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
many things not necessary and you will not say that it signifyes only things only profitable which would overthrow your Assertion that they haue written all things necessary And therfor it remaynes according to your manner of discoursing that it signifyes at least all things necessary which cannot be sayd without absurdity as if the Evāgelists ād S. Mark in particular who beginns thus The beginning of the Gospell of Iesus Christ the Son of God as part of his Gospell had bin doubtfull whether they wrote only things necessary or both necessary and profitable and therfor to be sure not to erre did add at least 157. Before I ptoceed one thing is to be observed to wit that it seemes you are of Opinion that the Evangelists themselves gaue the titles to their owne Bookes For you say if every one of them haue not in them all necessary doctrines how haue they complyed with then owne designe which was as the Titles of their Books shew to write the Gospell of Christ and not a part of it Or how haue they not deceyved vs in giving them such Titles 158. But in this you are mistaken which beside other reasons appeares sufficiently by this that the inscription or Title of all the Gospells is the very same only the name of every patticular Evangelist being changed and S. Mark beside his particular manner of beginning his Gospell with these words The beginning of the Gospell of Jesus Christ the son of God hath also the same common Title which is prefixed before the other Gospells with difference only of his name And it is not likely S. Mark would haue repeated the same words In Protestant bibles Ann 1586. 1596. I find this Title The holy Gospell of Iesus christ according to Mark and the same they say of the other Gospells respectiue but Ann 1611. and 1622. they say The Gospell according to S. Mark where we see different words and some such as the Evangelists would not haue vsed calling themselves Saints or terming their owne writing The holy Gospell of Iesus Christ Do you think that S. Paul for example for his Epistle to the Romans gaue this Title The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans over and aboue that which he hath in the beginning of the Epistle it self Paul the servant of Jesus Christ to all that are at Rome the beloved of God called to be Saints Grace to you c Or that he premised this Title The first or second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians beside the particular address which he makes to them in the beginning of the Epistles themselvest The same I say of his Epistles to Timothy the Corinthians Thessalonians c Or do you belieue that S. John premised before his The second Epistle of John notwitstanding that in the Epistle it self he sayth The Seniour to the lady Elect and her childrē the like I say of the third Epistle vvhich begins the Seniour to Caius the dearest If then these titles were not given by the Evangelists they haue not deceyved you in giving such titles which they never gaue nor can it be gathered as you inferr that they haue not complyed with their owne designe which was as the Titles of their Books shew to write the Gospell of Christ and not a part of it seing as I sayd those Titles are not theirs Besides if those Titles were not given by the Evangelists all your Arguments grounded on them are no proofes taken out of Holy Scripture which alone you ought to bring in the Principles of Protestants By the way I know not whether Protestants reflect that they haue in their bibles and reade publikly apocryphall Writings that is not Divine scripture which yet commonly most of them take to be scripture I meane the Titles of the Gospells Epistles and I might add distinction of Chapters and Verses c. And even out of the Premises I may conclude that if the meaning of the Titles of Canonicall books and in particular that which S Marke hath in the beginning of his Gospell which is a part of Scripture be not cleare who can believe that the meaning of the scripture it self is evident 159. You goe forward and say If this all that makes vp the Covenant between God and man be wholy contained in the Gospell of S. Mark and S. Iohn every considering man will be inclinable to beleeve that then without doubt it is contayned in the larger Gospells of S. Matthew and S. Luke 160. Answer You know we deny your supposition that all necessary Points are written in the Gospells of S. Mark and S. John And though your supposition or Antecedent were true yet your consequence or deduction is so weake that without doubt no considering man wil be inclinable to approue it For what a poore consequence is this The Gospells of S. Matthew and S. Luke are larger than the Gospells of S. Mark ād S. John Therfor if these containe all necessary Points those also must containe them As if some or many or all necessary Points might not be set downe within a small compass and none at all written in a larger Volume How many large Chapters are there in scripture which you will acknowledg not to containe any one necessary Point of Christian belief And yet the Apostles Creed which Dr. Potter and you affirme to containe all necessary Points of Faith consists not of very many words It is likely you are of opinyon that all Points absolutely necessary to salvation are very few and might perhaps be contained in a few lines or words in comparison of which small compass one Gospell may be truly sayd to be no larger than another because every man will be inclinable to belieue that three lines may be as well contained in a book of three Chapters as in a Volume of a great bulke as ten cubits may be esteemed as larg as twenty for the effect of containing a body of one cubit In fine all these your topicall toyes proue nothing till first you proue positively and solidly out of scripture that all necessary Points must necessarily be expressed in scripture and consequently that that was particularly the intent of the Evangelists Let vs see what proofes you can bring that S. Mark and S. John haue written all things necessary to be believed 161. You say P 210. N. 40. ād 41 that S. Marke wants no necessary Article of this covenant I persume you will not deny if you belieue Irenaeus when he sayes Matthew to the Hebrewes in their tongue published the Scripture of the Gospell when Peter and Paul did preach the Gospell and founded the Church or a Church at Rome or of Rome and after their departure Mark the scholler of Peter delivered to vs in writing those things which had been preached by Peter and Luke the follower of Paul compiled in a Booke the Gospell which was preached by him and afterward Iohn residing in Asia in the Citty of Ephesus did himself also set forth a Gospell
your flying to such poore signes as these are is to me a great signe that you labour with penury of better Arguments and that thus to catch at shaddowes and bulrushes is a shrewd signe of a sinking cause 59. Answer What greater signe of particular Assistance and as it were a Determination to Truth from some higher cause than consent and constancy of many therin while we see others change alter and contradict one another and even the same man become contrary to himself who yet in all other humane respects haue the same occasion ability and reason of such consent and constancy Tertullian Praescript Chap 28. saith truly Among many events there is not one issue the errour of the churches must needs haue varied But that which among many is found to be one is not mistaken but delivered And the experience we haue of the many great and endless differences of Protestants about the canon of scripture and interpretation therof is a very great argument that the church which never alters nor disagrees from herself is guided by a superiour infallible Divine Spirit as Christians among other inducements to belieue that scripture is the word of God alledg the perfect coherence of one part therof with another 60. Before I passe to your next Errour I must aske a Question about what you deliver Pag 141. N. 28. where speaking of some Bookes of scripture you say Seeing after the Apostles the Church pretends to no new Revelations how can it be an Article of Faith to believe them Canoncall And Pag 142. N. 29. If they some certaine bookes of scripture were approved by the Apostles this I hope was a sufficient definition How I say you who hold that Scripture is not a Point of Faith nor revealed by God can say that to propose bookes of scripture though they had bene proposed before is to propose new Revelations or Definitions of the Apostles But as I sayd hertofore it is no newes for you to vtter contradictions 61. A seventh Errour plainly destructiue both of scripture and all Christianity is taken out of your Doctrine of which I haue spoken hertofore that the Bible was proved to be Divine by those Miracles which were wrought by our Saviour Christ and his Apostles and yet that God may permit true Miracles to be wrought to delude men Which Assertions put togeather may giue occasion to doubt whether those Miracles wherby the Scriptute was confirmed were not to delude men and so we can haue no certainty that Scripture is the word of God 62. To this I will add a Doctrine of yours delivered Pag 69. N. 47. which overthrowes all proof that can be takeÌ„ from Miracles for confirmation either that scripture is the word of God or that other articles of Christian Faith are true Thus you write For my part I profess if the Doctrine of the scripture were not as good and as sit to come from the fountaine of goodness as the Miracles by which it was confirmed were great I should want one maine pillar for my Faith and for want of it I feare should be much staggered in it Doth not this assertion declare that true Miracles are in sufficient of themselves to convince that a thing confirmed by them is true or good vnless men do also interpose their owne judgment that the things in themselves are such which is not to belieue the Miracles or God speaking and testifying by them but to subject the Testimony of God to the judgment of men wheras contrarily we ought to judge such things to be good because they are so testifyed and not belieue that Testimony to be true because in our judgment independently of that Testimony the things are good in themselves which were to vary our belief of Gods Testimony according as we may chance to alter our judgment at different tymes and vpon divers reasons which may present themselves to our vnderstaÌ„ding Do not you in divers places pretend that this reason is aboue all other God sayes so therfor it is true and further do you not say Pag. 144. N. 31. If you be so infallible as the Apostles were shew it as the Apostles did They went forth sayes S. Mark and preached every where the Lord working with them and confirming their words with signes following It is impossible that God should ly and that the Eternall Truth should set his hand and seale to the confirmation of a falshood or of such Doctrine as is partly true and partly false The Apostles Doctrine was thus confirmed therfor it was intirely true and in no part either false or vncertaine If the testimony of God be with you aboue all reason and that by signes or Miracles the Eternall Truth sets his hand and seale to the confirmation of what is so confirmed how comes it that your Faith could be staggered notwithstanding the working of such Miracles if in your judgment the doctrine of the scripture were not as good as the Miracles by which it was confirmed were great Or what could it availe vs to proue our doctrine by Miracles as the Apostles did if the belief of those Points so proved must stand to the mercy of your judgment which as I saied may vary vpon divers occasions and yet this diversity of judgment you must according to this your doctrine follow even against any point though confirmed by Miracle It is therfor cleare That in your Principles you can haue no certainty of the truth of scripture nor of the contents threrof although it were supposed that it alone did expressly and inparticular containe all Points necessary to be believed 63. Your 8. Errour consists in this that beside what I haue sayd already in your second and third Errour that you impeach the certainty of scripture by taking away vniversall infallibility from the Apostles who wrote it and for whose Authority we belieue it I find you do the same in other places You say P. 144. N. 30. The infallibility of the Church depends vpon the infallibility of the Apostles and besides this dependance is voluntary for it is in the power of the Church to deviate from this Rule being nothing else but an aggregation of men of which every one has free will and is subject to passions and errour Change the tearmes and say The infallibility of the Apostles depended â—pon the infallibility of our Saviour and this dependance was voluntary for it was in the power of the Apostles to deviate from this Rule being nothing but a number of men of whom every one has freewill and is subject to passion and errour and that we way be sure of this last in the very next N. 31. you teach That the Apostles themselves even after the sending of the Holy Ghost were and through inadvertence or prejudice aÌ„d P. 137. N. 21. to tinadvertence or prejudice you add or some other cause which gives scope enough to censure the Apostles continued for a tyme in an errour repugnant to a revealed truth notwitstanding
he must be damned You tell him secondly that the party he confesses to may be no Priest by reason of some vndiscernable invalidity in his Baptisme or Ordination and if he be none he can doe nothing You tell him thirdly that he may be in such a state that he cannot or if he can he will not giâ—e the Sacrament with due Intention And if he does not all is in vaine 52. You plead our cause so feebly and falsly that your best fee will be to be silenced First I haue told you in what sense we would haue mens salvation depend vpon no vncertaintyes 2. For your case of a man lying vpon death bed who feeles or feares that his repentance is but Attrition only and not Contrition surely if it be attrition only it is not Contrition we tell him that Gods grace is never wanting if we do implore it which are your owne words cited by me aboue and not neglect to cooperate with it If therfor he do his endeavour God will not fayle to giue him all that shall be necessary for his salvation whether it be atrrition with the Sacrament or Contrition without it and so it shall not be in the Parsons power to damne whom he will in his Parish as you are pleased to speake and you speake profanely in applying to our present purpose that saying Spes est rei incertae nomen which is to slight all those Texts of Sceipture which declare that absolute certainty or security must not be expected in this life where we must worke our salvation with feare and trembling so that neither Hope excludes a wholsome feare nor feare a comfortable Hope it being also most true tha we are saved by Hope and Hope does not confound which signifyes more then rei incertae nomen an empty name only By this Instruction the dying man will clearly see that neither want of Priesthood in the partie he confesses to nor want of Intention in a true Priest nor any other thing beside his owne freewill neglecting to cooperate with Gods Grace can damne him We haue heard your words Pag 277. N. 61. That Gods assistance is alwayes ready on condition that when it is offered in the divine directions of Scripture or reason the Church be not negligent to follow it I cannot stand here to note that you seeme to place Gods assistance only in the externall divine directions of Scripture or reason without necessity of any internall Grace which is direct Pelagianisme and you put the case expressly when the Penitent feares that his Repentaâ—â—â— is attrition only and consequently when God hath giuen him light to see his danger and the necessity of contrition and therfor that God will not be wanting to affoard his Grace if he be not negligent to follow it and by this truth he may prudently quiet his mind This seemes to be the Doctrine of S. Thomas 3. Part Q. 64. a. 8. ad 2. granting that in persons indued with the vse of reason Faith and devotion supplyes the defect of intention in the Minister for justification from