe Iust as a Merchant shewing a ship of his owne may say all my substance is in this shipp and yet never intend to deny that his shipp is part of his substance nor yes to say that his ship is in it selfe Or as a man may say that a whole house is sipportâ—d by the foundation and yet never meane to exclude the foundation from being a part of the house or to say that it is supported by it selfe Or as you yourselves vse to say that the Bishopp of Rome is head of the whole Church and yet would thinke vs but captious Sophisters should we inferr from hence that either you made him no part of the whole or els made him head of himselfe 5. Answer Are all those Protestants Cavillers who teach that we may know by Scripture it selfe that it is the word of God and consequently that it may decide this Controversy concerning it selfe Doth not Potter Pag 141. say That Scripture is of Divine Authority the believer sees by that glorious beame of Divine light which shines in Scripture and by many internall Arguments found in the letter it selfe And doth not the Scottish Minister Baron after he had confuted the opinions of others about the private spirit and the Doctrine of Catholikes concerning the Church finally resolve that Scripture is knowne to be the Word of God by certaine criteria or markes found in the Scripture it selfe And therfore it cannot be denyed but that when Protestants teach that all Points of Faith may be learned by Scripture they must either say that this Point of Faith Scripture is the word of God may be learned by Scripture or els contradict themselves as indeed they must and for that cause ought to grant that besides Scripture there is some other Meanes to propose Divine Revelations and Scripture it selfe with the true interpretation therof Your examples may be turned against you by those your Brethren who deny both the private spirit and the Authority of the Church for assuring vs with certainty that Scripture is the Word of God and they will tell you that if a ship must either be within itselfe or no where a marchant shewing a ship of his owne and saying all my substance is in this ship must either grant that the ship is in itselfe or els that he spoke vntruly in saying all my substance is in this ship and the like they would say of a foundation that if it support the whole house and cannot be supported by any thing but by itselfe it must support it selfe and then they would informe you that seing not only the contents of Scripture but also Scripture itselfe are objects revealed by God which revelation can neither be knowne by a private spirit which you and they hold to be a foolery nor an infallible Church which all of you hold to be Papistry it followes that Scripture must be believed for itselfe or els not be believed at all And the same we may answer ad hominem that if the Pope could not be head of the whole Church but he must be head of himselfe it could not be sayd that he is head of the whole vnless it be also granted that he is head of himselfe but we deny that fond supposition that he cannot be head of the Church vnless he be head of himselfe as contrarily Protestants teach that the Scripture cannot be knowne by an infallible Church nor by the private spirit and therfore it must be knowne by itselfe The same they would answer to those words he hath put all things vnder his feete that he could not be excepted who did put all things vnder him if indeed those first words he hath put all things vnder his feete could not be verifyed vnless he who put all things vnder his feete were put vnder him Neither can you avoide this retortion of your brethren except by saying that we do not infallibly belieue Scripture to be the word of God aÌ„d therfore there is required no infallibility in â—he Church from which you say we receiue Scripture or els that Scripture is not a materiall object which we belieue or both as indeed you affirme both that Faith is not infallible and that Scripture is not a materiall object of our Faith And finally every one who hath care of his soule must out of these inextricable labyrinths of Protestants conclude with Catholikes that for believing with certainty that Scripture is the word of God we must rely on the Church with this condition also that she be believed to be infallible which infallibility is absolutely necessary if once with all Christians we belieue Christian Faith to be infallibly true 6. To your N. 34. I answer That all those Bookes of Scripture are to be acknowledged for Canonicall which the Church receives for such Before which declaration of the Church all they were very secure who differed about some Bookes because they always believed the Authority of Gods Church which could not faile to propose in due tyme all things necessary for salvation But for the contrary reason Protestants relying vpon the sole written word cannot be safe in regard that they not knowing what Points in particular be necessary to salvation to make all sure must be obliged to know in particular all that is contayned in all the Bookes which diverse learned men even of their owne Sect acknowledg to be Canonicall least otherwise they may chance to remaine in ignorance or errour of some matter necessary to salvation 7. The same Answer serves for your N. 36. For it is a Lutheran and Luciferian blasphemy to speake of Esther and diverse other Bookes of Scripture as Luther speakes of them after the Definition of Gods Church to the contrary Wherof see Charity Ma. N. 9. Pag 45. 8. Your other Sections or numbers till the 48. concerning the sayings of Luther whom I know you defend against your Conscience and the Canon of the English Protestant Church which now hath no existence and her 39. Articles being or having been vnder Censure may perhaps be altered I let pass not to loose tyme. Only I cannot omitt your words N. 47. directed to Charity Maintayned You might haue met with an Answerer that would not haue suffered you to haue sayd so much Truth togeather but to me it
Gospell vnless the authority of the Church did moue me is easily confuted That which moved the Saint to belieue the Gospell was not the authority of any particular Church but of the vniversall which deserves as much credit and is as infallible in one age as in another For if the whole Church of this age could erre what Priviledge of infallibility could we yield to the age before this and so vpward from one to another more than to this present age and so we could not ground any certainty vpon the Tradition of the whole Churâ—â— of all ages vpon which even yourselfe pretend to rely for the beâ—â—ere of Scripture Your other saying The Christian Tradition being as fall against Manâ—â—haâ—â—s as it was for the Gospell He S. Austine did well to conclude that he had as much reason to disbetieue Mantchaeus as to belieue the Gospâ—ll overthrowes the maine ground of Protestants that all thinges necessary to salvation are contained in Scripture alone For now it seemes you admitt a Tradition against the Doctrine of Manichaeus distinct from that Tradition wherby the Church delivers the Gospell and yet in this second Chapter Pag 114. N. 155. You say Scripture alone and no vnwritten Doctrine having atteâ—â—ation from Tradition truly vniverfall for this reason we conceiue as the Apostles persons while they were living were the only Iudges of Controversyes so their writings now they are dead are the only Rule for vs to Iudge them by If being pressed you tell vs perforce that there was no other Tradition against the Doctrine of Manichaeus but the Tradition which delivered Scripture and that they might be convinced of errour by Scripture alone you manifestly contradict S. Austine Cont Ep Fund Chap 5. cited by Charity Maintayned N. 18. I would not â—elieue the Gospell vnless the Authority of the Church did moue me Them therfore whom I obeyed saying belieue the Gospell why should I not obey saying to me do not belieue Manichaeus Where we see S. Austine professes to disbelieue the Doctrine of Manichaeus vpon the same Authority for which he believed Scripture which he professes to haue beene for the Authority of the Church as you also pretend to receiue the Scripture from the Church and therfore both the Scripture and Doctrine or interpretation therof we must receiue from the Church Which appeares more by the immediatly following words of S. Austine alledged by Charity Maintayned in the same N. 18. Choose what thou pleasest If thou shalt say belieue the Catholikes They warne me not to giue any credit to you If therfore I belieue them I cannot belieue thee If thou say do not belieue the Catholikes thou shalt not do well in forcing me to the Faith of Manichaeus because by the preaching of Catholikes I believed the Gospell it selfe If thou say you did well to belieue them commending the Gospell but you did not well to belieue them discommeÌ„ding Manichaenâ— Dost thou thinke me so very foolish that without any reason at all I should belieue what thou wilt and not belieue what thou wilt not Thus far S. Austine From whose words Cha Ma makes this reflection Do not Protestants perfectly resemble these men to whom S. Austine spake when they would haue men belieue the Roman Church delivering Scripture but not to belieue Her condemning Luther and the rest Against whom when they first opposed themselves to the Roman Church S. Austine may seeme to haue spoken no less prophetically than doctrinally when he sayd Lib de Utilit cred Cap 14. Why should I not most diligently inquire what Christ commanded of them before all others by whose authority I was moved to belieue that Christ commanded any good thing Canst thou better declare to me what he sayd whom I would not haue thought to haue beene or to be if the beliefe therof had beene recommended by thee to me This therfore I believed by fame strengthened with celebrity consent antiquity But every one may see that you so few so turbulent so new can produce nothing deserving authority What madness is this Belieue them that we ought to belieue Christ But learne of vs what Christ said Why I beseech thee Surely if they were not at all and could not teach me anything I would more easily perswade my selfe that I were not to belieue Christ than that I should learne any thing concerning him from any other than them by whom I believed him If therfore saith Cha Ma we receiue the knowledg of Christ and Scripture from the Church from her also must we take his Doctrine and interpretation of Scripture 27. The application of S. Austines words in your N. 99. to any particular Church is impertinent and doth not infringe the strength of S. Austines Argument who as I haue sayd received the Gospell vpoÌ„ the credit of the vniversall Church aÌ„d not vpoÌ„ the Authority of any particular Church or private person and of the vniversall Church he had all reason to say that as for her Authority he believed the Gospell so for the same authority he disbelieved the Doctrine of Manichaeus which that vniversall Church condemned But you equivocate when you do not distinguish between all the Churches of All Ages and all the Churches or vniversall Church of every Age which must be no less infallible than all the Churches of all Ages and is distinguished from everie particular Church of every age vpon which mistake your whole objection goes N. 99. about an Arian or a Grecian that they may pretend to make vse of S. Austines argument But wheras you say the ancient Goths or Wandals were converted to Christianity by the Arians it is but to doe a secret favour to the Arians your brethren For the Goths were not converted by the Arians from Gentilisme to Christianity but being first converted were afterward perverted by the Arians as may be seene in Baronius Ann 370. This answer confutes your passionate bitter declamation vented in your N. 101. 28. Your N. 100. demands whether Charity Maintayned be well in his wits to say that Protestants would haue men beâ—eue the Roman Church delâ—vering Scripture wheras they accuse her to deliver many Bookes for Scripture which are not so And do not bid men to receiue any Booke which she delivers for that reason because she delivers it 29. Answer as aboue that either you received the Scripture vpon the credit of the Roman Church and such Churches as agreed with her or else you received it meerly vpon your owne fancy admitting and rejecting Bookes at your pleasure and to this day you can haue no certainty of the Bible vnles you receaue it for that Reason because the Church delivers it And your admitting some Bookes and rejecting others which the Church receives doth only proue that you are formall Heretikes 30. You say N. 103. As to be vndersiandible is a condition requisite to a Iudge so is not that alone sufficient to make a Iudge otherwise you might make yourselfe Iudge of Controversyes I wonder
Living Guide to them who haue and belieue the Scripture Wherby you must signify that to those who either haue not Scripture or haue not sufficient reason to belieue it it is all one as if Scripture had never beene written and consequently that de facto there is an absolute necessity of an infallible Guide Nay men could not haue had sufficient reason to belieue infallibly the Scripture except for the Authority of the Church of God which therfore must be believed to be absolutely infallible before any Scripture be believed which is directly contradictory to your saying that the necessity of an infallible Guide is grounded vpon a false supposition in case we had no Scripture For contrarily if we haue and belieue Scripture we must first belieue an infallible Church independently of that supposition and vpon which that supposition of our believing Scripture must depend 57. But it seemes this Authority of S. Irenaeus doth yet vex you And therfore N. 146. 147. 148. you say That in S. Irenaeus his tyme all the Churches were at an agreement about the Fundamentalls of Faith which vnity was a good assurance that what they so agreed in came from some one common fountaine and they had no other then of Apostolique Preaching 58. This I haue answered hertofore and told you that when the Fathers alledge the Authority of the Church or Tradition they suppose the Church to be absolutly infallible and not only that accidentally she teaches at that tyme the truth which had beene no proofe but a meere petitio principij For if the Church might erre as you say she hath done the Heretikes against whom the Fathers wrote would easily haue answered that all Churches might erre and had erred in such or such particular Points and how could you or any Protestant impugne such an Answer supposing once the Church could erre When Luther appeared he forsooke the Faith and Communion of all Churches vpon pretence that they all agreed in errours against Scripture and how do you now tell vs that the agreement of Churches was a good assurance that what they so agreed in came from some one common fountaine and they had no other but Apostolicall Preaching In this manner hertofore I retorted against you the saying which you alledge out of Tertullian Variasse debuerat c If the Churches had erred they could not but haue varied but that which is one amongst so many cannot be errour but Tradition That seing all Churches agreed in a beliefe contrary to the Faith of Protestants we must affirme that the thing which is one among so many can not by errour but Tradition And your words here add a particular strength to my retortions while you say that the agreement and vnity of Churches about the Fundamentalls of Faith is a good assurance that what they so agree in comes from the common fountaine of Apostolique Preaching For those Heretikes might haue answered that the errours of the Church which they impugned were not Fundamentall as we haue proved that you say the errours of the Roman Church and such as agreed with Her when Luther appeared were not Fundamentall and so the assurance taken from vnity in Fundamentalls could be no Argument against them Besides I pray you reflect on your saying that Protestants departed not from the whole Church because they were a part therof and they departed not from themselves and then you cannot but see that those Heretikes in S. Irenaeus his tyme might haue sayd all Churches are not at an agreement about matters of Faith seing we who are a part of the Church do not agree with the rest and therfore the agreement which you speake of is of no force against vs but you must proue by some other kind of Argument that our doctrines are false just as Protestants answer vs when we object against them the agreement of all Churches against the doctrine of Luther when he first appeared Wherfore I must still inferr that it is not the actuall or accidentall agreement but the constant ground therof that is the infallibility of the Church that must assure vs what is Orthodoxe and what is Hereticall doctrine Moreover whereas you say In S. Irenaeus his tyme all the Churches were at an agreement about the Fundamentalls of Faith I beseech you informe vs how it could be otherwise then how can it be otherwise now how shall it be otherwise for the tyme to come or for any imaginable tyme than that all Churches are at an agreement in Fundamentalls of Faith Seing you professe through your whole Booke that if they faile in Fundamentalls they cease to be Churches and so it is as necessary for all Churches to agree in Fundamentalls as for all men to agree in the essence of man And you might as well haue sayd that at S. Irenaeus his tyme the Definition did agree or was all one with the Definitum as that all Churches agreed in Fundamentalls If therfore it was easy to receiue the truth from Gods Church in S. Irenaeus his tyme as he affirmes and you grant it will be no lesse easy to doe it in these our tymes seing the Church can never faile in Fundamentall Points of Faith and so it was easy for Luther and his companions to haue received the truth or rather to haue retained the truths they found in the Church seing she was a true Church and consequently did not erre in Fundamentall Points From whence it followes that when S. Irenaeus saith the Apostles haue most fully deposited in the Church as in a rich store-house all things belonging to truth it must be vnderstood that she cannot but keepe that depositum sincere for Fundamentall Points even according to Protestants and you say here N. 164. The visible Church shall always without faile propose so much of Gods Revelation as is sufficient to bring men to Heaven for otherwise it will not be the visible Church in which sense that depositum is not committed to private persons though otherwise never so qualifyed and therfore all that you haue N. 148. is of no force even in the Principles of Protestants And then further seing indeed any errour against divine Revelation is damnable and without Repentance destroyes salvation as you grant it is impossible that the Church which must needs enjoy all things necessary to salvation as we haue heard you even now saying the visible Church shall always without faile propose so much of Gods Revelation as is sufficient to bring men to Heaven It is I say impossiblle that the Church can fall into any damnable Errour but must be vniversally infallible Which is vnanswerably confirmed by your doctrine that it is impossible to know what Points in particular be Fundamentall and so we cannot know that she failes not to propose so much of Gods Revelation as is sufficient to bring men to Heaven vnless we belieue Her to be infallible in all Points of Faith as well not Fundamentall as Fundamentall And here againe how could you
erre he cannot be certaine that he doth not erre vnless you add this necessary restriction he cannot be certaine that he doth not erre as long as he grounds himselfe only vpon that Principle which he believes to be fallible and subject to errour though for other things or vpon other certaine and infallible Grounds he may be and is sure that he neither doth nor can erre while he relyes vpon those infallible Grounds 72. For better vnderstanding of this matter We may distinguish a double infallibility The one may be termed Personall or belonging to or accompanying the Person The other we may call Reall or taken from the thing itselfe If God promise his assistance to some person that he shall never erre even in things of themselves obscure this man shall be sure never to erre not in vertue of any intrinsecall evident Principle but by reason of that Divine assistance But if one haue no such promise or Priviledge yet is directed by some Principle evident to humane Reason he is certaine that he neither doth nor can erre by a certainty derived from evidence of the Thing it selfe as long as he relyes vpon that certaine ground Now to our purpose You cannot be certaine of this proposition Scripture alone is the totall Rule of Faith by evidence of sense or some Principle knowne to naturall Reason but only by certainty proceeding from infallible supernaturall Assistance And therfore seing you deny any such Assistance to the vniversall Church and much more to particular Churches or private persons for Points not Fundamentall as you acknowledge this to be it followes that you can haue no certainty of it which is the thing that Charity Maintayned affirmed and so it proves to be very true that whosoever may erre cannot be certaine that he doth not erre if he depend vpon Grounds subject to falshood and errour as contrarily whosoever doth not erre because he relyes vpon evident Principles or vpon some extrinsecall Authority being in it selfe and being believed to be Infallible he is sure he cannot erre in such matters though he may erre in other knowne by some probable reason or fallible Authority If you say A thing may be certainly knowne or believed because it is evidently contained in Scripture which we belieue to be infallible This evasion answers not my argument For if you imagine a thing to be so evident in Scripture that there is required no more than evidence of sense or Reason to see and read and know the Grammaticall signification of the word then whosoever does so he is certaine not only that he doth not but that he cannot erre seing he is evidently certaine that he sees reades and vnderstands the Grammaticall signification of the word If beside the sayd knowledge or ability to see read c. there be other meanes required as certainly there are to know what is not the Grammaticall signification but the meaning of the word intended by the Holy Ghost in that place then if those meanes be fallible and only probable no man can by the assistance of them alone be certaine that he doth not erre But if the meanes be and be believed to be infallible he is sure that he neither doth nor can erre by vsing those meanes and so to erre in a way in which one is certaine that he doth not erre and yet may erre as long as he retaines the meanes of that Certainty and followes them is an impossible thing Thus your owne Objection turnes vpon yourselfe and makes good the discourse of Charity Maintayned 73. But you vrge vs and say Vpon this Ground what will hinder me from concluding that seing you also hold that neither particular Churches nor private men are in fallible even in Fundamentalls that even the Fundamentalls of Christianity remaine to you vncertaine 74. Answer Your inference were very good if in the beliefe of the Fundamentalls of Christianity we did rely vpon the Authority of particular Churches or private men But we rely vpon the Authority of the vniversall Church which is absolutly infallible Contrarily for you who rely vpon no infallible Authority of any Church but vpon your owne fallible discourse or the Scripture interpreted by fallible meanes nothing I am sure can hinder vs from concluding that even the Fundamentalls of Christianity remaine to you vncertaine Still you are wounded with your owne weapons And to turne also against you your owne similitudes A Judge may possibly erre in judgment if he proceed only vpon probable reasons that he Judges according to Law neither can he haue assurance that he hath judged right if his sentence