sinne but not for making the Sacrament valid 53. Let vs heare what more you are pleased to answer in our behalf You say Put case a man by these considerations should be cast into some agonyes of your owne making and fayning for we cleare him of all what advise what comfort would you give him Verily I know not what you could say to him but this That First for the Qualification required on his part he might know that he desired to haue true sorrow and that that is sufficient But then if he should aske you why he might not know his sorrow to be a true sorrow as well as his desire to be sorrowfull to be a true desire I believe you would be put to silence Then secondly to quiet his feares concerning the Priest and his intention you should tell him by my advise that Gods Goodness which will not suffer him to damne men for not doing better than their best will supply all such defects as to humane endeavours were vnavoidable And therfore though his Priest were indeed no Priest yet to him he should be as if he were one and if he gaue Absolution without Intention yet in doing so he should hurt himselself only and not his Penitent 54. Answer First If you should tell him that only a desire of true sorrow is sufficient for remiffion of deadly sins either alone or with Sacramentall Absolution you should deceaue him For a desire only is of a thing which one is supposed not to haue and therfor he who only desires to haue sorrow certainly wants it as he who only desires to find the true Faith and Religion cannot be sayd to haue it though such a desire may moue him to seeke and sind if he persever in seeking and in like manner he who desires true sorrow may to satisfy that good desire endeavour to passe from a meere desire to the thing desired seing God will not be wanting on his part to affoard his Grace to perfit that desire and so persons of timorous or scrupulous consciences may conceiue they only desire true sorrow when indeed they haue it 55. You say If he should aske you why he might not know his forrow to be a true sorrow as well as his desire to be sorrowfull to be a true desire I belieue you would be put to silence 56. Answer All that you can inferr from this your Objection is That you haue put yourself to silence For you it was and not Charity Maintayned who talked of a desire to be sorrowfull as sufficient though it were alone Nevertheless if one should aske whether you are not very sure that you did desire to know and embrace the true Faith and way which leads to eternall happyness I suppose you would answer that you were absolutely certaine of such a desire and yet you caÌ„not in your Grounds be certaine that the Faith which you embrace is true For then you would be certaine that Christian Faith is true which you deny and accordingly Pag 376. N. 57. You say only This is the Religion which I haue chosen after a long deliberation and I am verily perswaded that I haue chosen wisely And yet certainly you thought yourself to haue bene more than verily perswaded of your generall desire to imbrace the true Faith Therfor one may know his desire of Faith to be a true desire and not be certaine that his Faith is a true Faith and then why may he not be certaine that he hath a true desire of sorrow and yet not be certain that he hath true sorrow But to omit this Instance the truth is that you do not distinguish between an effectuall and vneffectuall desire This may be without the effect or the object of it which is the thing desired but That cannot be For when we treate of Actions which all things considered are in our power to exercise if one effectually desire them he
will not faile to haue them For an effectuall desire will moue him to apply all meanes necessary for and to remooue all impediments against that end And from hence I inferr that every one may obtaine true Contrition by the assistance of Gods Grace if his endeavours be not wanting And even these your exaggerations of the great danger men may incurre by want of Intention in the Minister or defect in the Matter or Forme of Baptisme and Pennance may moue him to procure Contrition for making all sure and so out of your poysonous Doctrine make wholsome triacle But you are mistaken if you conceyue the Question to be whether or no one may know that he hath either a desire of sorrow or sorrow which in generall one may as it were feele and know but whether his desire and sorrow be such as they ought to be supernaturall effectuall vniversall and from what cause they proceed whether from the Divine Angelicall humane or bad Spirit who not seldome transfigures himself into an Angell of light 57. The second advise you would haue vs giue concerning the Priest and his intention is to tell him that Gods Goodness which will not suffer him to damne men for not doing better than their best will supply all such defects as to humane endeavours were vnavoidable And therfor though his Priest were indeed no Priest yet to him he should be as if he were one And if he gaue Absolution without Intention yet in doing so he should hurt himself only and not his Penitent 58. Answer We haue already shewed that if one doe his best God will not faile to supply all defects concerning the Priest and his Intention by giving him Grace to attaine contrition which is a cleare and solid way of supplying the sayd defects as that which you propose is not if your meaning be that although the Priest were no Priest or gaue Absolution without Intention yet God would either make it a valid Sacrament immediatly as I may say performing by himself alone the function of the Priest or els would giue the effect which the Sacrament would haue conferred if it had bene valid without any change in the Penitent as if for example he had attrition only his sins should be forgiven no less than if he had receyved true Absolution or had arrived to an Act of Contrition Now certainly this your way could not quiet the feares of any vnderstanding man vnless you could bring some irrefragable Authority or convincing reason which is impossible for you to doe that God doth ever make valid an Absolution invalid for want of a true Minister or Intention or that a deadly sin may be forgiven by attrition alone If you suppose that God doth effectually moue him to Contrition you alter the case and your Opinion and contradict your owne words That though his Priest were indeed no Priest yet to him he should be as if he were one For if the Penitent haue contrition that false Priest is not to him as if he were one but all passes as if he had never confessed his sinnes to any such man only by change of the disposition in the Penitent himself which is the same which I haue declared and so vpon the matter your particular way of quieting such a Penitent might rather plunge him into greater feares and perplexityes 59. You goe forward and object our making the salvation of infants depend of Baptisme a casuall thing and in the power of man to conferr or not conferr and our suspending the same on the Baptizers Intention 60. Answer This Point concerning Baptisme of infants being especially in these tymes most necessary to be vnderstood I hope it will not be amisse to repeat some things of which I haue spoken before First then To deny the necessity of Baptisme for infants was the condemned Heresy of the Pelagians as appeares out of S. Austine Haere 88. and Cont Julian Pelag L 6. C. 7. which is so certaine that it is confessed by the Centurists Centur 5. Col 585. and by the Protestant Writer Sarcerius Loc Com 88. And S. Epiphan Haer 28. Condemnes Cerinthus for teaching that a man may be saved without Baptisme And Whitak Cont Duraeum L. 10 P. 883. saith we belieue and teach That sins are forgiven and grace conferred in Baptisme which the Manichees were accustomed to deny 2. Learned Protestants confesse that not only S. Austine taught the necessity of Baptisme for the salvation of Children for which Cartwright in Whitg Def chargeth him with absurdity but also in Generall that the Fathers were of the same mynd in so much as Musculus in locis Tit de Baptismo saith The Fathers deayed salvation to the children who dyed without Baptisme though their parents were faithfull In further proofe wherof we need no clearer Testimony than that of Calvin Instit Lib 4. Chap 1◠N. 20. saying It was vsuallmany Ages since even almost from the beginning of the Church that in danger of death lay people might Baptize if the Minister was not present in due tyme. And Bilson Confer at Hampton-Court affirmes the denying of private Persons in case of necessity to Baptise were to crosse all antiquity Hooker also fift Booke of Ecclesiasticall Policy Sect 62. saith expresly That the generall and full consent of the Godly learned in all Ages doth make for validity of Baptisme yea albeit administred in private and even by women and this Doctrine he himself imbraceth and defends at large which confessed sense of Antiquity declares evidently the necessity of Baptisme Besides the same man fift Booke of Ecclsiast Politicy Sect 59. speaking of that Text Joan 3.5 Vnless a man be borne againe of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdome of Heaven By which Catholikes proue the absolute necessity of Baptisme speaketh against Calvinists thus To hyde the generall consent of Antiquity agreeing in the literall interpretation they cunningly affirme that certaine haue taken those words as meant of materiall water when they know that of all the Ancient there is not one to be named that ever did otherwise either expound or alledge the place then as implying externall Baptisme 3. Not only Protestants confess that the Fathers hold Baptisme to be necessary for the salvation of infants but also divers of themselves teach the same Doctrine Bilson in his true Differen Part 4. Pag 368. concludeth from S. Austine and the Scriptures That if children be excluded from Baptisme they be likewise excluded from the kingdome of God And That without Baptisme they cannot be saved by reason Originall sin is not remitted but in Baptisme Dr. Andrewes pretended Bishop of Winchester and a great Rabbi amongst English Protestants in his Answer to the 18. Chapter of Cardinall Perrons Reply N. 18. expresly teaches that Baptisme is necessary via ordinaria Kemnitius one of the most learned Protestāts that ever wrote teaches and proves out of scripture That God doth not saue vs without meanes but by the laver of
is profanely applyed to our present case wherin it is an vnspeakable benefit to haue our liberty not taken away but moderated directed and elevated to the End of Eternall Happyness If in any case certainly in this that saying Licentia omnes sumus deteriores is most true as lamentable experience teaches in so many Heresyes and so implacable contentions of Heretikes among themselves by reason of the liberty which every one presumes to take in interpreting Holy Scripture And for avoiding so great an inconvenience and mischeife it is necessary to acknowledg some infallible Living Judg and so your Rule for Liberty being rightly applyed proves against yourself And the Church having once confessedly enjoyed infallibility I must returne against you your owne words Me thinkes in all Reason you that presume to take away Priviledges once granted by God himself for the Eternall Good of soules should produce some exprress warrant for this bold attempt especially it being a Rule Privilegia sunt amplianda chiefly when they proceed from a Soveraigne Power and are helped by that Dictate of Reason Melior est conditio possidentis And in the meane tyme you are hee who breake that Rule Ubi contrarium non manifestè probatur praesumitur pro libertate by pretending that men are obliged to submit Reason though seeming never so certaine and evident to the contents of Scripture which yet you teach not to be manifestly and certainly but only probably true Against which is your owne saying Praesumitur pro libertate vbi contrarium non manifestè probatur as it happens in your fallible and only probable Faith which cannot be manifestly proved to be true for if it could be so proved Christian Faith should be absolutely certaine and not only probable And so continually you are framing Arguments in favour of your Adversary 76. I will not here loose tyme in examining your saying Pag 101. N. 126. The Bookes of Scripture which were receyved by those that receyved fowest had as much of the Doctrine of Christianity in them as they all had which were receyved by any all the necessary parts of the Gospell being contayned in every one of the Gospells Are not the divers profitable things which are contained in some of the Gospells and omitted in others part of the Doctrine of Christianity taught by the Apostles to Christians Besides what can you vnderstand by these words Pag 101. N. 125. For ought appeares by your reasons the Church never had infallibility And yet Charity Maintayned spoke of the Church of Christ as it was before any Scripture of the new TestameÌ„t was written which Church He proved to be infallible because at that tyme there could be no other infallible Rule or Judg which is a cleare aÌ„d convincing ReasoÌ„ And so I hope it appeares by his Reasons that the Church once had infallibility 77. Sixthly You haue these words Pag 115. N. 156 Nothing can challeng our belief but what hath descended to vs from Christ by Originall and vniversall Tradition Now nothing but Scripture hath thus descended to vs. Therfore nothing but Scripture can challeng our belief Now I saie in like manner it is neither delivered in Scripture nor otherwise hath descended to vs from Christ by Originall and Vniversall Tradition that Scripture is not at this tyme joyned with some infallible Living Judg as once it was or that the Church was ever devested of that Authority and infallibility which it had or that God had provided a plaine and infallible Rule to supply the defect of a Living and infallible Guide as you say or that Scripture alone without Tradition is the Rule of Faith Therfore none of these Points can challeng our belief My saying hath bene proved hertofore and yourself confess that you do not proue out of Scripture that with the entring of it infallibility went out of the Church but contrarily that they did remayne togeather for a tyme. 78. Seaventhly I take an Argument from your owne Doctrine that Scripture is not a materiall Object of Faith or an Article which we belieue To which Maior I subsume thus But that Meanes by assenting to which alone I belieue all other Points must itself be assented to and believed for how can I believe any thing for an Authority which I do not belieue Therfore Scripture alone cannot be the Meanes by which I come to belieue all other Points And seing no other ordinary Meanes to produce Faith can be assigned besides Scripture and the Church we must inferr that the Church is the ordinary Meanes to produce Faith and decide Controversyes in Religion and consequently even according to your owne Doctrine she must be infallible Otherwise as you say of the Meanes to decide controversyes Pag 35. N. 7. We can yield vnto it but a wavering and fearfull Assent in any thing 79. Eightly You confess that the Church erring in any Fundamentall Point ceases to be a Church and seing you also profess that we cannot know what points in particular be Fundamentall you cannot know whether the Church de facto hath not fayled vnless we belieue that she is infallible and cannot fayle And yet most Protestants graâ—â— that the Church cannot fayle our Saviour having promised tha◠〈◊〉 gates of Hell shall not prevaile against Her In so much as Whitaker against Reynolds in his Answer to the Preface Pag â—3 saith 〈◊〉 belieue to the comfort of our soules that Christs Church â—â—th continued and never shall faile so long as the world endureth And we account is a sprophane Heresy to teach otherwise And Potter avoucheth that Christ hath promised the Church shall never fayle as you confesse Pag 277. N. 61. That there shall be by divine Providence preserved in the world to the worlds end such a company of Christians who hold all things precisely and indispensably necessary to salvation and nothing inevitably destructive of it This and no more the Doctour affirmes that God hath promised absolutely And yourself say Pag 106 N. 140. VVâ— yield vnto you that there shall be a Church which never erreth in some Points because as we conceyue God hath promised so much By the way if according to Whitaker it be a profane Heresy to say the Church shall fayle and that according to Potter God hath promised so much absolutly yea and that it was a most proper Heresy in the Donatists against that Article of our Creed I belieue the Catholike Church and that you also conceiue our Saviour Christ hath done so how dare you say Pag 15. N. 18. The contrary Doctrine I do at no hand belieue to be a damnable Heresy Is it not a damnble Heresy to belieue that Christ can faile of his promise Besides since these Protestants profess and you also conceaue that God hath promised the Church shall certainly be assisted so far as not to erre in Fundamentall Points I aske whether the Church can resist such an Assistance or Motion of God or no Whatsoever you answer for Protestants and yourself
so many worlds erre Were so many ages ignorant What if thou errest and drawest so many into hell to be damned eternally with thee And Tom 5. Annot breviss he sayth Dost thou who art but One and of no account take vpon thee so great matters What if thou being but one offendest If God permit such so many and all Mark all to erre why may he not permit thee to erre To this belong those Arguments the Church the Church the Fathers the Fathers the Councells the Customes the multitudes and greatnes of wise men Whom do not these Mountaines of Arguments these clouds yea these seas of examples overthrow And these thoughts wrought so deepe in his soule that he often wished and desired that he had Colloq mensall Fol 158. never begun this businesse wishing yet further that his Writings were burned and buried Praefat in Tom German Jen in eternall oblivion 15. Another Argument to proue that Protestants are Schismatiks at least for dividing themselves from one another is delivered by Charity Mamtayned Part 1. N. 38. Pag 203. For if Luther were in the right those other Protestants who invented Doctrines farr different from his and divided themselves from him must be reputed Schismatiks and the like Argument may proportionably be applyed to their further divisions and subdivisions Which reason is confirmed out of Dr. Potter Pag 20. affirming that to him and to such as are convicted in conscience of the errours of the Roman Church a reconciliation is impossible and damnable And yet he teaches as I shewe elswere that their difference from the Roman Church is not in Fundamentall poynts and therfore seing Protestants differ in Points at least not Fundamentall a reconciliation between them must be impossible and damnable Which yet may be further proved out of Potter who Pag 69. confesseth that even among Protestants the weeds thistles tares and cockle are not perfectly taken away nor every where alike Now I aske whether by reason of these weeds Ptotestants must separate from one another or no If they must there will be no end of Schismes and Divisions and what a Church or Churches are those from which one is obliged to divide himself If they must not separate from one another by reason of errours or weeds it was not lawfull for them to divide theÌ„selves from vs vnless they will returne to say that Protestants are obliged to separate both from Catholikes and from one another making eÌ„dless Schismes and Divisions not only lawfull but necessary For which Chilling worth opens a fayre way Pag 292. N. 91. in these words If the Church were obnaxious to corruption as we Protestants pretend it was who can possibly warrant vs that part of this corruption might not get in and prevaile in the 〈◊〉 or 4. or 3. or 2. age What is this but to say that in those primitiue ages for ought we know men were obliged to forsake the Communion of the vniversall visible Church 16. To these reasons we may yet add what Potter saith Pag 131 and 132. That the Donatists and Novatians were just branded for Schismatiks for opposing the Church and that it will never be proved that Protestants oppose any Declaration of the Catholike Church and therfore are vnjustly charged either with schisme or Heresy But M. Doctor I beseech you informe vs whether Luther and his followers did not oppose the doctrines and declarations of all Churches extant before them and consequently of the vniversall Church And therfore you are justly charged both with Schisme and Heresy according to your owne ground 17. Other Arguments Charity Maintayned alledges of which we shall haue occasion to treate herafter Particularly that is to be observed which N. 47 Pag 221. et seqq he proves to wit that Luther and the rest departed from the Roman Church and were Schismatiks for such their division from her Communion And because some Protestants are wont to produce certaine persons as members of their Church harity Maintayned demonstrates that the Grecians Waldenses Wickless Huss Muscovites Armenians Georgians cannot be of the same Church with Protestants and therfore that Luther and his followers opposed the doctrine and separated themselves from the Communion of all Christian Churches which cannot be done without Schisme and Heresy vnless men haue a mynd to deny that there are any such sins as Schisme and Heresy And here I must not omit that Chillingworth thought it not wisdome to answer the discourse of Charity Maintayned proving that the aforesayd people Waldenses Wickleff c were Protestants but dissembles that matter A signe that he judged those vulgar allegations of Protestants to be wholy false and impertinent 18. Now then we having proved that Potters evasions cannot cleare Protestants from Schisme we must examine what you can say whose answers being confuted this truth will remaine firme Protestants are guilty of the sin of Schisme 19. Your mayne and capitall answer consists in three propositions set downe Pag 264. And 265. N. 30 3â—.32 That not every separation but only a causelesse separation from the externall communion of any Church is the sin of Schisme That imposing vpon men vnder payne of excommunication a necessity of professing known errours and practâ—sing known corruptions is a sufficient and necessary cause of separation And that this is the cause which Protestants alledge to justify their separation from the Church of Rome That to leaue the Church and to leaue the externall communion of a Church at least as Dr. Potter vnderstands the words is not the same thing That being done by ceasing to be a member of it by ceasing to haue those requïsites which constitute a man a member of it as faith and obedience This by refusing to communicate with any Church in her liturgies and publike worship of God 20. These be his remembrances and memorandums as he calls them but indeed are conceypts borrowed out of a letter of Mr. John Hales of Eaton written to a private friend of his as I am most credibly informed by a Person well knowen to them both at that tyme and who sawe the letter itself And further affirmes of his owne certaine knowledg that Mr. Hales was of a very inconstant judgment one yeare for example doubting of or denying the Blessed Trinity the next yeare professing and adoring the same The substance of all consists in the first That only a causeless separation from the externall communion of any â—hurch is the sin of Schisme For if you aske the cause excusing from Schisme their separation from vs he will answer The Church was corrupted and it is not lawfull to communicate with any Church in her corruptions This I say is his mayne ground with which his other Momorandums must stand or fall For if either the Church cannot erre or els her errours and corruptions be not such as can yield just cause to leaue her externall communion the Prelates of Gods Church may impose vpon maÌ„ vnder paine of excommuniation a necessity to remaine in
externall communion in Sacraments Liturgy c. vpon pretence of Errours in the Faith and corruptions in the discipline of the Church and were so farr from repenting themselves of such their proceedings or admitting any votum or desire to be vnited with the Church that they held all such repentance to be a sin wherby they certainly exclude themselves from Gods Grace and Charity and so it appeares that by meere Excommunication one is not separated from the Church as a Schismatike is nor is a Schismatike first separated because he is excomunicated but is excommunicated because he is a Schismatike and had been divided from the Church though he had never been excommunicated or though the excommunication were taken away Besides as I touched already it is ridiculous to say that the Church requires as a condition of her Communion the profession of her errours in Faith and externall Communion in Sacraments Liturgy and other publike worship of God For profession of the same Faith and communion in Sacraments c. is the very thing wherin Communion consists or rather is the Communion itselfe and therfore is not an extrinsecall or accidentall condition voluntarily required by the Church or to be conceived as a thing separable from her communion and so you speake as if one should say Profession of the same Faith is a condition required for Communion in profession of the same Faith It was therfore no condition required by vs that made Protestants leaue our Communion but they first left our Communion by their Voluntary proper Act of leaving vs which essentially is incompatible with our Communion This whole matter will appeare more clearly by the next Reason 95. Fourthly Either there was just cause for your separation from the Communion of the Church or there was not If not then by your owne confession you are Schismatiks seing you define Schisme to be a causeless separation in which case the Church may justly impose vnder paine of Excommunication a necessity of your returne and then your Memorandum cannot haue place nor can excuse you from Schisme since such an imposing a necessity would vpon that supposition be both lawfull and necessary If there were just cause for your separation then you had been excused from Schisme though the Church had never imposed vnder payne of Excommunication a necessity of professing knowne errours because you say Schisme is a Causless separation and surely that separation is not causelesse for which there is just cause Wherfore your Memorandum about imposing vpon men a necessity c is both impertinent and incoherent with your first Memordium That not every separation but a causeless separation is the sin of Schisme And yet P. 282. N. 71. you say expressly It is to be observed that the chief part of our defence that you deny your Communion to all that deny or doubt of any part of your doctrine cannot with any colour be imployed against Protestants who grāt their communion to all who hold with them not all things but things necessary that is such as are in Scripture plainly delivered So still you vtter contradictions Wherfore the confessed chife part of your defense being confuted both by evident reason and out of your owne sayings it remaines that you will never be able to acquit yourselfe of Schisme 66. Fiftly How can you maintayne this your Memorandum and not giue full scope to all other Protestants who belieue not all the 39. Articles of the Church of England to be true of whom I am sure you are one to forsake her communion seing she excommunicates all whosoever shall affirme that the 39 Articles are in any parte superstitious or erroneous Is not this the very thing which you say is the cheef part of your defence for your separation from vs O Approbators Is it conforme to the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England to say Her communion may and must be forsaken And with what conscience could you Mr. Chillingworth communicate with English and other Protestants in their publike service corrupted with errours about the Trinity the Creed of S. Athā c as you belieue it is Or why could you not communicate with vs Or how will you excuse Luther who left vs 67. Yet I must not here omitt to obserue some Points First what a thing your Religion is which can so well agree and hold communion with innumerable Sects infinitly differing one from another and yet you conceiue yourselfe to be obliged to parte from vs Catholiks But so it is The false Gods of the Heathens and their Idolaters could handsomly agree amongst themselves but in no wise with the true God and his true worshippers An evident signe that the Catholique Roman Religion is only true and teaches the right worship of God and way to salvation Falshoods may stand togeather but cannot consist with truth 68. Secondly If as you tell vs things necessary be such as are in Scripture plainly deliuered points not Fundamentall of themselves become Fundamentall because they are revealed in Scripture and it is Fundamentall to the Faith of a Christian to belieue all Truths sufficiently proposed as revealed by God as Potter expressly grants Seing then Protestants differ in points which one part verily believes to be plainly delivered in Scripture and consequently in things necessary according to your assertion they cannot grant their communion to those who hold not with them in such necessary points that is in effect in all things wherin they disagree For every one judges his opinions to be plainly delivered in Scripture How then can they be excused from Schisme in their separation from vs while they hold Communion with other Protestants and thinke they may and ought to do so and that in doing otherwise they should be Schismatiks Which Argument still presses them more forcibly if we reflect that many of the most learned Protestants in divers chiefe Articles of Faith stand with vs Catholiks against their pretended Brethren and therfore they must either parte from them or not parte from vs 69. Thirdly it appeares by your express words that they who differ in Points necessary must divide from one another though neither part impose vpon the other a necessity of professing known Errours and since every one thinks his Doctrine to be necessary that is plainly dedelivered in Scripture he cannot communicate with any of a contrary Faith though they do not pretend to impose a necessity c And so your memorandum about imposing a necessity c Which you say is the chiefe part of your defense comes to nothing even by your owne grounds and therfore you haue indeed no defense at all to free yourselves from Schisme 70. Fourthly When we speake of Points of Faith not Fundamentall it is alwayes vnderstood that they be sufficiently proposed and therfore are alwayes Fundamentall per accidens and the contrary Errours certainly damnable and consequently a necessary cause of separation no lesse then Errours against Points Fundamentall of themselves and seing