be grounded vpon such reasons only If in some other case he haue assurance that he hath judged right it must be grounded vpon certaine and evident reasons which can never faile nor he ever can fall into errour by following such reasons or rules Neither can your London Carryer or any other in the middle of the day when he is sober and in his witts mistake the waie which he knowes with absolute certainty and evidence as you aboue all others must grant who say that we need no Guide for Controversyes of Faith because as you pretend you haue a cleare way namely Scripture which therefore if you can mistake and know the meaning therof only probably you must confess the necessity of some Guide to direct and keepe you in that way Your owne caution in the middle of the day might haue put you in mynd that Faith is obscure and like a light in a darke place as S. Peter speakes which therfore is a way which may not only be mistaken but cannot be assuredly found without the direction of some infallible Guide How many wayes do your Arguments strongly recoyle against yourselfe without the least hurt to your Adversary Even your vaine conclusion these you see are right worthy consequences and yet they are as like your owne as an egg to an egge or milke to milke must be applyed against yourselfe that as one egg is really different from another so your consequences are really different from those of Charity Maintayned though to your friendes they may perhaps haue seemed to be all one But indeed being examined proue to be as like to those of Charity Maintayned as an apple to an oyster 75. By what I haue sayd your N. 161. is fully answered and your Examples appeare to be clearly impertinent For these Propositions the snowe is black the fire is cold c are false and the contrary true as is evident to sense and reason not so that Scripture is the totall Rule of Faith the truth or falshood wherof must be tryed by some other meanes and you can haue none certaine if you take away the infallibility of Gods Church And I wonder you can say concerning these words of Charity Maintayn for the selfe same reason Protestants are not certaine that the Church is not Judge of Controversyes the Ground of this Sophâ—sme is very like the former viz That
yourself who say heere N. 33. If we once suppose they the Apostles may haue erred in some things of this nature in things which they delivered constantly as certaine revealed Truths it will be vtterly vndiscernable what they haue erred in and what they haue not Now if God hath promised to giue his Apostles infallibility only in things necessary to salvation which heere you expressly suppose it is cleare we cannot be certaine of the truth of their writings in any one thing Which supposed that we cannot be certaine that their writings are true how can you say that God both by his word and by his works hath assured vs that he aid assist them farther Seing vpon that supposition the Scripture may be false and recount works never wrought and so it is consequent that we can haue no assurance by his written word of any farther assistance that God gaue them if it be supposed that he gaue them infallibility only in things necessary to salvation which is the contradictory to your assertion and yet it is evidently deduced from your owne express words and doctrine Nay you could not be sure that the Apostles had infallibility even for Fundamentall Points if once it be supposed that they and consequently their writings were subject to errour in any thing So farr from truth is your saying we could haue assurance of farther assistance Your N. 35.36 containe no difficulty which hath not bene answered heretofore 48. I wish you had in your N. 37. set downe at large the words of Charity Maintayned whereby he proves N. 15. that according to the grounds of Protestants it is sufficient for salvation that Scripture be infallible in Fundamentall Points only as they limit to such Points the infallibility of the Church and accordingly interpret Scriptures speaking thereof The summe of his Discourse is this Put together these Doctrines That Scripture cannot erre in Points Fundamentall that they cleerely containe all such Points that Protestants can tell what Points in particular be Fundamentall it is manifest that it is sufficient for salvation that Scripture be infallible only in Points Fundamentall For seing all are obliged to belieue explicitely all Fundamentall Articles it is necessary to know which in particular be Fundamentall which Protestants cannot know except by Scripture which alone in their grounds containes all that is necessary for vs to knowe and therefore knowing by Scripture what Points in particular be Fundamentall as N. 40. you say expressly men may learne from the Scripture that such Points are Fundamentall others are not so and that Scripture is infallible in all Fundamentalls they are sure that it is infallible in such particular necessary Articles though it were supposed to be fallible in other Points by this Argument All Fundamentall Points are delivered in Scripture with infallibility this is a Fundamentall Point therefore it is delivered in Scripture with infallibility And the Syllogisme at which you say men would laugh is only your owne The Scripture is true in something the Scripture sayes that these Points only are Fundamentall therefore this is true that these are so For say you every fresh-man in Logick knowes that from meere particulars nothing can be certainly concluded But you should correct your Syllogisme thus All that is necessary the Scripture delivers with infallibility but to know what Points in particular be Fundamentall is necessary therefore the Scripture delivers it with infallibility Besides you say If without dependance on Scripture Protestants did know what were Fundamentall and what not they might possibly belieue the Scripture true in Fundamentalls and erroneous in other things Now both you and Potter affirme that there is an vniversall Tradition that the Creed containes all Fundamentall Points and consequently that in vertue of such a Tradition men may belieue all Fundamentall Points without dependance or knowledg of Scripture as also for vniversall Tradition you belieue Scripture itself Heare your owne words Pag 198. N. 15. The certainty I haue of the Creed that it was from the Apostles and containes the Principles of Faith I ground it not vpon scripture Therefore according to your owne grounds Protestants may belieue the Scripture to be true in Fundamentalls and erroneous in other things And you did not well to conceale this Argument taken from the Creed which was expressly vrged by Ch Ma in that very N. 15. which you answer By what I haue saied it appeares that in the grounds of Protestants the knowledg of Fundamentalls neede not haue for Foundation the vniversall truth of Scripture as you say but only the truth thereof for all Fundamentall Points and for knowing what Points in particular be Fundamentall as I haue declared So we must conclude that the Argument of Ch Ma stands good that if you limit the infallibility of the Church you may vpon the same ground limit the infallibility of the Apostles and their writings namely the Holy Scripture 49. Your N. 39. goes vpon a meere equivocation or a voluntary mistake you being not ignorant that Charity Maintayned saied N. 16. that no Protestant can with assurance believe the vniversall Church in Points not fundamētall because they belieue that in such points she may erre which sequele is very true and cleare For how can I belieue with assurance an Authority believed to be fallible If she alledg some evident Reason Scripture c I belieue her no more than I would belieue any child Turk or Jewe and so I attribute nothing to her authority nor can be saied to belieue her Thus you say N. 36. We cannot belieue the present Church in propounding Canonicall Bookes vpon her owne Authority though we may for other reasons belieue these Bookes to be Canonicall which she proposes Your instances are against yourself For if the divell proue that there is a God or a Geometritian demonstrate some conclusion I neither belieue the divell who I knowe was a Lier from the beginning nor the Geometritian whom I knowe to be fallible but I assent for the Reason which they giue by whomesoever it had bene given and therfore you speak a contradictory in saying N. 38. Though the Church being not infallible I cannot belieue Her in every thing she sayes yet I can and must belieue her in every thing she proves either by Scripturs or vniversall Tradition This I say implies a contradiction to belieue one because he proves seing the formall object or Motiue of Beliefe is the Authority of the speaker and not the Reason which he gives which may produce assents of diverse kinds according to the diversity of Reasons as Demonstration Scripture c which may cause an infallible assent not possible to be produced by the authority of the Church if it were fallible 50. In your N. 39. First you cite the words of Charity Maintayned thus The Churches infallible direction extending only to Fundamentalls vnless I know them before I goe to learne of her I may be rather deluded than instructed by her and then you
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
this bene but to giue for a reason that which was more questionable then the thing in question as being neither evident in itself and plainly denied by his adversaries and not at all proved nor offered to be proved here or else where by Irenaeus To speak thus therefore had bene weak and ridiculous Answer This your Objection proves too much even in your owne principles and therefore proves nothing For whether you translate it agree or resort you must suppose that S. Irenaeus conceyved that the Tradition of the Roman Church was sufficient to confute all Heretiques and consequently that this sufficiency was not more questionable then the thing in question For if it were so you mak to vse your owne words his speaâ—h weak and ridiculous and worse than a begging of the Question and yet yourself do not deny but that his Argument was probable and sufficient to confound those particular Heretiques surely not by a weak and ridiculous Reason Yea S. Irenaeus affirmes it to be sufficient to confute not only those but all Heretiques all those saieth he who any way either by evâ—ll complacence c. and therefore Hee must suppose as a principle believed by all orthodox Christians that the Tradition of the Roman Church was powerfull against all Heresies And I am glad to see you at length reflect that if S. Irenaeus did not proue that all Churches must agree with the Roman his Argument had bene weak and ridiculous For by this your consideration I infer that the Answer which you and other Protestants are wont to giue to S. Austine or other Fathers is insufficient to wit That they alledg against Heretiques the Authority of the Church not because they believed her to be infallible but because she was at that time pure in her Doctrines which had bene only to begg the Question or as you say to giue for a reason that which was more questionable then the thing in Question and I beseech the Reader to consider well this point as a thing effectuall to make good my confutation of Chillingworths evasions in divers occasions and lately in our debate about S. Optatus And even heere you begg the Question though you reade it resort for the same reason that you say S. Irenaeus had begd the Question if we reade agree In the speach which you faine S. Irenaeus to make as yourself would haue him speak you say To this Church by reason it is placed in the Imperiall Citty whether all mens affaires do necessarily draw them or by reason of the powerfull Principality it hath over all the adjacent Churches there is and always hath bene a necessity â—f a perpetuall recourse of all the faithfull round about who if there hath bene any alteration in the Church of Rome could not in all probality but haue observed it But they to the contrary haue alwaies observed in this Church the very