were not the Apostles an aggregation of men of which every one had freewill and was subject to passions and errour if they had beene left to themselves And therfore by your Divinity it was in their power to deviate from the infallibility which the Holy Ghost did offer to them I wonder you durst publish such Groundes of Atheisme But is the Church indeed nothing else but an aggregation of men subject to paâ—sions and errour Hath she not a promise of divine assistance even according to Protestants against all Fundamentall errours which surely is more than to be nothing else than an aggregation of men subject to passions and errours even Fundamentall And as for freewill I aske whether that be taken away by the Churches infallibility in Fundamentall Points or no. If not then freewill may well consist with infallibility If it be taken away then what absurdity is it to say that it is takeÌ„ away by infallibility in Points not FudameÌ„tall In aword whatsoever you answer about infallibility and freewill in the Apostles for all Points and in the Church for Fundamentall articles the same will serue to confute your owne Objection and shew that you contradict your owne doctrine and the Doctrine of Protestants yea of all Christians who belieue the Apostles to be infallible But of this I haue spoken hertofore more than once and will now passe to the examination of your answer to the argument of Charity Maintayned that by Potters manner of interpreting those texts of Scripture which speake of the stability and infallibility of the Church and limiting it to Points Fundamentall he may affirme that the Apostles and other Writers of Canonicall Scripture were endued with infallibility only in setting downe Points Fundamentall For if it be vrged that all Scripture is divinely inspired Potter hath affoarded you a ready answer that Scripture is inspired only in those parts or parcells wherin it delivereth Fundamentall Points Of these words of Charity Maintayned you take no notice but only say that the Scripture saith All Scripture is divinely inspired Shew but as much for the Church shew where it is written that all the decrees of the Church are divinely inspired and the Controversy will be at an end But all this is not to the purpose to shew by what Law Rule Priviledge or evident Text of Scripture you take vpon you to restraine generall Promises made for the Church to Points Fundamentall and not limite those words All Scripture is divinely inspired to the same Fundamentall Points For this you neither doe nor are able to answer but dissemble that Charity Maintayned did expressly prevent your alledging this very Text All Scripture is divinely inspired Nay beside this you do not shew by what authority you do not only restraine the Praedicatum divinitus inspirata but also the subjectum togeather with the signe all All Scripture which not only may but in your doctrine must be limited in a strange manner seing you teach that some Part of Scripture is infallible neither in Fundamentall nor vnfundamentall Points For here N. 32. you endeavour to proue that S. Paul hath delivered some things as the dictates of humane Reason and prudence and not as Divine Revelation And so it will not be vniversally true for any kind of Points that All Scripture is divinely inspired How then will you proue by these words that Scripture is infallible in all Points if yourselfe limite the Subjectum of that Proposition which is Scripture to certaine Parts of Scripture and that indeed the Praedicatum divinely inspired may be limited to Fundamentall Points vpon as good ground as you limite the generall promises ef God and words of Scripture which concerne the infallibility of the Church 39. But N. 33. you will proue that Dr. Potter limits not the Apostles infallibility to truths absolutely necessary to salvation because he ascribes to the Apostles the Spirits guidance and consequently infallibility in a more high and absolute manner than to any since them and to proue this sequele you offer vs a needlesse Syllogisme But I haue shewd that the Apostles may haue infallibility in a more high absolute and independent manner than the Church although the Churches infallibility reach to Points not Fundamentall as Protestants will not deny that the Apostles had infallibility in Fundamentall Points in a more high manner than the Church hath though yet she be absolutely Infallible in all Fundamentall articles Yea if you will haue the Doctour speake properly to say the Apostles had the guidance of the Spirit in a more high manner than the Church must suppose that the Church hath that guidance and consequently as you inferr infallibility though not in so high a manner as the Apostles I intreate the Reader to peruse Charity Maintayned N. 13. and judge whether he speakes not with all reason and proves what he saith in this behalfe and if Potter declare himselfe otherwise and teach notwithstanding his owne confession that what was promised to the Apostles is verifyed also in the vniversall Church that the Church may erre in Points not Fundamentall I can only favour him and you so far as to tell you he contradicts himselfe 40. Whatsoever you say to the contrary Charity Maintayned N. 13. spoke truth in affirming that Potter Speakes very dangerously towards this purpose of limitting the Apostles infallibility to Fundamentall Points For though the Doctor name the Church when he saieth Pag 152. that there are many millions of truths in Nature and History whereof the Church is ignorant and that many truths lie vnrevealed in the infinite treasurie of Gods wisdome where with the Church is not acquainted yet his reasons either proue nothing or els must comprise the Apostles no less than the Church as Charity Maintayned expressly observes Pag 93. though I grant that some of the Doctors words agree only to the Church which is nothing against Charity Maintayned that other of Potters words and reasons agree also to the Apostles and therefore I assure you he had no designe in the c at which you carp But let the Doctour say and meane what he best pleases sure I am that neither he nor you will ever be able to proue by any evident Text of Scripture that the foresayd or other generall promises of infallibility extend to all sorts of Points for the Apostles and to Fundamentall Articles only for the Church And this is the maine businesse in hand Though in the meane tyme I must not omit to say that your Syllogisme is very captious and deceitfull which is He that grants the Church infallible in Fundamentalls and ascribes to the Apostles the infallible guidance of the Spirit in a more high and absolute manner than to any since them limits not the Apostles infallibility to Fundamentalls But Dr Potter grants to the Church such a limited infallibility and ascribes to the Apostles the Spirits infallible guidance in a more high and absolute manner Therfore he limits not the Apostles
vnderstanding or primam apprehensionem and judicium Never the less if you be setled in a resolution to defend that men being out of their right wits may belieue Contradictories I say it imports nothing for our present purpose seing I hope you will not say that the fact of such men can concerne Dr. Vsher to whom Cha Ma objected that some words of his did implie a contradiction Lastly be pleased to reflect that Aristotle speakes of express and knowen Contradictions and yourself confess that it is difficult and men ought not to belieue such and therfore this first Reason of yours proves either too much or nothing at all and so proves nothing at all because it proves too much And I wonder how you say in your N. 46. Pag 215. Though there can be no damnable Heresie vnless it contradict some necessary Truth yet there is no Contradiction but the same man may at once belieue this Heresie and this Truth because there is no Contradiction that the same man at the same tyme should belieue Contradictions Let vs suppose this to be as it is a damnable Heresie Christ is not the Saviour of the world the contradictory is Christ is the Saviour of the world which is a formall contradiction and expressed in termes to which it seeemes by these words you may assent and consequently to express contradictions which yet N. 47. you are forced to moderate But when you say There is no contradiction but the same man may at once belieue this Heresie and this Truth and add this reason or proofe because there is no contradiction that the same man at the same time should belieue contradictions you must giue me leaue to speak ād say that you vtter plaine non-sense yourself talk of some non-sense distinction in proving that one may belieue contradictions because there is no contradiction that one belieue contradictions which causall supposes that we could not belieue them if it were a contradiction to belieue them and consequently that we cannot belieue contradictions and yet in this very sentence you say There is no contradiction but the same man at the same time should belieue contradictions 24. Your second reason is delivered in these words They which belieue there is no certainty in reason must belieue that contradictions may be true For otherwise there will be certainty in this Reason This contradicts Truth therefore it is fals But there be now divers in the world who belieue there is no certainty in reason Therefore there be divers in the world who belieue contradictions may be true 25. Answer 1. Certainly if there be any certainty in Reason it is in this that contradictions cannot be true and seing you hold this not only not certainly true but to be false it is cleare that you are one of those who belieue there is no certainty in Reason and consequently you cannot be certaine even of your owne Assertion that contradictions may be true And so while you draw an Argument from those who belieue there is no certainty in Reason you depriue your owne Assertion of all certainty 2. If once you swallow that absurdity of the truth of contradictoryes when you say This Contradicts truth therefor it is fals the answer might be that it might contradict truth and yet not be fals but true because contradictions may be true And I beseech you tell vs whether you belieue that whatsoever contradicts truth is fals If you say it is not fals you speak absurdly For what is falshood but an errour against truth If you say it must be fals you overthrow your owne Doctrine that contradictions may be true because in contradictions one parte must be opposite to a truth and consequently fals 3. That conceypt that there is no certainty in Reason being fals and injurious to mankind you cannot ground on it any truth except this that it is a very fitt Principle for your absurd Conclusion that contradictoryes may be true and that if you belieue it to be true you are in apernicious errour If you hold it to be fals why do you vrge it against vs this Sceptick doctrine 4. Your Argument proves that one may assent not only to contradictories not perceived to be such but to them expressed in plaine termes because otherwise there would be certainty in this Reason These be express contradictoryes Therefore they cannot both be true Thus still your Reasons either proue nothing at all or against your self 26. Your third Reason is They which do captivate their vnderstandings to the belief of those things which to their vnderstanding seeme irreconciliable contradictions may as well belieue reall contradictions For the difficulty of believing arises not from their being repugnant but for their seeming to be so But you do captivate your vnderstandings to the belief of those things which seeme to your vnderstandings irreconciliable contradictions Therefore it is as possible and easy for you to belieue those that indeed are so 27. Answer 1. What is this but to vndermine Christian Religion wherin we submit and captivate our vnderstandings to Mysteryes which to humane reason seeme impossible and for that very cause we are taught to captivate our vnderstanding to the obedience of Christ And now you tell all Christians that by doing so they belieue Contradictions as well as if they believed reall contradictions which Jewes Turks Pagans and all men in their right wits know to be absurd and impossible and you confess to be vnreasonable and very difficult speaking of express contradictions as heere you speak of such since you expressly speak of things which to ones vnderstanding seeme irreconciliable contradictions I desire the Reader to looke vpon Chr Ma Chap. 9. concerning this matter 2. Therefor as in other Reasons so in this seing you speak of contradictions expressed in termes you contradict what yourself afterward N. 47. teach 3. The necessity that all Christians acknowledg of submitting our vnderstanding to Faith arises from this that they seeme to containe contradictions which could be no reason requiring the captivating our Reason if they did not suppose that contradictions cannot bettue and therefore this very reason which you bring to proue that men may belieue contradictions must suppose they cannot belieue them For if they could it would cost them litle to belieue that which to them seemed a contradiction 4. You say It is as possible and as easy for vs to belieue those things that indeed are reall contradictions as to belieue those things which to our vnaerstanding seeme contradictions which words suppose that it is both possible and easy for vs to belieue those things which to vs seeme contradictions and yet N. 47. you say it is very difficult for a man in his right wits to belieue express contradictions Into how many contradictions do you fall while you treate of conradictions 5. Your Argument scarcely deserves any Answer For who is ignorant that contradiction must involue two sides one affirming the other denying and therefore
your saying is not only confused but false in the opinyon of Catholique Divines and much more in your opinyon 45. You say Thomas Aquinas vainly supposeth against reason and experience that by the commission of any deadly sinne the Habit of Charity is quite extirpated But against this provd Pelagian conceypt of yours I haue proved in the Introduction that Charity being a supernaturall Habit infused only by the Holy Ghost and not acquired by any naturall Acts cannot be knowne by humane experience to be present or absent and being a loue of God aboue all things cannot possibly consist with any least deadly sinne I desire the Reader to see of this matter S. Thomas 2. 2. Q. 24. a 12. Corp where he cites S. Aug saying Quòd homo Deo sibi praesente illuminatur absente autem continuò tenebratur à quo non locorum intervallo sed voluntatis aversione disceditur 46. Concerning the second Reason of S. Thomas you say to C Ma Though you cry it vp for an Achilles and think like the Gorgons head it will turne vs all into stone and insult vpon Dr. Potter as if he durst not come neare it yet in very truth having considered it well I find it a serious graue prolix and profound nothing I could answer it in a word by telling you that it beggs without all proofe or colour of proofe the main Question between vs that the infallibility of your Church is either the formall motiue or rule or a necessary condition of Faith which you know we flatly deny and all that is built vpon it has nothing but winde for foundation 47. Answer What Reader will not conceiue out of your words that Ch. Ma. had vsed some such vaine brag as you express by Achilles Gorgons head insulting c Whereas he without any evenleast commendation saies positively that S. Thomas proves his conclusion first by a parity with Charity which is destroyed by every deadly sinne and then by a farther reason which there he setts downe at large in the words of that holy Saint 2. 2. Q. 5. A. 3. and is comprised in this Summe Ad 2. A man doth belieue all the articles of faith for one and the selfsame reason to wit for the prime verity proposed to vs in the Scripture vnderstood aright according to the Doctrine of the Church and therfore whosoever falls from this reason or motiue is totally deprived of Faith Your pride is intollerable in despising the Reason of S. Thomas as a serious graue prolix nothing and your saying is ridiculous that he beggs the main Question between vs about the infallibility of the Church For how could he begg that Question which when he wrote was granted and taught by all Divines But you do not vnderstand the force of his Argument which consists in this that if one assent to one Object for some motiue or Reason and assent not to another for which there is the same motiue or reason it appeares that he Assents to this other not for that motiue common to both but for some other particular Reason Now though S. Thomas specifie the authority of the Church because de facto she is the proposer of diviue Truths yet his argument is the same though it be applied to Scripture And therfore the same holy Doctor 1. Part. Q. 1. A. 8. Ad 2. without mentioning the Church saieth Innititur sides nostra revelationi Apostolis Prophetis factae qui Canonicos Libros scripserunt and we haue heard yourself saying Pag 23. He that doth not belieue all the vndoubted parts of the vndoubted Books of Scripture can hardly belieue any neither haue were ason to belieue he doth so Yea D. Lawd P. 344. saieth expresly We belieue all the Articles of Christian Faith for the same formall reason in all namely because they are revealed from and by God and sufficiently applied in his word an by his Churches Ministration 48. To this āswer which I haue confuted you add to vse your words a larg confutation of this vaine fancy out of Estius vpon 3. sē 23. dist § 13. But Estius is so farre from saying the Doctrine of S. Thomas to be a vain fancy that he saieth The Question is on both sides by the Doctours probably disputed Which is sufficient for our main Question that according to this Doctor the Protestants cannot pretend to be a true Church which must certainly and not only probably haue Divine supernaturall Faith which is absolutely necessary to saluation necessitate medij Besides his last express words shew that the Faith which remaines in an Heretique is not sufficient for salvation and therefore Protestants and all Heretiques even for want of necessary Faith cannot be saved His words are Neque tamen propterea fatendum erit Haereticos aut Judaeos Fidem habere sed Fidei partem aliquam Fides enim significat aliquod integrum omnibus suis partibus completum vt sit idem Fides simpliciter Fides Catholica Quae nimirum absolutè hominem fidelem Catholicum constituat Vnde Hereticus simpliciter infidelis esse Mark Fidem amisisse juxta Apostolum 1. Tim. 1. Fidei naufragium fecisse dicitur licet quaedam eâ teneat firmitate assensus promtitudine voluntatis qua ab alijs omnia quae fidei sunt tenentur Neither is the argument of S. Thomas sufficiently confuted by Estius in saying It is impertinent to Faith by what meanes we belieue the prime Uerity For although now the ordinary meanes be the Testimony and preaching of the Church yet it is certain that by other meanes faith hath bene given heretofore and is given still This discourse I say doth not confute the Argument of S. Thomas being vnderstood as I declared formally that whosoever disbelieves any article sufficiently propounded as a divine Truth the same man cannot belieue an other sufficiently propounded to him by the same meanes whatsoever that meanes be 49. To the other argument of S. Thomas taken from a parity of faith with the Habit of Charity which is lost by every deadly sinne Estius doth not answer and I am sure he would haue bene farr from saying as you doe that by the commission of any deadly sinne the habit of Charity is not quite extirpated And this Argument is stronger than perhaps appeares at the first sight For Faith hath no less connection and relation to the object of Faith than Charity to the object of Charity And therfore as Charity doth so loue God aboue all things that it cannot stand with any sinne whereby God is grievously offended so we must say of the habit of Faith that it is not compatible with any error whereby his Prime Uerity is culpably rejected and as it is essentiall to Charity as long as it exists to overcome all temptations against the Loue of God so Faith must of its owne nature beate downe and reject all errour against the Divine Testimony or Revelation that both for will and vnderstanding we may say
perswasion or opinion that our Churches doctrine is true Or if you grant it your perswasion why is it not the perswasion of men and in respect of the subjest of it an humane perswasion You desire also to know what sense there is in pretending that our perswasion is not inregard of the object only and cause of it but in nature and essence of it supernaturall 57. Answer we belieue with certainty that the Churches doctrine is true because such our belief depends vpon infallible and certaine grounds as hath bene shewed heretofore and we are certaine that every Act of Faith necessary for salvation is supernaturall in essence not by sensible experience and naturall reason on which you are still harping but by infallible principles of Faith because the particular assistance of the Holy Ghost is vniversally and in all occasions necessary for vs to belieue as I proved in the Introduction which demonstrates that the essence of Faith is supernaturall Your saying that if it be our perswasion why is it not the perswasion of men and in respect of the subject of it an humane perswasion deserves no answer Is not even the Beatificall vision in men as in the subject thereof And yet I hope you will not call it a meere humane Act and much less an humane perswasion besides our Faith being absolutely certaine cannot be called only a perswasion 58. Your N. 75. containes nothing which is not answered by former Grounds and in particular by your owne Doctrine that every culpable error against any revealed truth is damnable yea and repugnant to some fundamentall necessary Article from whence it must follow that of two dissenting in revealed Truths he who culpably erres sinnes damnably and cannot be saved without repentance Your gloss of S. Chrysostome is plainly against his words seing he speakes expresly of small errours which he saieth destroie all Faith as we haue heard the famous Protestant Sclusselburg saying of this very place of S. Chrysostome Most truly wrote Chrsiostome in 1. Galat. He corrupteth the whole Doctrin who subverteth it in the least article CHAP XVI THE ANSWER TO HIS SEAVENTH CHAPTER That Protestants are not bound by the CHARITY WHICH THEY OWE TO THEMSELUES to re-unite themselves to the ROMAN CHVRCH 1. I May well begin my Answer to this Chapter with your owne words delivered in the beginning of your answer to the preface of Ch Ma where you say If beginnings be ominous as they say they are C Ma hath cause to looke for great store of vningenuous dealing from you the very first words you speak of him vz. That the first foure Paragraphs of his seaventh Chapter are wholly spent in an vnecessary introduction vnto a truth which I presume never was nor will be by any man in his wits either denied or questioned and that is That every man in wisdome and Charity to himself is to take the safest way to his eternall Salvation being a most vnjust and immodest imputation For the first three Paragraphs of Ch Ma are employed in delivering such Doctrines as Divines esteeme necessary to be knowne and for that cause treate of them at large and I belieue if the Reader peruse those paragraphs he will Judge them not vnnecessary and which heere is chiefly considered it is very vntrue that they are spent to proue that every man in wisdom and Charity to himself is to take the safest way to his eternall Salvation which Ch Ma never affirmed and is in itself euidently false Otherwise every one were obliged in all occasions to embrace the best and not be content with that which is good to liue according to the Evangelicall Counsells and not judg the keeping of the commandements to be sufficiēt for salvation which were to turne all Counsells or things not of obligation in themselves to commands and could produce only scruples perplexities and perhaps might end in despaire What then did Ch Ma teach He having N. 3. declared at large two kinds of things necessary to salvation necessitate tantum praecepti or also necessitate medij delivers these words N. 4. Out of the foresaid difference followeth an other that generally speaking in things necessary only because they are commanded it is sufficient for avoiding sinne that we procede prudently and by the conduct of some probable opinion maturely weighed and approved by men of vertue learning and wisdom Neither are we alwaies obliged to follow the most strict and severe or secure part as long as the Doctrine which we imbrace proceeds vpon such reasons as may warrant it to be truly probable and prudent though the contrary part want not also probable grounds For in humane affaires and discourse evidence and certainty cannot be alwaies expected But when we treate not precisely of avoyding sin but moreover of procuring some thing without which I cannot be saved I am obliged by the Law and Order of Charity to procure as great certainty as morally I am able and am not to follow every probâble opinion or dictamen but tutiorem partem the safer part because if my probabilitie proue falc I shall not probably but certainly come short of salvation Nay in such case I shall incurre a new sinne against the vertue of Charity to wards myself which obligeth every one not to expose his soule to the hazard of eternall perdition when it is in his power with the assisstance of Gods Grace to make the matter sure Thus saied Ch Ma which may be confirmed out of S. Austine Lib. 1. de Baptismo Cap. 3. graviter peccaret in rebus ad salutem animae pertinentibus vel eo solo quod certis in certa praeponeret He speakes of Baptisme which the world knowes he held to be necessary to salvation And what say you now Is this to say vniversally that every one is obliged to take the safest way to his salvation Is it not to say the direct contrary that not in all kinds of things one is bound to take the safest parte as shall be further explicated hereafter 2. I desire the Reader so see what Ch Ma saieth N. 7.8.9.10 11. and he will find you could not answer so briefly as N. 3. you pretend you could doe For I haue proved that by your owne confession we erre not fundamentally and you grant that Protestants erre damnably which we deny of Catholiques therfore we are more safe thā you seing both of vs consent that you erre damnably and we absolutely denie that we doe so 3. I was glad to heare you confess perforce N. 2. that in the Arguments which Ch Ma delivers N. 12. there is something that has some probability to perswade some Protestants to forsake some of their opinions or others to leaue their commumion For this is to grant that according to a probable and consequently a prudent opinion some Protestants your pretended Brethren are Heretiques and that the rest sinne grievously in not forsaking the communion of those other which vpon the matter is to yeald that all
glory of God in the face of Christ Iesus Galat. 5.22.23 The fruit of the spirit is Faith Ephes 1.16.17.18 I cease not to giue thankes for you making a memory of you in my prayers That God of our Lord Iesus Christ the Father of glory giue you the spirit of wisdom and of reuelation in the knowledg of him the eyes of your hart illuminated that you may know what the hope is of his vocation and what are the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the Saints Ephes 2.8 For by Grace you are saued with Faith and that not of yourselves for it is the gist of God Ephes 6.23 Peace to the Brethren and charity with faith from God the father and our Lord Iesus Christ Philipp 1.29 To you it is giuen for Christ not only that you belieue in him but also that you suffer for him Colos 1.2 Giuing thanks to God the Father who hath made vs worthy vnto the part of the lot of the Saints in the light 2. Pet. 1.21 The holy men of God spake inspired with the Holy Ghost XX More Texts of Scripture might be alledged but it is needles since euē all Sectaryes except Pelagius and such as follow him belieue Grace to be necessary for faith and in particular D. Potter to whom Chilling is in this mayne poynt directly opposit as is euident by these his expresse words Pag. 135. Faith is sayd to be diuine and supernaturall in regard of the author or efficient cause of the act and habit of diuine faith which is the speciall grace of God preparing enabling and assisting the soule to belieue For faith is the gist of God alone 1. Cor. 12.34 2. In regard of the object or things belieued which are aboue Philipp 1.29 the reach and comprehēsion of meere nature and reason Philip. 1.29 Thus D. Potter and adds that of these two respects there is no controuersie he meanes betweene Catholiques and Protestāts For by the euēt it is cleare that there is a controuersy betweene him and the Socinians and in particular with Chilling worth his champion But necessity hath no law Charity Maintayned could not with any shew be answered in the grounds of Protestants who therfor chose rather to destroy their owne grounds and the doctrine of all good Christians then to confesse the truth of our Catholik faith though conuicted by euident reasons Besides Pag. 140. D. Potter sayth Humane authority consent and proofe may produce an humane or acquired faith but the assent of diuine faith is absolutly diuine in which words he distinguisheth acquired faith from diuine and consequently holds that this is not acquired but infused Pag. 141. That Scripture is of diuine authority the belieuer sees by many internall arguments found in the letter it selfe though found by the helpe and direction of the Church without and of grace within Mark how besides the externall proposition of the object by the Church he requires internall grace Pag. 142. There is in the Scripture it selfe light sufficient which the eye of reason cleared by grace and assisted by the many motiues which the Church vseth for enforcing of her instructions may discouer to be diuine descended from the father and fountain of light Pag. 143. he teaches that by the ministery of the church in preaching and expounding the Holy Ghost begets a diuine faith in vs. And in the same place he tearmeth the act of faith supernaturall as also we haue heard him tearme it so pag. 135. and it is a plaine contradiction that it should be supernaturall or aboue nature and yet be produced by the forces of nature which were to make it aboue and not aboue nature XXI By the way it is to be noted that D. Potter deliuers a very vntrue doctrine in saying in this pag. 135. that the efficient cause of the act and habit of diuine faith is the speciall grace of God For the speciall actuall grace of God is not the efficient cause of the habit of our faith which is infused by God alone as our naturall acts of vnderstanding or willing do not produce the Powers of our vnderstanding or will and supernaturall Habits of Faith Hope c. are giuen vs not to facilitate but to enable vs to exercise Acts of Faith Hope c For which cause they are compared to supernaturall Acts as the naturall faculties or Powers of our soule are compared to their naturall Acts which they produce and are not produced by them I omit his vnproper speach that the speciall grace of God is the author of an act of faith SECTION III. The necessity of Grace to Hope as vve ought for saluation XXII IF Grace be necessary for euery worke of Christian Pietie and in particular for faith as we haue proued it will be needles to stand long vpon prouing that it is necessary for hoping which is a work of Pietie proceeding from a Theologicall Vertue to which Faith is referrd and of which mortall men considering the sublimity of eternall Happynes and guiltynes of their owne meanes frailty and sinnes stand in need for raising vp their soules towards so supernaturall an Object and preseruing them from dejection pusilanimity and despaire yet we will not omit to alledge some particular Texts of Scripture in proofe of this Truth Rom 5.2 By whom Christ we haue access through Faith into this Grace wherin we stand and glorie in the hope of the glorie of the sonnes of God Where it is cleare that the Apostle placeth hope amongst the gifts of the children of God which we receaue by Christ Chap. 15. V. 4.5 That by the patience and consolation of the Scriptures we may haue hope and the God of patience giue you to be of one mynd Which words declare that God is the author of those gifts 1. Cor. 13.13 And now there remayne Faith Hope Charity Where it appeares that these three Vertues are specially numbred togeather as belonging to the same rank and order Psalm 18.49 Be myndefull of thy word to thy seruant wherin thou hast giuen me hope Thessa◠5.8 But we that are of the day are sober hauing on the brest plate of faith and charity and a helmet the hope of saluation Where wee see the apostle ioynes Hope with Faith and Charity and V. 9.10 declares that it is given for Christ and is ordaynd and conduces to a supernaturall end saying for God hath not appointed vs vnto wrath but vnto the purchasing of saluation by our Lord Iesus Christ who died for vs. 1. Pet. 3.4.5 Blessed be God and the Father of our Lord Iesus Christ who according to his great mercie hath regenerated vs vnto a liuely hope by the resurrection of Iesus Christ from the dead vnto an inheritance incorruptible and incontaminate and that cannot fade conserued in the heauens in you who in the vertue of God are kept by faith vnto saluation SECTION IV. Grace necessary for Charity XXIII IF Grace be necessary for faith and hope much more is it necessary for
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