Tradition which came from the Apostles and no other where you make good that powerfull argument of Catholiques against ProtestaÌ„ts That it was impossible so many errors and corruptions should creepe insensibly into the belief of the Roman Church seing as you say to this Church by reason it is placed in the Imperiall Citty whither all mens affares doe necessarily draw them or by reason of the powerfull Principality it hath over all the adjacent Churches there is c. Who if there had bene any alteration in this Church of Rome could not in all probability but haue observed it But they to the contrary haue alwaies observed in this Church the very Tradition which came from the Apostles and no other Which retortion growes to be more strong if we consider that from Christ our Lord and Saviour to the time of S. Irenaeus there passed about the same number of yeares which are numbred betwene S. Austine and S. Gregory the Great and yet Protestants commonly grant that in S. Austines tyme the Church was free from those falsely pretended errours which they say were found in the tyme of S. Gregory and therefore you must either grant That S. Irenaeus did vainely impugne those old Heretiques and that you against reason approue his Argument against them or els that our new sectaries cannot possibly avoide the Argument which we Catholiques vrge to proue that it was impossible so many so great and so manifest corruptions should in so short a tyme possess the whole Church of God especially seing to the contrary all men in all and every one of those Ages did conceyue that they could obserue in the Church of Rome the very Tradition which came from the Apostles and no other And if notwithstanding this you say That betwene the tyme of S. Austine and the Popedome of S. Gregory so manie errours might enter without being espied you make the argument of S. Irenaeus to be of no force at all and so you must either agree with Papists against your Protestant Brethren or disagree both from S. Irenaeus and yourself with whom you cannot agree vnless you relinquish those your pretended Brethren and finally we must conclude that no convincing argument could be brought against Heretiques drawen from the Tradition of the Roman Church if once we grant that she is not infallible in her traditions wherin if she be infallible adhering to her will be a certaine marke of a Catholique and separation from her a certaine marke of an Heretique 29. You tax Ch Ma for translating vndique every where and of what place soever in stead of round about For that it was necessary for all the Faith full of what place soever to resort to Rome is not true That the Apostolique Tradition hath alwaies bene conserved from those who are every where is not sense Now in stead of conservata read observata and translate vndique truly round about and then the sense will be both plain and good for then is must be rendred thus For to this Church by reason of a more powerfull principality there is a necessity all the Churches that is all the Faithfull round about should resort in which the Apostlique Tradition hath bene alwaies observed by those who were round about 30. Answer if you take the freedom to make or create what premises you please you may be sure to infer what conclusion you like best That vndique may signify every where as Ch Ma translates it from all places parts and corners you will finde in Thomas Thomasius and Cowper and who made you Emperour of words to command a restraint of theyr signification as may best suite with your ends S. Austine super Psalm 86. hath thrice Vndique in this signification For having saied Duodecim sedes quid sibi velint videamus he adds Sacramentum est cujusdam vniversitatis quia per totum orbem terrarum futura erat Ecclesia Et ideo quia vndique venitur ad judicandum duodecim sedes sunt sicut quia vndique intratur in illam civitatem duodecim portae sunt And Ab omnibus quatuor
Albeit vve see not this vvith our eyes nor vvith our hart as long as vve are clensed by Faith yet doe vve belieue it by faith most rightly and most strongly Surely this signifyes more than to belieue only with probability Richardus de S. Victore 1. de Trinit Cap. 2. As many of vs as are truly faithfull hold nothing vvith more certainty than that vvhich vve belieue by faith 11. What vve haue proued by Authority vve now will conuince by Theologicall Reasons and Arguments First vve haue demonstrated out of holy Scripture that Faith is an especiall Gift of God and that the Act or Assent therof proceeds from a particular Grace Motion Preuention and Supernaturall assistance of the Holy Ghost Therfore it cannot be but true othervvise vve might distrust the Truth of Scriptures and the predictions of the Prophets though we did belieue those to haue bene written and these to haue bene spokē by the direction and instinct of God himselfe And vvhat more satisfying assurance can there be giuen to any Christian yea to any reasonable creature than this God leades me this vvay therfore it cannot be but right neither can I erre in follovving it and euery vvay contrary to this must be wrong and erroneous Chilling Pag. 258. N. 16. confesseth that a thing vntrue cannot be foreseene by the Prophets Which he could not affirme if God could moue men to belieue a falshood And Pag. 36. N. 8. he says We cannot possibly by naturall meanes be more certaine of the conclusion than of the weaker of the Premises which supposes that by supernaturall meanes we may be more certaine And N. 9. he doubts not but that the spirit of God may and will aduance his seruants and giue them a certainty of adherence beyond their certainty of euidence Since therfore euery Act of Faith proceeds from the particular motion and spirit of God we must say that his supposition concerning some is actuated in all who belieue by a true Act of Christian Faith that is we must say that euen according to Chillingworth all true Christians belieue with absolute certainty and vvith an assent higher than that which we yield to probable premises 12. And out of this most certaine and Christian truth that Faith is the gift of God and requires his particular assistance aboue the force of nature it follows also by euidence of Reason that it must be an Assent aboue all Probabilityes or Arguments of Credibility For abstracting from some accidentall impediment or temptation our Vnderstanding is able of it selfe to draw a probable Conclusion from euident probable premises And therfore seing wee can neuer by naturall forces exercise an Act of true Christian Faith it followes clearly that it must be an Assent more than probable and raysed aboue all arguments of credibility Chilling saith Pag. 116. N. 159. We haue I belieue as great reason to belieue there was such a man as Henry the eight King of England as that Iesus Christ suffered vnder Pontius Pilate But as I noted aboue no man in his witts wil say that we cannot by naturall forces of humane reason belieue that there was such a man as Henry the eight Therfore no man ought to say that with the same forces of humane Reason we cannot belieue that Iesus Christ suffered vnder Pontius Pilate if Faith be only such a probable Assent 13. Beside if Faith do not excèede the force of nature seing Faith is the first beginning of Obediēce Merit and Saluation the beginning of all these should be attributed to nature and not to Grace yea if one can belieue by the force of nature so also he may Hope and Loue and attaine Beatitude by the same And how shall Beatitude it selfe be Supernaturall if the meanes to attaine it be naturall Thus the maine ground of Chilling That Faith is a Conclusion or Assent drawen from probable Premises and proportioned to them being ouerthrovvue all his Reasons relying on this ground vanish into nothing But yet let vs more and more proue this truth and turne the vveapons of our Aduersaryes agaynst themselues by demonstrating that Christian Faith must raise vs aboue the Arguments of Credibility vvhich I doe in this manner 14. If Faith exceede not the assent vvhich we giue to the probable motiues of Credibility there could be no captiuating of our vnderstanding nor Obedience or Freedom of will in belieuing the Articles of Faith But we are to captiuate our vnderstanding and exercise free obedience of our will in belieuing the Articles of Faith Therfor Faith must raise vs aboue the Arguments of Credibility The maior is cleare For where there is euidence and necessity to assent there is no place for captiuating or submitting our vnderstanding or free and voluntary obedience of our will which Chilling confesses Pag. 329. N. 7. wher speaking of obedience in Faith he saith which can hardly haue place where there is no possibility of disobedience as there is not where the vtderstanding does all and the will nothing Neither can it auaile him to say as he sayth in the same place that the Faith of Protestants implies an act of obedience because it is not pretended to haue the absolute euidēce of sence or demōstration For this is nothing to the purpose as long as he belieues the Articles of Faith with no higher thā a probable assēt proportionable to probable Arguments and rises not to a certainty of sense demonstration or any other aboue these probable Motiues because his fallible and only probable faith hath the certanty and euidence of demonstration for such a degree of probability it being no more certaine and euident that a Conclusion drawen from necessary Premises is necessary than that a Conclusion rightly deduced from probable Premises is probable which is all he requires for an assent of faith as he expressly affirmes Pag. 36. N. 8. saying God desires only that we belieue the Conclusion as much as the Premises deserue and N. 9. God requires of all that their faith should be proportionable to the motiues enforcing to it mark enforcing and Pag. 112. N 154. Neither God doth nor man may require of vs as our duty obserue what obedience and duty he requires to giue a greater assent to the Conclusion than the Premises deserue And finally this is his maine ground to proue that Christian Faith is not infallible but only probable that is such only as he holds the Premises and Arguments of Credibility to be wherby it is euident that in his way there is left no place for captiuating our vnderstanding by a voluntary free submission and obedience to Christ and his doctrine 15. Which yet to be necessary as I assumed in my Minor proposition cannot be denyed by any who belieues Holy Scripture as appeares 2. Cor. 10.5 B ringing into captiuity all vnderstanding vnto the obedience of Christ Rom. 1.5 By whom Iesus Christ we receyued grace and Apostleship for obedience to the Faith in all nations for the name of
him Philip. 2.17.18 But if I be immolated vpon the sacrifice and seruice of your Faith I rejoyce and congratulate with you all And the selfesame thing doe you also rejoyce and congratulate with me What great sacrifice seruice or obedience is a faith only probable and necessarily inferrd from probable Premises 16. Morouer that Faith doth not necessitate our vnderstanding but is free and voluntary euen quoad specificationem as Diuines speake that is in such manner as it is in our will to belieue the contrary of what we belieue by Faith and for that cause requires Gods particular assistāce and a pious affection in the will and a submitting or captiuating of our vnderstanding is gathered out of diuine Scriptures that vpon the same preaching of the Ghospel some belieued and some belieued not as we reade Act. 17.32.34 Certaine mocked but certaine sayd we will heare thee againe concerning this poynt But certaine men joyning vnto him did belieue Marc 16.15.16 Going into the whole world preach the Ghospell to all creatures He that belieueth ād is baptized shall be saued but he that belieueth not shall be condemned V. 14. he exprobated their incredulity Which shewes that jnfidelity is a sinne and sinne supposeth liberty to the contrary Rom. 10.16 But all do not obey the Ghospel This supposeth that some belieue not and that some other belieue and in belieuing exercise a free Act of obedience Gen. 15. Abrahā belieued God and it was reputed to him vnto justice Heb. 11. it is sayd that God prepared for the Fathers an euerlasting citty and that they got a repromission by Faith Ioan. 20. Blessed are they who haue not seene and haue belieued Luc. 2. Blessed art thou who hast belieued But a meritorious act or deserving such prayses must be free Now Chillingworths faith is such as necessitates the vnderstanding to assent at least that it cannot assent to the contrary as hath bene shewed Therfor his Faith is not that Christian belief which Holy Scripture commands that is a free Assent captiuating our vnderstanding and raysing it aboue all the Motiues of Credibility or Probability and consequently absolutly certaine and infallible wherby we voluntarily submit and perfectly subject our soule to God and his supreme authority For wheras we may distinguish foure sorts of Knowledg wherof the First is Experimentall or of senses 2. Scientificall 3. Humane Faith 4. Diuine Faith Man ought to be subject to God by a voluntary knowledg and such the first and second sort is not The third is imperfect as the authority on which it relyes is subject to errour The fourth then remaynes as it were Religion or highest worship called latria or the greatest submission wherby the will perfectly subject vnto God subjecteth vnto him the other powers which are subordinate vnto it selfe and it is great impiety to belieue that God hath not enabled Christians to offer to theyr creatour and Redeemer a seruice or Obedience connaturall to the Diuine Autority Perfection and Testimony 17. This reason drawen from Obedience exercised in the act of Christian Faith is further enforced thus The command of the will or Pious affection which Diuines require in Faith produceth in the vnderstanding a more firme assent than would be produced without (a) Vide Card Lugo de Fide Disp 10. Sect. 2. N. 19. it as we see by experience that men obstinate in errour or strongly affected to some truth produce by theyr will a more firme assent than otherwise it would haue bene yea the command of the will affection passion and the like moue men to assent to that vnto which otherwise they would not assent or from which perhaps they would dissent Therfor seing the will can moue the vnderstanding to produce the substance of an act much more may it determine vs to produce more degrees of assent or dissent than otherwise it would Although therfor it were granted that a Conclusion formally as such can haue no greater strength than it receyues from the Premises yet the same conclusion or object taken materially may receyue greater strength from some other cause than it did receyue from the Premises as such as the same materiall truth which being inferred from probable Premises is only probable may grow to be certaine if it be deduced from demonstratiue arguments Therfore Chillingworths ground that the Assent of Faith being a Conclusion drawne from probable Premises can be noe more than probable is either false if it be vnderstood that by no other meanes it can be made more than probable or impertinent if he meane that it cannot exceede probability precisely and formally as it is a Conclusion inferd from probable Premises it being sufficient for our purpose that it be improued to a certainty by some other meanes Yea since he grants that our Assent of Faith receyues from the Arguments of Credibility the highest degree of probability and that indeed it receyues a further perfection from the Pious Affection and prudent command of the will we must conclude that it is raised aboue the highest degree of a probable to a certaine Assent Which yet is more and more euinced by this following consideration 18. It is impossible that Christian Faith can retaine the highest degree of probability as Chilling pretends if it haue no greater perfection than it receyues from the sole probable Arguments of Credibility Therfor we must find some other ground on which Christian Faith relyes than meerly such arguments The antecedent I proue thus For to omit what some perhaps will say that at least the Assent of Faith which he sayth is a Conclusion is not so probable as the Premises on which it depends and so is not probable in the highest degree although it were granted that the Motiues of Credibility considered alone may mooue the vnderstanding to the highest degree of probability and such as one cannot entertayne without a prudent doubt of the contrary yet if they be compard and confronted with very great difficultyes objected against them by reason that the Mysteryes of Christian Faith which really are superiour and seemingly are contrary to naturall Reason and Philosophy that supposed highest pitch of probability must needs be abated and lessened and come to some lower than the highest As althongh the will do necessarily loue an object which appeares good when it attends not to any reason or formality of some euill neuerthelesse it is not necessarily carryed to loue that object when it perceyueth any euill therin so the vnderstanding so long as truth is proposd without any thing offered to the contrary necessarily or easily yelds assent but if contrary difficultyes be represented it is apt to pause and consider and perhaps doubt or feare and must needs fall somwhat from its former confidence adhesion and assent if it be left to it selfe and not assisted with greater strength than can arise from meere probabilityes encountred and balanced with contrary seeming strong reasons And as Chilling speaking to Catholiques sayth Pag. 113.
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
conceyves to be obscure or false 48. Fiftly Consulting the Originals is thought a great matter to interpretation â—f Scriptures But this is to small purpose For indeed it will expound the Heb â—w and the Greek and rectify Translations But I know no man that sayes that the Scriptures in Hebrew and Greek are easy and certaine to be vnderstood and that they are hard in Latine and English The difficulty is in the thing however it be expressed the least in the Language If the Originall Languages were our mother tongue Scripture is not much the easyer to vs and a naturall Greek or a Iew can with no more reason nor authority obtrude his interpretations vpon other mens consciences than a man of another Nation 49. And Num 6. he sayth in generall That all these wayes of interpreting Scripture which of themselves are good helps are made either by designe or by our infirmityes wayes of intricating and involving Scriptures in greater difficulty because men do not learne their doctrines from Scripture but come to the vnderstanding of Scripture with preconceptions and ideas of doctrines of their own and then no wonder that Scriptures looke like Pictures wherein every man in the roome believes they looke on him only and that whersoever he stands or how often soever he changes his station So that now what was intended for a remedy becomes the promoter of our disease and our meate becomes the matter of sickness And the mischiefe is the wit of man cannot find a remedy for it for there is no rule no limit no certaine Principle by which all men may be guided to a certaine and so infallible an interpretation that he can with any equity prescribe to others to belieue his interpretations in places of controversy or ambiguity Osiander in his confutation of the Booke which Melancton wrote against him observes that there are twenty severall opinions concerning justification all drawn from the Scriptures by the men only of the Augustan Confession There are sixteen severall opinions concerning originall sin and as many definitions of the Sacraments as there are sects of men that disagree about them This makes good what I sayd aboue that the Protestants cannot agree in the very definition of Sacraments 50. Lastly Num 8. he concludes thus Since those ordinary meanes of expounding scripture as seurching the Originalls conference of places parity of Reason and analogy of Faith are all dubious vncertaine and veryfallibe He that is the wisest and by consequence the likelyest to expound truest in all probability of reason will be very farr from coÌ„fidence because every one of these aÌ„dmany more are like so many degrees of improbability aÌ„d vncertainty all depressing our certainty of fynding out truth in such mysteries aÌ„d amidst so many difficultyes 51. I haue thought good to set down this discourse as being vnanswerable and making directly for vs against the tenet of Protestants that the Scripture is evident in all things necessary to be believed I say even in things necessary For although he giue to his Third Section this Title Of the difficulty and vncertainty of Arguments from Scripture in Questions not simply necessary not litterally determined yet it is minifest thathis reasons either proue vniversally of all articles or proue nothing at all especially if we consider that the most necessary mysteryes of Christian Faith are also most sublime and therfor no wonder if having in the title to his Third Section mentioned the difficulty and vncertainty of argumeÌ„ts from scripture in questioÌ„ns not simply necessary in the proofes and prosecution of his reasons he is silent of any such distinction and shewes not in all or any one of his reasons of the difficulty and vncertainty of the sense of scripture any difference between necessary and vnnecessary points nor is any man able to doe it vpon any solid ground as will appeare to any one who will severally consider his reasons And when in the same Title he mentions Questions not literally determined I cannot imagine what he would say since according to his reasons no Question can literally be determined in such manner as still there will not remaine difficulty and vncertainty vnless he were content to acknowledg the authority of the Church for determining some particular meaning of Scripture as the literall seÌ„se therof Besides vnless he can giue vs a catalogue of questions simply necessary which Chilling sayes is impossible to be done and those Protestants who haue gone about to doe it could never agree amongst themselues nor is it possible they should c how shall we know that they are literally determined or that Scripture in them is evident 52. He sayd the difficulty arises from diversity of editions translations senses literall or spirituall naturall or figuratiue the insufficiency of conferring places of parity of reason analogy of faith consulting the originalls And who can deny but that these reasons hold as well in necessary as vnnecessary poynts Where will he fynd any text of scripture evident and not subject to any one of those difficultyes which he hath vrged to proue the difficulty of scripture affirming that those meanes and helpes are insufficient for vnnecessary poynts sufficient for necessary If he answer that if they be not cleare they cannot be necessary I reply This is not to proue out of Scripture but by reason and he hath told vs that it is with reason as with mens tastes and in our present question his reason wil be petitio principij a supposing that all necessary points are evidently contayned in Scripture For if this be not supposed it wil be soone answerd that we may be obliged to belieue articles of Faith by meanes of the Church or tradition though they be not in particular evidently contained in scripture Doth not the prime Prorestant Sanchius by me cited aboue affirme that the sayd meanes or nineteene Rules prescribed by him are required for finding out the sense of Scripture in those things which are necessary for salvation Therfor if these meanes be doubtfull and vncertaine we cannot from Scripture alone receyue sufficient certainty to belieue with an act of Faith even things necessary to salvation And indeed all the meanes which Protestants prescribe being humane actions and endeavours wherin every man is subject to errour this only remaines certaine that they can yield vs no certainty A deduction so cleare that Whitaker de Eccles Controv. 2. Q. 4. P. 221. sayes plainly Such as the meanes are such of necessity must be the interpretation but the meanes of interpreting dark places are vncertaine doubtfull and ambiguous therfor it cannot be but that the interpretation also must be vncertaine then it may be false c. 53. Eightly Protestants require for interpretation of Scripture the spirit of God as we haue seene aboue and 2. Pet. 1. V. 20.21 it is sayd No prophecy of Scripture is made by private interpretation but the holy men of God spake inspired with the Holy Ghost And therfor God hath