N. 154. I hope you will giue vs leaue to consider whether the motiues to your Church be not impeached and opposed with compulsiues and enforcements from it so others will say of the Motiues to Christian Religion that they are impeached with contrary compulsiues from it besides the sublimity of the Misteryes themselues aboue humane Reason which is apt to doubt of whatsoever it doth not ynderstand as we feare not only bad but also vnknowne pathes and as to our eye the clearest skye if it be almost beyond our kenning seemes to be a kind of darkness Thus then the probability of Chillingworths faith being brought downe frō the highest pretended degree of probability becomes compatible with good and great probability of the contrary side as heate and cold if neither of them be in the most intense degree may stand togeather and consequently the vnderstanding may conceyue not only a possibility but a probability also and a feare that the Christian Religion is false For auoiding which wicked sequele there is no other remedy except to acknowledg Faith to be an Assent certaine and infallible aboue all probability of humane Motiues or arguments of Credibility 19. And in this occasion we may obserue that the examples vsually alleadged to proue that we can no more doubt of the Conclusion drawne from the Arguments of Credibility than a man doubts whether such an one be his father and the like doe not vrge but rather may be retorted For in such cases it is supposed that there are many good reasons for one side for example that such a man is father to such a child c. and none to the contrary But it happeneth otherwise in our case there being many and hards objections obuious to humane reason against the Mysteryes of Faith which may diminish that degree of assent which otherwise might be grounded vpon the Arguments of Credibility if they were considered alone as one could not belieue such a man to be his father if he had some very probable proofes for the contrary with the same firme perswasion as he would doe in case no such proofes did offer themselues and so as I sayd this and the like Arguments and examples may be retorted againist those who bring them and still we must conclude that we cannot belieue Christian Religion as we ought without an absolute certaine ād jnfallible Assent which will more appeare by the Reason following 20. These very Motiues of Credibility manuduce and send vs vp to an Authority which is able to transfuse greater perfection to our Assent than they themselues can giue Because they tell vs of Objects to be belieued for Diuine Reuelation and so proclaime themselves to be only Dispositions and Preparations which being supposed God affords his particular Grace for producing an Act proportionable to his Diuine Testimony as with some proportion by hearing or reading spirituall things the species are excited and God by that occasion giues inspiration for Faith Hope Charity c. aboue the naturall power of the externall words and as Experimentall knowledg by sense is a Disposition to Scientificall knowledg which yet takes not its nature essence and perfection from the senses 21. From hence it followes that men are obliged to belieue Christian Religion not in what manner soeuer but as a Doctrine deliuered and reuealed by God and therfor to be embraced aboue all that is aboue all contrary objects or objections and not to be altered vpon any occasion supposition or authority of men or Angels as S. Paule teaches vs by an impossible supposition to express the matter home Galat 1.8 Although we or an Angel from Heauen euangelize to you beside that which we haue euangelized to you be he anathema This admonition or denuntiation of S. Paule must needs suppose Christian Faith to be aboue all probability For it is euidently against reason to joyne togeather these two judgments or Assertions This doctrine is only probable and grounded only in probable and credible Arguments and yet That it is reasonable or necessary òr euen possible to assent to it in such manner as neuer to belieue the contrary though reasons seeming vpon the best examination a man can make better than the former should offer themselues against it seing it is certaine that he cannot be certaine that better reasons cannot possibly be offered For if he be certaine that better reasons for the contrary are not possible his assent is not probable but certaine Therfor since we are not to forsake Christian Religion for whatsoeuer possible motiue or Reason or Authority of Men or Angels we must giue it absolute certainty and not only probability 22. And because this kind of Argument is of greater moment than perhaps appeares at first sight I will dilate it by saying further that according to his Assertion about the probability of faith no Christian yea no man can be setled in any Religion since he must be ready to chang whensoeuer better reasons shal be presented against it neither can he be certaine that he may not sooner or later fynd some such reason For a faith only probable is a perpetuall Temptation to it selfe and we may truly say Accedens tentator dicit in the present Tense seing Probability doth not exclude some feare that the contrary may be true Nay euery consideration about Faith to such men as Chill who loue to be esteemed considering and discoursing men is more than a Temptation it is a yeelding or consent against Faith inuoluing this judgment Perhaps that which I belieue is false and the contrary true 23. Yea this vast absurdity doth not only flow from this doctrine but it is in effect acknowledged by him in express words Pag. 380. N. 72. Where he deeply taxes all Catholiques because they eyther out of idleness refuse the trouble of a scuere tryall of their Religion or out of superstition feare the euent of such a triall that they may be scrupled and staggered and disquieted by it and therfor for the most part doe it not at all or if they doe it they doe it without indifference without liberty of judgment without a resolution to leaue it if it proue apparentily false My owne experience assures me that in this imputation I doe you Catholiques no injury but it is very apparent to all men from your ranking doubting of any part of your Doctrine among mortall sinnes For from hence it followes that seing euery man must resolue he will neuer commit mortall sinne that he must neuer examine the grounds of it at all for stare he should be moued to doubt or if he doe he must resolue that no motiues be they neuer so strong shall moue him to doubt but that with his will and resolution he will vphold himselfe in affirme belief of your religion Doth not it appeare by these words that he must haue no such resolution as he reprehends in vs but must be ready to doubt or to leaue his and all Christian Religion And Pag. 326.
still goes vpon that ground that there are no Degrees of perfection in Faith which I haue demonstrated to be euidently false and that all Faith is of the same kind but not of the same Degree besides that it hath the imperfection of obseurity and for that cause doth not so conuince the vnderstanding but that it may be resisted and the contrary belieued And therfor you cannot inferr vpon equality of faith in all true Belieuers that our victory of the world must be equally perfect in all 60. Thirdly if you had cited the testimony of S. Iohn as you ought the weakness and impertinency of your Argument would haue clearly appeared His words are 1. Ioan 5. V. 3.4.5 This is the Charity of God that yee keepe his commandements and his commandements are not heauy Because all that is borne of God ouercomes the world and this is the victory that ouercomes the world our faith Who is it that ouercomes the world but he that belieues that Iesus is the son of God Where it is cleare that S. Iohn speakes of faith with Charity which is called by Diuines Fides formata faith informed with Charity by which we keepe the commamdements as he sayth V. 3. This is the Charity of God that yee keepe his commandements And V. 4. All that is borne of God ouercomes the world Now we are borne or regenerated to a new life or Being by justifying Grace and the Gifts which are giuen with it of Faith Hope and Charity and therfor he adds This is the victory which ouercomes the world our faith that is such a faith as the Regenerate or they who receyue a new life haue or a liuing faith working by Charity 61. Fourthly according to this true sense your Objection is wholy impertinent as speaking of a naked faith taken alone as it goes before Charity as like wise it doth not proue that such a naked faith doth necessarily bring with it Charity and so is the victory ouer the world For what consequence is it to say Faith as informed with Charity cannot be without Charity or is the victory ouer the world Therfor Faith taken by it selfe and considered only according to its owne nature and essence and abstracting from Charity is inseparable from Charity and the victory ouer the world An Argument no better than this The Body with the soule liues and makes a man Therfor the Body of it selfe liues and makes a man which is directly against S. Iames C. 2. V. 26. saying Euen as the body without the spirit is dead so also faith without workes is dead This appeares also by what S. Iohn sayth V. 5. Who is he that ouercometh the world but he that belieueth that Iesus is the son of God Which must be vnderstood of him who so belieues in our Sauiour as that he loues him and keepes his commādements For meerly to belieue Christ is the son of God is but that Faith which Protestants call Historicall and unanimously teach that it doth not justify nor is inseparable from Charity nor is the victory ouer the world And therfor interpreters vnderstand this Text of a liuing Faith or joyned with Charity And so this place makes against you and proues that Faith of it selfe though neuer so infallible is not the victory ouer the world But the weakness of this mans Socinian probable Faith forces him to reele from faith to faith From Historicall to Faith of working Miracles From justifying faith to Historicall From both to a No-faith that is to a faith so weake that by it a man may belieue Christian Faith not to be true as we noted against you by occasion of the text of S. Paule about receyuing him who is Weake in faith 62. Fistly the whole force of your Argument must rely vpon the truth of this Proposition Whatsoeuer the vnderstanding proposes to the will with absolute certainty as a thing to be done the will cannot but follow the prescript of the vnderstanding and therfor if Christian Faith be infallible certaine our will must embrace what it proposes and so ouercome the world and sinne and be perfect in Charity which Principle to be palpably false is euident by Reason Experience Faith and by the Doctrine of all Protestants at least for as much as concernes that kind of Faith wherof we speake that is Historicall Faith Reason dictates that notwithstanding the certainty of Faith the vnderstanding may propose profitable and delightfull objects For these thinges haue no repugnance but do consist togeather It is certaine that this object is honest and that the same object is vnpleasant repugnant to sence honour profit c and therfore the will placed betweene these different motiues the vnderstanding which proposeth them all hath no power to necessitate the will to any of them it being represented with as great certainty that such an object is difficult vnpleasant or vnprofitable as it appeares honest and Vertuous Neither doth certainty in the vnderstanding necessitate vs more to embrace it as honest than the like certainty doth necessitate vs to fly from it as vnpleasant especially considering that Faith is obscure and alluring objects are cleare euen to sense Faith respects things to come or els aboue the reach of our vnderstanding humane objections and objects are of things present or not farr of Befides if certainty did impose a necessity it must follow that at the same tyme we must effectually embrace the same object as honest and fly from it as vnpleasant which is impossible We must therfor say that it remaynes in the will to determine it selfe to which part it pleaseth hauing sufficient direction from the vnderstanding for either side Sinnes were wont to be diuided into sinnes of Ignorance and of Knowledg that is committed by Ignorance or with knowledge but now if certaine knowledg of good necessitate our will to embrace it no sinne can consist with certaine Knowledg of good and so all sinnes are sinnes of ignorāce and that old distinction of Philosophers and Diuines must be corrected by this your new Philosophy and Diuinity 63. As for Experience who knowes not or rather who teeles not that vulgar saying Video meliora proboque Deteriora sequor I see that which is better and like it well but follow that which is worse 64. Lastly Faith teaches that we are indued with Free-will which may embrace or reject what is proposed by the vnderstanding Wherin all Protestants for our present purpose agree with Catholikes both in regard that they yeald Freedom of will to Angels and Adam before their fall who yet belieued by an infallible assent that there was a God and other mysteryes reuealed to them as also because they profess that Historicall Faith and of that Faith we speake doth not justify nor infallibly bring with it Charity Therfor it doth not necessitate our will Yea euen those Protestants who deny Free-will hold not that the will is necessitated by the Act of Faith which directs but by the effectuall
or liuing as we ought is the cause of faith and as faith is the cause of Charity to which all being obliged they are by consequence obliged to procure the cause therof which you say is faith Wherfor vpon the whole matter your probable faith remaines only to such as keepe not the Commandements nor liue as they belieue which if they did God would rayse them higher to a certainty For thus you say Pag 37. N. 9. God will accept of the weakest and lowest degree of faith if it be truing and effectuall to true obedience and rhat for sincere obedience God may and will rayse men higher to a Certainty Therfor a primo ad vltimum the weakest Faith if it be effectuall to obedience will bring men to certainty Therfore none de facto want such a certainty except they whose faith is not liuing nor effectuall to obedience And further seing you confess yours not to be certaine it must follow that it is not effectuall to true obedience otherwise it would be improued to a Certainty 73. But this is not all that occurrs to be sayd in this poynt Remember your doctrine Pag 379. N. 70. and elswhere that repentance necessary to saluation requires effectuall dereliction and mortification of all viâ—es and the effectuall practise of all Christian vâ—rtues which whosoever performes exercises very perfect obedience and shall not fayle of being raysed higher to a Certainty of faith Therfor your fallible faith will remaine only in sinners For if one either giue himselfe to sincere obedience and so fall not into great sinne or truly repent by your kind of repentance he must passe to a certainty of Faith and so all in state of saluation both Saints that is who haue not sinned mortally and repentant sinners cannot want the spirit of Obsignation as you call it and certaine Faith Why then do you deceiue the world and delude poore soules with a fallible faith or perswasion and not absolutely proclaime to the world that infallible Faith is necessary since euen according to your grounds it is necessary for all sorts of people 74. Now all your Objections and my Answers being vnpartially considered let any man judge whether your Arguments deserue such epithetons as you giue them of demonstratiue conuincing inuincible cleare and the like and what reason you had to say P. 326. N. 4. These you see are strang and portentuous consequences and yet the deduction of them from your doctrine is cleare and apparent which shewes this doctrine of yours which you would fame haue true that there might be some necessity of your Churches infallibility to be indeed plainly repugnant not only to Truth but euen to all Religion and Piety sit for nothing but to make men negligent of making any progress in faith or Charity And therfor I must intreat and adjure you either to discouer vnto me which I take God to witness I cannot perceaue some fallacy in my reasons against it or neuer herafter to open your mouth in defence of it 75. I answer S. Paule had good reason to say Scientia inflat 1. Cor 8.1 Knowledg puffeth vp it is a poysonous quality making the person swell his Arguments and all that he does or sayes