suppose your owne tenet that the scripture alone containeth all things necessary that is vnless you begg the Question you cannot so much as pretend that every one of the Gospells contaynes all such poynts 4. you hold it only probable that every one of the Evangelists hath written all necessary points therfor you belieue it cum formidine oppositi and must think it not impossible but that some good reason may be alledged and much more imagined which is your word for the contrary 142. Secondly I answer you ought to remember that as the Apostles and other Canonicall Writers wrote not their owne humane sense but were inspired and directed by the Holy Ghost of whom we must say Quis Consilarius ejus fuit Rom 11. V. 34. Who hath been his Counseller So you must not expect that we rely on your Topicall cōgruityes for finding out what in particular◠was fit for them to write that is what was the will of God that they should write What reason I pray you can be given why that Holy spirit did inspire foure Evangelists to write neither more nor fewer Why these men were chosen and not others Why they wrote no sooner and not all at once but at very different tymes Why they omitt millons of things and write others and those very few in comparison of those which they omitted and why rather these few in particular which they wrote than some few of those which they wrote not Why some things are written by all of them some only by some and some by one only VVhy other Canonicall VVriters write many profitable but not all necessary things and yet they were wise and honest men and wrote not in a negligent fashion And particularly what reason can be imagined according to your manner of discoursing why any of the Evangelists or other writers of scripture should leaue out any thing necessary for the whole Church as forme of Government Matter ād forme of Sacraments c and yet put in many things which they knew to be only profitable and not necessary either for the whole Church or every particular person or had they great care of what is necessary for particular men and regarded not what was necessary for the whole Church Of this we are very sure that they complyed with that end for which the Holy Ghost moved them to write and the conjectures of such considering men as you take pleasure to be styled cannot be of force with any religious mynd except to condemne you of presumption in prescribing to the Holy Ghost what he should haue moved the Apostles to write vnder payne of forfeiting the repute of vvise and honest men and of being censured of having done so great a worke of God after such a negligent fashion 143. Thirdly I Answer If you will needs haue reasons though we must not rely vpon our owne reason in matters of this nature jam sure betterreasons may be given to proue that the Evangelists were not obliged to write all things necessary then you can with any least ground bring them vnder any such burthen 144. First he who will impose an obligation vpon another in the first place obliges himself to a positiue proofe of what he sayes For till that be done every one by the law of nature enjoyeth the liberty of which he is possessed as on the other side he who denyes an obligation of performing this or that doth sufficiently acquitt himself by pleading that no such obligation can be proved And this is not a bare word or voluntary affirmation as if in that case both contrary parts had equall reasons because neither of them seemes to bring any positiue proofe but such a denyall of an obligation not sufficiently proved is a solid and convincing reason grounded vpon positiue Axiom Melior est conditio possidentis in vaine therfor do you aske what reason can be imagined why any of them should leaue out any thing which he knew to be necessary c it being a most sufficient proofe that they had no such obligation because you can bring no positiue proofe for the contrary and if they were not obliged to do it how can you accuse them for doing so great a work of God after such a negligent fashion meerly because they do not that which they had no obligation at all to doe 145. A second reason may be not only imagined but truly deduced both from your particular Assertion and from the generall doctrine of Protestants You teach that he who wrote the First Gospell S. Matthew delivered evidently all things necessary which to the other Euangelists might be a very sufficient reason to hold themselves free from obligation of repeeting those things which had bene delivered already with evidence and which they did certainly know if the thing were true to haue bene so delivered And this reason vrges yet more concerning S. Luke who vvrote his Gospell after S. Matthevv and S. Mark had vvritten theirs and as I sayd did knovv certainly that they had vvritten all necessary points if indeed they had done so Lastly S. John before he wrote his Gospell had seene the Gospels of the other three Evangelists beside other canonicall scriptures and therfor might with good reason think himself disobliged from doing that which had bene done by so many before him And that Holy Spirit which directed the first Writer of scripture S. Matthew foreseeing all future Canonicall writings in which many necessary points were to be expressed might even according to your humane discourse moue him to omitt so me necessary points which he saw would be delivered in other Scripture or tradition especially if we reflect that a truth once delivered in scripture beleeved to be Gods word is a much as a million of tymes Now from the generall doctrine of Protestants that all necessary things are contained in the vvhole scripture collectiuè not in every part therof a cleare reason may be taken to disoblige the Evangelists from vvriting that vvhich they vvere sure could not but be vvritten in other parts or bookes of holy scripture because that Doctrine implyes that the sole-sufficiency of scripture is perfectly asserted and maintayned if all necessary Points be contained in the whole Bible though they be not all set downe in any one Part or booke therof 146. A third reason may be taken from the End which moved the Evangelists to write which as I haue often sayd being not to make a Cathechisme or a Summe of Christian Doctrine what reason can be imagined that any of them should think himself obliged to set downe in particular all necessary points 147. Will you haue a Fourth reason Let it be this which may also serue for a wholsome and necessary document for you and such as you are we haue good reason to belieue that the Holy Ghost thought not fitt to express either in the Gospells or other Parts of Scriptures all necessary things that we might be put vpon a wholsome and happy necessity
of exercising humility in our selves and obedience to Gods Church and to our Saviour himself who sayd Luke 10.16 He that heares you heares me and Matth. 18.17 If he heare not the Church let him be vnto thee as a Heathen or Publican together with a dependence of one man vpon another as it was sayd to S. Paul even in that great vision Act. 9. V. 7. Goe into the citty And it shal be told thee what thou art to doe and to him who was cured of the leprosy Matth. 8.4 Goe shew thy self to the Priest As also for procuring peace and vnity in Religion which cannot be conserved if all controversyes must be tryed by scripture alone that being in effect to leaue every man to his owne witte will and wayes as we see by constant experience in all those who reject the Authority of a Living Judg. 148. But what you cannot evince by reason you endeavour to proue by an example in these words Suppose Xaverius had bene to write the Gospell of Christ for the Indians think you he would haue left out any fundamentall Doctrine of it 149. Answer Are these Arguments taken from evident Texts of scripture as yours against vs ought to be in this poynt which is the only foundation of Protestantisme If you tell vs what you meane in this particular Objection by the Gospell of Christ yourself may easily answer for vs out of what hath beene sayd already We haue heard you saying By the Gospell of Christ I vnderstand not the whole History of Christ but all that makes vp the covenant between God and man Now then to your example I Answer that if S. Xaverivs had intended to write the Gospell as it signifyes the History of Christ he had not bene obliged to write all necessary Points as neither the Evangelists who wrote the Gospell were obliged to do ād it is strāge that we denying it of them you would seek to proue it only by changing the person as if any would attribute more to S. Xaverius than to the Evāgelists But if S. Xauerius had purposed to write not the History of our B. Saviour as the Evangelists did but a Catechisme or summe of Christian doctrine or the Gospell as it signifyes to vse your words all that makes vp the Covenant between God and man which the Evangelists did not intend then what you say or imagine of S. Xaverius cannot be applyed to the Evangelists seeing in that case their ends in writing had bene very different Nevertheless even vpon this supposition that S. Xaverius had purposed to write a Catechisme we must consider some particular circumstances before we can affirme that he was obliged to write all necessary points of Faith for example if that Saint had bene assured that in his absence and for all future tymes there would never be wanting Preachers Teachers Prelats Pastors and Apostolicall men to instruct Christians convert Infidels and supply abundantly by word of mouth and a perpetuall Succession and Tradition whatsoever was not expressed in such a Catechisme as de facto we see God in his Goodness hath furnished the Indyes with so many Pastours Preachers c. that no one Cathecisme is absolutely necessary in that case I say no man can judge that S. Xaverius had bene obliged to leaue in writing precisely every particularnecessary Point but only such as Tyme Place Persons and all other particular circumstances considered should in prudence seeme most for the purpose and such a Catechisme togeather with those other helpes had bene a most sufficient Meanes for that End which S. Xaverius had proposed to himself vpon the sayd supposition of Pastours c. Now this is our case The Evangelists were most certaine that Hell-gates could no◠prevaile against the Church Matth. 16. that there should be a perpetuall Succession of Pastours that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth 1. Timot. 