swell and emptyness appeare greatness it is a multiplying glasse that stirrs vp in mens fancyes strang and huge apparitions from nothing But Sir remeber that your ObjectioÌ„s make no more against Vs Catholikes than PictestaÌ„ts who profess ChristiaÌ„ Religion to be infallible and I belieue will not belieue your bare word that these consequences are cleare Christian Historicall Faith is infallibly true Therfor it must be lost by any least doubting though resisted that is by a no-doubt as I haue shewed it must be incompatible with any deliberate sinne it must bring with it Charity so perfect that we can make no progress therin For my part I do in no wise vnderstand such deductions nor how any man of vnderstanding should take them for good as I haue shewed more than sufficiently though yet I must add that though the consequences which you pretend to deduce from our doctrine be strange and portentuous in themselues yet to you they ought not to seeme so or at least ought not to be publikly avouched by you for such For besides that the very same consequences which you deduce from our doctrine follow from your owne assertions as I haue proued answer I beseech you these few Demands 1. Whether it be more convenient that true Diuine Faith should be inconsistent with an involuntary Doubt which you inferr against vs as a great absurdity or that it should be compatible with a voluntary sinfull damnable not only Doubt but positiue assertive Errour as you teach Pag. 368. N. 49. and call the contrary doctrine a vaine and groundless fancy as I observed aboue or that it may stand with an assent that probably it may be false or with a preparation of mynd to forsake it if seeming better reasons offer themselves against it thaÌ„ you conceive your selfe to haue for it which for ought you know may happen as I shewed above 2. Whether it be worse that all should of necessity be perfect in charity by an Infallible Faith or that none can be perfect as it ineuitably followes out of your Tenets put togeather That Faith is only probable and fallible and yet that the measure of our victory over the world and of our charity must be taken from Faith which you say is the cause of charity and the effect cannot be more perfect than the cause Besides your brethren the Calvinists believe that men are justifyed by a sirme and certaine Faith that they are just and that charity and good works are inseparable from such a Faith and then seing according to your owne words if the cause be perfect the effect must be perfect and that the cause of charity is in their opinion perfect that is a sirme and certaine Faith it followes that their charity must of necessity be perfect and that no just man can make any progress therin 3. Whether it be more absurd to hold an impossibility of committing any deliberate sinne or to belieue that all our best actions are deadly sinnes Or whether it be worse to teach that one cannot breake the commandements which you against all truth impute to vs Or that he cannot keepe them euen with the assistance of Gods grace which is the common doctrine of Protestants Thus then it is not our doctrine but the errours of you and your brethren that must in many respects make men negligent of making any progress in Faith or charity And what a Paradoxe is this A weake and fallible Faith makes men diligent in making Progress in charity and a strong infallible Faith is fit for nothing but to make men negligent of making any progress in Faith or Charity as yon are pleased strangly to speake directly against the admonition of S. Peter 1. Pet 5. cui resistite fortes in Fide whom
resist strong in Faith Not weake in Faith as he should haue spoken according to your portentuous Divinity Morover since you object against vs that if Faith be infallible men cannot increase in charity and yet yourselfe Pag. 36. N 9. Teach that the spirit of God being implored by devout and humble prayer and sincere obedience may and will by degrees advance his servants higher and give them a certainty of adherence beyond their certainty of evidence and make them know what they did but believe Which certainty according to your Objection against vs must be cause that they cannot increase in charity what will follow but that men will be not only careless but fearfull to pray to be obedieÌ„t and exercise acts of charity least by degrees they be advanced to a certainty of knowledg and losse of freewill and a period in charity and be as it were settled in termino while they are in via or without possibility to grow better by any endeavour of their owne or exhortations or others And thus their obedience and charity being cause of such a certainty in Faith and this certainty hindring all progress in charity we must inferr a primo ad vltimum that charity is most prejudiciall and pernicious to charity itselfe These are the fruites of your Doctrine and consequences of your Objections against vs. 76. Object 5. To prove that Faith cannot be certaine if it be obscure you spend many words Pag. 329. N. 7. but bring no reason besides a meere resolute assirmation that it is so And Pag 330 N 7. you say Looke what degree of assent is infused into the vnderstanding at least the same degree of evidence must be infused into the object And for you to require a strength of credit beyond the appearance of the objectes credibility is all one as if you should require me to goe ten myles an houre vpon a horse that will goe but five to discerne a man certainty through a mist or cloud that makes him not certainly discernable to heare a sound more clearly than it is andible to vnderstand a thing more fully than it is intelligibâ—e and be that doth so I may well expect that his next injunction will be that I must see somthing that is invisible heare somthing mandible vnderstand something that is â—holly vnintelligible And That I should believe the truth of any thing the truth wherof cannot be made evident with an evidence proportionable to the degree of Faith requirea of me this I say far any man to be bound to is vnjust and vnreasonable because to doe it is impossible And N. 8. I deny that it is required of vs to be certaine in the highest degree infallibly certaine of the truth of the things which we believe for this were to know and not believe neither is it tessible vnless our evidence of it be it naturall or supernaturall were of the highest degree And Pag. 371 N. 51. The evidence of the thing assented to be it more or lesie is the reason and cause of the assent in the vnderstanding Heere you see what he affirmes without so much as offering to giue any reason or proofe And therfor 77. I Answer as you object by meerly affirming so I might answer by simply denying But I will alledge a proofe aboue all exception which is your owne doctrine delivered more thaÌ„ once Pag 36. 37. N. 9. The spirit of God may and will advance his servants higher and giue them a certainty of adherence beyond their certainty of evidence And P. 112 N. 154. Gods spirit if he please may worke more a certainty of adherence beyond a certainty of euidence Behold a certainty of adherence beyond the certainty of evidence And Pag. 37. N. 9. To those that believe and liue according to their Faith God gives by degrees the spirit of obsignation and confirmation which makes them know though how they know not what they did but belieue If these men know though how they know not why do you impugne divine Faith which is the Gift of Gods Spirit and all good Christians believe and in a manner feele to be infallible because you do not vnderstand or know the how or manner therof Why do you not say I believe infallibly and though I know not how yet it is sufficient that I know my Faith is from God who by his particular Grace can doe more than I can comprehend Why are you not as reasonable to the old infallible Faith taught and believed by all Christians as you are to your new proselytes who you say will be advanced to a certainty above evidence And wheras you say that this were to require you to goe ten miles vpon a horse that will goe but sive to heare a sound more clearly then it is audible to vnderstand a thing more fully than it is intelligible in stead of proving you do but begg the question and suppose that nothing is certainly intelligible or credible vnless it be evident which is the very poynt controverted and we affirme that our vnderstanding may in this sense go ten miles though in darke may intellectually heare a found which is audible and vnderstand a thing intelligible though not evident And in this manner your selfe must say and answer for those who you believe may attaine a certainty beyond euidence and yet you will not yield that they vnderstand a thing more fully than it is intelligible And then you must retract what you sayd that to believe a thing the truth wherof cannot be made evident with an evidence proportionable to the degree of Faith required of me is vnjust because to do it is impossible S. Paule defines Faith to be Argumentum non apparentium an Argument of things which appeare not Therfor thinges not evident must be believed and to say that they cannot be believed with certainty though they do not appeare with evidence is injurious to Gods Power as if he could not by his speciall supernaturall Grace and motion which is required to every Act of Faith supply the want of evidence Neither can there be shewed any such essentiall conjunction betweene evidence and certainty that this may not consist without that There may at first sight appeare some shew of repugnance betweene evidence and obscurity certainty which seemes to exclude all possibility of feare that the contrary be true and probability which of it selfe excludes not such feare and yet your selfe say pag 25. N. 29. whether knowledg and Opinion touching the same thinge may stand together is made a Question in the schooles and it is very commonly held that they may stand togeather in the same vnderstanding neither are there wanting very learned men who thinke they may be consistent in the same Act. If then evidence and obscurity certainty and probability may stand togeather what ground can you bring to prove an incompatibility between Certainty and Obscurity which carry no shew of repugnance in any kind of those Oppositions which Logicians haue set downe
and the Beatude which it propose a Fiction and Nothing 114. Wheras you say who sees not that many millyons in the world forgoe many tymes their present ease and pleasure vndergoe great and toylesome labours c vpon a probable hope of some future gaine and commodity I answer as aboue that such gaines are of the same kind with the labours and paynes I meane they are all naturall thinges and neither aboue the forces of our vnderstanding to apprehended nor of our will to desire and embrace but connaturall and in continuall vse amongst men who haue not much difficulty to doe what they see done by others and done by instinct and command of nature For if we sift into the roote of such toyles labours and adventures as you speake of we shall find it to be that innate and inbred desire which every creature hath to conserue it selfe in Being actuated by such meanes and industryes as it is best able to lay hold on If to forgoe ease and pleasure and vndergoe great and toylesome labours and adventure vpon great dangers be apprehended necessary for the sayd end it is no wonder if they be embraced as less evills which is no more than we see in irrationall creatures And to affirme that it is as easy to keepe the Commandements and obey the Gospell of Christ our Lord as to performe Actions proceeding from the common instinct of Nature is most injurious to the Grace and Merits of our Blessed Saviour And yet even in this your Objection vpon due reflection makes for vs against yourself because the common instinct of Nature to preserue it selfe is a thing Certaine and invariable proceeding from God the Author of nature and is the ground of that most reasonable and certaine Axiome that it is lawfull to resist force with force In which Respect he is not guilty of murther who did no more thā was necessary for his owne defēse according to which consideration your Argument proves that Faith necessary for all Christians and which is the Roote of all Piety Iustice and Salvation must be constant certaine and invariable as is the common Instinct of nature or Roote of all endeavours of creatures to preserue their being 115. I hope your Objection is fully answered by the former considerations Now I must aske with what ingenuity can you say of your Adversary He that requires to true Faith an absolute certainty for this only Reason because any less degree could not be able to overcome our will c. Since he sayes no such thing as that that was the only Reason which might be given to proue the sayd Truth for he gaue that only incidently not excluding others and you see I haue given many more and amongst the rest that there is an obligation to belieue with an infallible supernaturall Assent abstracting from any relation to good works or victory ouer our will and affections And therfore that only is only your owne fiction 116. I need not answer your examples of believing there is such a Citty as Constantinople of giving credit to Caesars Commentaries or Salusts History which beside the impiety are impertinent since I haue proued that true Divine Faith being of a higher ranke is infallible supernaturall and not producible but by Gods Speciall Grace which Epithetons do not agree to the sayd Examples to omitt other Reasons alleadged hertofore In the meane tyme what a miserable thing do you make the Faith of Christians in being less strong and effectuall thā the belief of prophane storyes Wheras if the necessity of an infallible Faith be once believed men will seeke it and by degrees of Obedience shall by sure to fynd it even according to your owne Assertions 117. Lastly I will add That although it were supposed but in no wise granted that some particular person in some extraordinary circumstances might performe by a probable faith all that of which you haue preached yet since that would be but a rare and extraordinary Case and that the generality of mankind would perish for want of an infallible stedfast Faith it were injurious to Gods infinite Providence to imagine that he gives not to the generality of men Grace sufficient for such a Belief And this being once supposed I say further that I must de facto take away the supposition which I made and affirme that sufficient Grace being denyed to none and every one being obliged to choose the safer part in matters of this nature the Conclusion must be◠that every one is obliged vnder payne of damnation to belieue the Articles of Christian Religion with an infallible certaine Faith 118. Which having been proved by Scripture Fathers the consent of all who belieue any Religion to be true the express confession of D. Potter the doctrine of other Protestants the absurdityes and pernicious consequences of the contrary Heresy the necessity of loosinge all Faith and Religion if Faith be not infallible the nature of Divine Christian Faith the Obedience it implyes the necessity of Gods speciall Grace to produce it the captivating of our vnderstanding vnto it the manifest insufficiency of his Arguments against it the turning his owne Objections and Reasons against himself his frequent and in a manner continuall contradictions his multiplyed changes of Religion caused by this his Doctrine the infallibility of Faith I say having bene proved by these and other convincing Reasons the next Demand will be what meanes Rule or judge our Blessed Saviour hath left vs on which this infallibility of Faith must be grounded And because Protestants pretend to agree in no point more than that Scripture alone is the sole Rule of Faith as containing evidently all thinges necessary to be believed the next Chapter shall be imployed in confutation of that assertion that so by degrees we may come to what indeed is that Authority vpon which Christian Faith must rely in order to vs. CHAP. II. ALL THINGS NECESSARY to be believed ARE NOT IN PARTICVLAR Evidently contayned in Scripture alone 1. IN no one Doctrine Protestants would seeme more vnanimously to agree than in this That all things necessary to salvation are contayned evidently in Scripture And yet it is certaine that they proue no poynt more slenderly nor declare more confusedly than this which they hold as the only foundation of the whole structure of their Faith and Religion For proofe of this my Assertion we need only put them to their proofes and desire them to state the Question aright which being done I dare confidently avouch that no judicious Reader will not instantly discover the impossibility of proving all things necessary to be contayned evidently in Scripture taken alone This will appeare by explicating two capitall words as I may terme them of my Title and their Tenet Necessary and Evident 2. For the performing wherof we are to take as a thing granted by all who pretend to the name of Christian that our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ purchased by the effusion of his sacred