3. that he gaue some Apostles and some Prophets and other some Evangelists and other some Pastours and Doctours c. that now we be not children wavering and carryed about with every winde of doctrine in the wickedness of men in craftyness to the circumvention of errour Ephesi 4. Where we see that for avoyding errours Scripture alone is not appointed as the only Meanes yea is not so much as mentioned but Apostles Pastours Doctours c. to the worlds end To which purpose ancient S. Irenaeus Lib. 3. Cap. 4. speaks very fully in these words What if the Apostles had not left Scriptures ought we not to haue followed the order ād tradition which they delivered to those to whom they committed the Churches to which order many nations yielded assent who belieue in Christ having salvation written in their harts by the spirit of God without letters or inke and diligently keeping ancient Tradition It is easy to receiue the truth from Gods Church seing the Apostles haue most fully deposited in her as in a rich storehouse all things belonging to truth It is therfor cleare that the Evangelists had no obligation to write all necessary points in particular and some may retort your example thus the Evangelists had no reason to doe so therfor neither S. Xaverivs in the like case and circumstances had been obliged therto and not argue as you doe S. Xaverius should haue bene obliged to do so therfor we must say the same of the Apostles I will not stand heer to say that although S. Xaverius had bene obliged to set downe all Points necessary to be believed by every priuate person as such yet I hope you would not haue obliged him to expresse all things necessary for the whole Church as I sayd in the beginning which yet is a most necessary thing 150. But here occurs a difficulty which will shew your example of S. Xaverius or of any other to be not only insufficient or impertinent but also impossible and chimericall and even ridiculous in your grounds of which I believe you did not reflect You teach that there cannot be given a particular Catalogue of fundamentall poynts but that men may be sure not to faile in believing all such Articles if they belieue all that is evidently found in scripture which clearly containes all necessary things in particular and many more If then S. Xaverius could not know precisely what points in particular be fundamentall how will you oblige him or any other not to omitt any one such point Neither I do vnderstand how in your principles any man can set downe all necessary points in such manner as he may be sure to omitt none except by referring them to scripture or procuring that they haue either the whole bible according to the common opinion of other Protestants or at least the Gospell of S. Luke which you hold for certaine that it contaynes all necessary points for of the other three Evangelists you are doubtfull which is a strange kind of composing a Catechisme and yet there can be no other perfect Catechisme made either
you say Can we imagine that either they ommitted somthing necessary out of ignorance not knowing it to be necessary Or knowing it to be so maliciously concealed it or out of negligence did the work they had vndertaken by halfes If none of these things can without Blasphemy be imputed to them considering they were assisted by the Holy Ghost in this worke then certainly it most evidently followes that every one of them writt the whole Gospell of Christ I meane all the essentiall and necessary parts of it In which words you do nothing but begg the Question still supposing that the Evangelists were obliged to set downe in writing all necessary Points of Faith which though they knew to be necessary to be believed yet they neither did nor could know that they were necessary to be written which two things you ought to distinguish though it seemes you are resolved never to do so And here also you take vpon you to limit the Gospell to the essentiall and necessary parts of it of which your voluntary restriction I haue already sayd enough 172. But Sr. I cannot chuse but aske you vpon the occasion which here you giue how you can say that ignorance or negligence cannot without blasphemy be imputed to the Evangelists seing Pag. 144. N. 31. you affirme that the Apostles even after the sending of the Holy Ghost were and through inadvertence or prejudice continued for a tyme in an errour repugnant to a revealed truth and against our Saviours express warrant and injunction and Pag. 137. N. 2. you teach that the Church of the Apostles tyme did erre against a revealed truth through prejudice or inadvertence or some other cause which last generall reason gives scope to proceed in blasphemy if once we say that the Apostles were not in all things belonging to Faith directed by the Holy Ghost and for such as you to say that if they could erre by inadvertence prejudice or some other causes it was not impossible but at length one of those other causes might grow to be malice But more of this herafter Now I will only touch that which I noted before how little credit or authority your reasons ought to haue with any judicious person since you acknowledg it to be but probable that every one of the Evangelsts hath written all things necessary and yet you would needs haue your proofes therof to be certaine and evident Thus we haue heard you say Pag. 211.42 Take it as you will this conclusion will certainly follow that all that which S. Iohn wrote in his Gospell was sufficient to make them belieue that which being believed with lively Faith would certainly bring them to eternall life Vrceus institui coepit cur Amphora prodit A probability improved to a certainty by the only strength of confidence And Pag. 93. N. 105. you say that vnless we will blaspheme and accuse the Evangelists either or ignorance or malice or negligence certainly it most evidently follows that every one of them writt the whole Gospell of Christ I meane all the essentiall and necessary parts of it 173. Morover although you pretend to a certainty that S. Luke hath written all necessary Points which you hold only probable for the other three Evangelists yet your reason comes to be the same for all which is that the Evangelists were obliged to write all things necessary or els this which in effect is all one with the former what reasōn can be imagined that they should not write all things necessary and yet set downe many things only profitable For vnless you presuppose this reason which is common to all the Evangelists you haue no ground to affirme that the words of S. Luke all that Jesus began to doe and teach must signify determinately all necessary things as I haue often sayd and so vppon the matter you haue the same reason for all the foure Evangelists which is no more then the same begging of the Question 174. But what need we vse many reasons Our eyes can witness that the Evangelists haue not written all necessary Points of Faith For to omitt that they haue not set downe the matter and forme of Sacraments the forme of Government of the Church the power of inflicting censures and many such Points which cannot be evidently proved out of scripture alone without the assistance of tradition we do not find clearly expressed in S. Matthew the Eternall generation of the Son of God wherwith S. Iohn beginnes his Gospell In the beginning was the word c. S. Mark is silent of the Incarnation of our Lord in the wombe of the B. Virgin by vertue of the Holy Ghost His Birth and all other Mysteryes of his sacred life till his age of thirty yeares S Luke as also S Mark omits the giving power to forgiue sins Ioan. 20. V. 22.23 and Matth. 18. V. 18. which is a chief Article of our Creed I beleeue the remission of sinnes S. Iohn wrote nothing of the Annuntiation Nativity Circumcision Epiphany and Ascension of our Saviour Christ and according to Protestants he speakes not of the Eucharist For they deny that Cap. 6. he speakes of that Sacrament And consequently communion vnder both kinds which they hold to be a Divine precept and therfore necessary to salvation is omitted by him as also our Lords prayer All of them haue omitted in their Gospells that which is expressed Act. 2. about the sending of the Holy Ghost and the Decrees of the Councell of the Apostles Act. 15. wherin amongst other things they declare that it was not necessary to obserue the Mosaicall Law which is a most important and necessary point I haue bene longer in answering this objection as contayning many heads and divers Arguments of the same nature which I thought best not to divide Let vs now see what more you can object 175. Object 3. Pag 93. N. 105. If men cannot vnderstand by scripture enough for their salvation why then doth S. Paul say to Timothy the scriptures are able to make him wise vnto salvation 376. Answer First It is not sayd the scriptures alone are able to make one wise to salvation And if you had dealt honestly and not conceald what went before and after it would haue been cleare that S. Paul speakes not of scripture alone and of what scripture he speakes and how scripture may instruct to salvation which points being well considered it will appeare that this Text is so farr from proving what you intend that it makes against you S. Paul V 14. and 15. saith Tu vero permane c. But thou continue in those things which thou hast learned and are committed to thee knowing of whom thou hast learned and because from thy infancy thou hast knowen the holy scriptures which can instruct thee to salvation by the Faith that is in Christ Iesus In which words S. Paul speakes of things which Timothy had learned of him though out of humility ād modesty he concealed his owne name as
which is cleare by his words Quod horum sit faciendum Which of those things ought be done as also because he speakes vpon a supposition if the scripture did prescribe somthing and you will not deny but in that case we were obliged to belieue not only that it was or was not practised but also that the thing in it self was lawfull and then he sayth that beside scripture we ought to imbrace and not to dispute against the vniversall practise of the church The same Holy Father teaches that the custome of baptizing childrē cannot be proved by scriptute alone and yet that it is to be believed as derived from the Apostles The custome of our Mother the Church saith he Lib 10. de Gen ad Lit Cap 23. in baptizing infants is in no wise to be contemned nor to be accounted superfluous nor is it at all to be believed vnless it were an Apostolicall Tradition 201. Ponder first how the baptizing of infants is not to be contemned or accounted a vaine or vnprofitable thing and not only that we are to belieue there is such a practise 2. That seing what the Church practises is to be believed and yet that it were not at all to be bebelieved vnless it were an Apostolicall tradition it followes that what the vniversall Church practises is an Apostolicall Tradition and consequently certaine and infallible though it be not written in scripture And Serm 14. de Verbis Apostoli Chap 18. speaking of the same Point of baptizing children he sayth This the Authority of our Mother the Church hath against this strength against this invincible wall whosoever rusheth shall be crushed in peeces Which place is so cleare for vs that the Protestants in the Conference at Ratisbone could giue no answer but this Nos ab Augustine hac in parte libere dissentimus In this we freely disagree from Augustine But of this answer you take no notice though you redd it in Charity Maintayned and seeke to answer this very place of S Austine alledged by Him And of the Quesstion of not rebaptizing c Lib. 1. Cont Crescon Cap. 32. 33. He sayth we follow indeed in this matter even the most certaine authority of canonicall scriptures But how Doth he meane that the Question is in particular evidently delivered in scripture In no wise How then Heare his words Although verily there be brought no example for this Point out of the Canonicall scriptures yet even in this Point the truth of the same scripture is held by vs while we do that which the authority of scriptures doth recommend that so because the Holy scripture cannot deceiue vs whosoever is afrayd to be deceived by the obscurity of this Question must haue recourse to the same church concerning it which without any ambiguity the holy scripture doth demonstrate to vs. Consider that we are sayd to follow scripture while we follow the church even in a thing not expressed in scripture and that he speakes not only of examples not found in scripture but of that Question Doctrine and truth it selfe affirming that the truth of scripture is held while we follow the church and that because the scripture cannot deceiue vs the way not to be deceyved is to haue recourse to that church which the same scripture recommends which certainly were no good advise or direction if the church might be deceived neither could S. Austine referr vs to the church in stead of the scripture or as if the Question were defined by the scripture it self vnless the church be infallible as scripture is And de Baptismo cont Donat. Lib 5. C. 23. he hath these remarkable words The Apostles indeed haue prescribed nothing of this about not rebaptizing c but this custome ought to be believed to be originally taken from their Tradition as are many things which the vniversall church observeth which are therfor with good reason believed to haue bene commanded by the Apostles although they be not written Could any thing haue bene spoken more clearly to shew that the vniversall church is an infallible Proposer not only of examples matters of fact or practise but also of Precepts Commands and Doctrine And the same glorious Saint saith vniversally Lib. 7. de Baptismo Cap. 53. It is safe for vs to avouch with confident and secure words that which in the Government of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is strengthned by the consent of the vniversall church 202. By what we haue sayd in confutation of this your fift answer the Reader will of himself see the weakness of your chief answeres Pag. 151. N. 42.43.44 to these and other places alledged out of S. Austine by Charity Maintayned Part 1. Chap. 3. N. 16. as also out of S. Chrysostome who treating these words 2. Thess. 2. Stand and hold the traditions which you haue learned whether by speach or by our epistle saith Homil. 4. Hence it is manifest that they delivered delivered not all things by letter but many things also without writing and these also are worthy of belief Let vs therfor account the Tradition of the church worthy of belief It is a Tradition seeke no more Which words are so plaine against Protestants that Whitaker de sacra scrip Pag 678. is as plaine with S. Chrisostome and sayes I Answer that this is an inconsiderate speech vnworthy so great a Father These words of Whitaker were alledged in the same place by Charity Maintayned but are dissembled by you who Pag. 153. N. 45.46 giue two slight answers to the sayd words of S. Chrisostome the first is like to that which in the first place you gaue to the words of S. Austine that I was to proue the Church infallible not in her Traditions but in all her decrees and difinitions of Controversyes Which answer I haue confuted already and it is directly contrary to S. Chrisostome who not only sayth that we are to belieue the church affirming such or such a thing to haue bene delivered but also that the things so delivered are worthy of belief as he sayd of things delivered by the Apostles without Writing and to be believed in such manner as we are to seek no more Therfor we are to rely on the churches Tradition as vpon a sure and certaine ground or Rule of Faith It was not without cause that Whitaker a man of so great note in England was so angry with S. Chrisosstome 203. Your second Answer is That the things Which the Apostles delivered without writing are worthy of belief if we know what they were Which is not to answer but to deride S. Chrysostome as if he spoke of a Chimera and not of any thing of vse or existent and applicable to practise and in stead of saying as he doth It is a Tradition seeke no more it is worthy of belief He should haue sayd There is no such thing as Tradition seeke it not nor belieue it Besides in this very conditionall grant that we were to belieue Tradition of
which I am bound to belieue the belief of both is necessary the one for it selfe the other for that other which is supposed to be necessary of it self as you say the belief of scripture is only for the belief of the contents Secondly if the reason for which I belieue a thing be not only true but also by the nature therof necessarily obliges me to belieue that thing which it proves in that event whersoever I find that reason I shall remaine obliged to belieue that Object which it proves This is our case For no Christian yea no man indued with reason can deny but that if I belieue an Object as testifyed by God I am obliged to belieue all other Truths so testifyed Now I pray you tell vs the reason for which at this tyme you hold yourself obliged to belieue the contents of scripture You must answer because they are revealed by God testifying the truth of them by many and great miracles Then I aske for what reason do you belieue Scripture to be the word of God If you answer because God hath testifyed it to be such by those Miracles which the Apostles wrought to proue their words and writings to be infallible and inspired by the Holy Ghost then I inferr that as you are bound to belieue the contents of Scripture so you are also obliged to belieue Scripture it self seing you haue the same reason to belieue that God hath testifyed both the Scripture and the contents therof If you belieue Scripture to be the word of God not for the Divine Testimony for which you belieue the contents but for some other Reason then your saying There is not alwayes an equall necessity for the belief of those things for the belief wherof there is an equall Reason was impertinent because for the belief of Scripture there is not the same reason for which you belieue the verityes therin contained and your other saying Pag. 218. N. 49 must be false that no man at this tyme can haue reason to belieue in Christ but he must haue the same to belieue the Scripture if it be true that you belieue not scripture for the same reason for which you belieue Christ and other mysteryes contained in it But let vs know indeed for what reasoÌ„ you belieue Scripture to be the word of God It seemes one may answer for you out of your Answer to your Third Motiue where you teach that the Bible hath bene confirmed with those supernaturall and Divine Miracles which were wrought by our Saviour Christ and the Apostles And Pag. 379. N. 69. you say following the Scripture I shall belieue that which vniversall never-failing Tradition assures me that it was by the admirable supernaturall worke of God confirmed to be the word of God If this be true how are not men obliged to belieue that which hath bene so confirmed Or for what other reason do you belieue the Truths contayned in Scripture as our Saviour His Incarnation Life Death Resurrection and other Mysteryes of Christian Faith but because they were confirmed by the admirable supernaturall workes of God wherby you expressly grant Scripture to haue bene confirmed to be the word of God You must therfor either grant that there is a necessity to belieue Scripture to be the word of God or deny that there is a necessity to belieue the contents therof And then further for our present Question you must either grant that Scripture is a materiall Object of Faith or deny that the verityes therin contayned are such an Object vnless you will confess yourself to be a very strang and vnreasonable man to belieue the matter of the bookes of Scripture and not the Authority of the bookes and therfor since you profess not to be obliged to belieue these may not one haue reason to vse your owne words to feare that you do not thinke yourself obliged to belieue that Nay is it not apparent still I vse your owne words that you at this tyme cannot without hypocrisy pretend an obligation to belieue in Christ but of necessity you must acknowledg an obligation to belieue the Bookes of scripture seing you can haue no reason to thinke you are obliged to belieue in Christ but must haue the same to belieue the scripture and if your belief of the contents of scripture or of obligation to belieue them be vnreasonable it cannot proceed from the particular motion of the Holy Ghost nor be an Act of divine Faith And I beseech you reflect that here there is not only the same reason for the truth of things in themselves but also for our obligation to belieue them namely the divine Testimony which Point if you obserue you cannot but see how impertinent your example was about believing there was such a man as King Henry which you say one is not bound to belieue and that Iesus Christ suffered vnder Pontius Pilate which is a Truth set downe in a writing confirmed by Miracles to be the word of God and consequently to deny the Mysteryes contained in that booke were to reject a thing confessed to be witnessed by God And is not a man obliged to belieue whatsoever he knowes to be witnessed by God I sayd your example is impertinent but I must add that it is also false vnchristian and blasphemous to say as you doe We haue I belieue as great reason to belieue there was such a man as Henry the eight King of England as that Iesus Christ suffered vnder Pontius Pilate Haue you as great reason to belieue the Chronicles of England and the Testimony of men as to belieue the word of God 10. Morover though it import nothing to our present Question whether or no you speake true in saying there is not alwayes an equall necessity for the belief of those things for the belief wherof there is an equall reason yet perhaps you will not easily make it good if there be perfectly and entirely the same reason and of the same kind for both of them For if I conceaue the same reason for both if I belieue the one I may belieue the other nay I haue a necessity to belieue it so far as I cannot belieue the contrary as it is impossible from the same premises belieued to be the same to inferr contrary or contradictory conclusions If perhaps you answer that when one believes a thing for a reason which he sees to be the self same for another he cannot dissent from that other yet he may suspend his vnderstanding from any positiue assent to it which he cannot doe when there is a command to belieue it This answer will not serue your turne but first it is against your self who Pag. 195. N. 11. say to Cha Ma your distinction between Points necessary to be believed and necessary not to be disbelieved is a distinction without a difference there being no point to any man at any tyme in any circumstances necessary not to be dâ—sbelieved but it is to the same man at
that nothing but Gods word or Revelation can erect or qualify an Act of Faith and consequently only Gods infallible Word can be a Rule of Faith 14. But it is tyme that we come to the matter it self aÌ„d coÌ„fute this errour which in effect I haue done already by occasion of examining some sayings of yours 15 First then I oppose yourself to yourself And beside the places which I haue alledged aboue out of your Answer to your Third Motiue where you confess scripture to haue bene confirmed with those supernaturall and Divine Miracles which were wrought by our Saviour Christ and his Apostles and out of your Pag 55. N. 8. That By Scriptures not all things absolutely may be proued which are to be believed For it can never be proved by Scripture to againsayer that there is a God or that the Booke called Scripture is the word of God c In which words you ranke scriptures among those things which are to be believed which is to be a materiall Object of Faith as the existence of God is such an object besides I say the places which I haue produced already I must not omit what you say Pag 141. N. 28. where you suppose that the Apostles revealed what Books are Canonicall and that what they delivered in that kind is an Article of Faith and if an Article of Faith then it is a materiall object of Faith and Pag 142. N. 29. where you expressly say of some Bookes that if they were approâ—ed by the Apostles this 〈◊〉 hope was a sufficient definition and I hope that the definition of the Apostles is sufficient to make a thing an Object of Faith and induce an obligation for vs to belieue it Also Pag 90. N. 101. speaking in the person of an English Protestant you say Scripture evidently containeth or rather is our Religion and the sole and adequate object of our Faith If scripture be the sole and adequate object of Faith certainly it is an object of Faith or a thing believed by Faith How then do you teach that it is not an object of Faith Besides into what extremes do you fall teaching on the one syde that scripture is not a materiall object of Faith and yet affirme that it aÌ„d it only is the Object of Faith by being the sole aÌ„d adequate object