Apostle admonish vs 2. Pet 1.10 to labour the more that by good works you may make sure your vocation And what is this but to diminish in vs even the feare of Hell and increase our hope of Heaven For the greater confidence we haue to be saved the less feare we conceyue of being damned Doth not S. John say Ep 1. Cap 4. V. 18. Charity casteth out feare 3. Againe it is to be wondered that any Protestant can object to vs the Doctrine of Indulgences as overlarge and taking away the feare of Purgatory and so at an easy rate redeeming the temporall punishment which remaynes due to our finnes after the fault or guilt is pardoned since they deny that any such payne remaynes after the sin is forgiven which in the opinyon of many of them is forgiven by one Act of Faith firmely believing that it is forgiven 4. So many conditions are required for gayning Indulgences that we cannot be certaine therof without particular Revelation and so still we haue just cause to feare purgatory and tremble at the consideration of Gods secret judgments To omitt divers other conditions necessary for gaining indulgences one is that we be in state of Grace of which none can be sure in this life nor that he hath so perfect sorrow that it is effectuall and incompatible with any affection to any least Veniall sinne and yet the temporall punishment due to sin can never be forgiven till the guilt be perfectly cancelled I say nothing of the pious and penall works which are wont to be appointed for gaining indulgences as confessing communicating fasting praying visiting Churches pilgrimages giving Almes and other holy exercises wherby God is glorifyed our neighbour edifyed and our soules improved in vertue 85. So that it is not so easy to obtayne the effect of indulgences nor are they so cheape as some out of ignorance or malice are pleased to imagine yea and that the Pope gives pardon for all sins not only past but also to come which is a shameless vntruth and falfly layes on vs that aspersion which truly belongs to Protestants who teach that not only sins past or present but also all sinnes to come are forgiven by Baptisme Kemmit In Exam Concill Part 2. Tit de Baptismo Pag 80. saith Papists haue fayned that the grace of Baptisme avayles only for remission of sinnes past or for remission of those which are found in a man at the tyme of Baptisme Calvin Instit L. 4. C. 15. § 3. We must in no wise beleue that Baptisme is conferd only for tyme past so that for new sins into which we fall after Baptisme there must be sought other new remedyes for pardon by I know not what other Sacraments as if the force therof Baptisme were worne out But we are to believe that whensoever we are baptized we are washt and purged for our whole life As often therfor as we shall fall into sin we must renew the memory of Bapisme and by that remēbrance our soule is to be armed that it be always certaine and secure that our sins are forgiven And § 4. As if for sooth Baptisme it self were not a Sacrament of repentance And seing this Repentance is commanded to vs for our whole life the force also of Baptisme must be extended as farr Perkins in Serie Causar Cap 33. sayth In Baptisme being once administred remission is givē not only of sins past but also present and to be committed through the whole tyme of our life Sanchius in sua Confessione C. 15. Baptisme is not given for remission only of Originall sin or sins past but of all for our whole life Is not this every easy and larg indulgence and an encouragement to all sin for which so facil a remedy is prepared even before they be committed Doth not this indeed take away the feare not of Purgatory but of Hell Which feare of Hell you do very strangely affirme to be taken away by the Doctrine of Purgatory but bring not any reason to proue it and it is certaine no shadow of reason can be brought Purgatory is ordayned to pay the temporall punishment due after the guilt of sin is forgiven In Hell eternall torments are to be indured for deadly sin not repented in this life Now what consequence is this One feares the bitterness of payne to be indured in purgatory though he be sure of salvation if ever he come to that place Therfor he feares not Hell the punishment of deadly sinnes which he is guilty to haue committed and is not certaine whether they be forgiven which certainty alone can take away the feare of Hell neither can the feare of Purgatory affoard any such certainty Contrarily one should rather make ād approue this consequē He that feares the lesser punishment or evill is apt much more to feare the greater Therfor he who feares Purgatory will much more fear Hell vnless he be sure to dy in state of Grace of which none can be sure in this life without some particular Revelation and the feare of Purgatory and Hell may well consist togeather as their Causes or objects haue no repugnance to witt I may be adjudged to Purgatory because I hope to die in state of Grace And I am not sure but I may be condemned to Hell because I cannot know whether I shall die free from deadly sin both which judgments of our vnderstanding may cause proportionably just feare in our will the one of Purgatory the other of Hell If a malefactour be doubtfull whether be shal be condemned to death or onlie to some other milder punishment for example the Gallyes or perpetuall imprisonment or the like may he not feare both death and other punishments till his doubt be cleared Which cannot be cleared in this life in order to be adjudged to Purgatory or Hell Protestants are they indeed who take away all feare of Purgatory by denying it and of Hell by their pretended certaine Faith that they are predestinate to eternall Happyness which certaine Faith must needs exclude all feare of the contrary 86. The want you say of that devotion which the frequent hearing of the offices vnderstood might happily beget in them the want of that instruction and edification which it might afford them may very probably hinder the salvation of many which otherwise might haue been saved But by this manner of arguing what may not be proved or disproved if first one will begg the question and suppose vs to be in errour and then vpon remote consequences rather fetch 't than found and wilde conjectures and panick feares inferr I know not what dangers In such manner as if men were to leade their life according to such a way of direction they could never be free from inextricable perplexityes and run hazard of loosing either their witts or soules We are in matters concerning our soules to governe our selves by such Rules as God hath revealed and not by vncertaine conditionall hidden events and which if we be left
any Text of Scripture which to you is the only rule of Faith 102. Perhaps some will vnderstand All to signify all things profitable But this sense cannot be admitted since no man can deny but that the knowledg of those things which S. John witnesseth not to haue bene written had bene profitable to vs now as then the performance or delivering them was to the beholders or hearers It were blasphemy to say that S. Paul exercised an idle action or recited vnprofitable words when Act. 20.35 he sayd you must remember the word of our Lord Jesus because he sayd it is more a blessed thing to giue rather then to take which words of our blessed Saviour are not to be found in S. Luke or the whole bible but S. Paule receyved them only by tradition Those things also which are omitted by S. Luke but recorded in the other Gospells no Christian will deny to be profitable Therfor by All we must not vnderstand All things profitable 103. Will you vnderstand by All all things necessary to be written by any First in this sense this text makes nothing for your purpose vnless first you begg the Question and suppose that all things necessary to be believed must also necessarily be written which is the very point in Question between vs. For if all things necessary to be believed are not particularly written in the bible then more is necessary to be believed than is necessary to by written and consequently though S. Luke had set downe all that is necessary to be written yet this would not proue that his Gospell contaynes all things necessary to be believed Secondly your selfe cannot allow of this sense without contradicting yourself who hold that every Gospell containes all things necessary to be believed and therfore S. Luke could not judg it necessary that he should write all such things which had bene but to repeare and write the things already written more than once Thirdly The common doctrine of Protestants is that the sole-sufficiency of scripture consists in the whole Canon or bible and therfor S. Luke according to this supposition could not think himself obliged to write every poynt necessary to be believed since he was not ignorant that before he wrote his Gospell the Gospels of S. Matthew and S. Marke and some Apostolicall Epistles were written and in them some poynts necessaty to be believed which therfor were not necessary to be written by him Wherfor you cannot maintayne this sense as being contradictory both to your self and the common doctrine of Protestants 104. What then remaynes but that S. Luke vnderstood All that was necessary to be written by himself without omission of any such point according to the particular purpose and End which he had in writing his Gospell by the particular motion assistance and direction of the holy Ghost as we see every one of the foure Evangelists and other Canonicall writers do not deliver all the same things for matter or manner as the holy Ghost for ends knowen to his Infinite Wisdome did moue and direct them This sense is true and contaynes both a full Answer and a cleare Confutation and as I may say a totall Destruction of your Objection for any force it can haue against vs. For now you are obliged to proue out of some other evident text of scripture that the Holy Ghost intended that S. Luke should write in his Gospell all things necessary to be believed before you can assure vs that he by the word All vnderstood all such necessary points but then you change your Medium or Argument and passe to a new distinct proof and clearly confess that the Objection which you haue brought is of no force vnless antecedently to this word All you proue that S. Luke intended to sett downe in particular all necessary Poynts Yea though you could proue by some other Argument independently of the word All that S. Lukes purpose was to write all necessary Points of Faith yet from thence you could only infer that if All were taken in that sense it should containe a truth but not that it hath de facto that sense and not some other meaning because there is no necessity that every part of scripture contayne all truth though we are infallibly sure that it contaynes nothing but truth How vaine then is your bragg of the evidence of this Text of S. Luke for your purpose Even yourself shew how litle you can gather from the word All when Pag 210. N. 40. you say that every one of the Evangelists must be believed to haue expressed all necessary Poynts because otherwise how haue they complyed with their owne designe which was as the Titles of their Bookes shew to write the Gospell of Christ and not a part of it Thus you say and then add these words By the whole Gospell of Christ I vnderstand not the whole History of Christ but All that makes vp the covenant between God and man But by what or whose Commission do you vnderstand the whole Gospell with that limitation and declaration is not all that is contayned in the Gospell of S. Luke or of the other Evangelists part of their Gospells respectively And is not this still to begg the Question and suppose or take as granted that the designe of the Evangelists was to set downe all things necessary to salvation or all that makes vp the covenant between God and man Or do you not by this your voluntary restriction of All beare witness that you haue no other ground for vnderstanding All poynts or the whole Gospell to be vnderstood of all necessarie poynts except your owne voluntary affirmation and preconceyved opinion 105. Thirdly Of all men in the world you haue least reason to vrge this Text of S. Luke though it were granted the meaning therof to be that which you pretēd My reason is grounded in a doctrine which you deliver P 144. N. 32. in these words For those things which the Apostles professed to deliver as the Dictates of humane reason and prudence and not as divine Revelations why we should take them as divine revelations I see no reason nor how we can do so and not contradict the Apostles and God himself Which doctrine though in it self very vntrue yet being by you believed to be true engages you in a very hard taske of proving that S. Luke in these words all and of all intended to deliver a divine Revelation and not only a Narration of his owne Certainly if your doctrine could be true in any case it might with greatest reason be conceyved to be such in prefaces and like occasions wherin the writer may seeme to declare his owne intention endeavour and proceeding rather than matter of doctrine Manners or revelations from God as we see S. Luke in the preface to his Gospell sayth Visum est mihi assecuto omnia It seemed good to me not Visum est Deo mihi It hath seemd good to God and me or Visum est Spiritui
Sancto mihi It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and me as the Apostles in the first Councell sayd Visum est Spiritui Sancto nobis It hath seemed good to the holy Ghost and vs. Beside this manner of expression It seemed to me also having had perfect vnderstanding of things from the first or as the Rhemes testament hath out of the vulgat and Greeke having diligently attained to all things and as Cornel a Lap interprets assecuto out of the Greek assectato studiosè investiganti ideoque assecuto all which may according to your divinity signify an humane endeavour and diligence rather then divine inspiration Revelation or infallible assistance of the Holy Ghost And this argument may be strongly vrged by calling to mynd that Calvin in Antid Cocil seekes to proue that the writer of the book of the Machabees cannot be esteemed Canonicall because in his second booke second Chapter he sayth And to our owne selves indeed which haue taken vpon vs this worke to make an abridgment we haue taken in hand no easy labour yea rather a business full of watching and swette For Canonicall writters did write not out of their owne witt and industry but by the revelation of the Holy Ghost Doth not this argument of Calvin if it be good as it is not yet as good as Chillingworths Principle or rather the same in effect proue also against S. Lukes both Preface and Gospell because he affirmes that he hath diligently attained to all things and that he wrote in order taking them from those who had heard and seene them Which words according to Calvins discourse signify that S. Luke composed the Gospell after a humane manner by inquiry by diligence by labour by following a method and order c. Wheras Sacred authors wrote not by their owne witt and labour but by revelation of the holy Ghost Therfor if once it be granted as you both grant and seeke to proue that the Apostles did somtyme deliver not divine Revelations but the dictates of humane reason and prudence where can it happen more probably than in this our present case Or what proof can you bring out of some evident Text of scripture that in fact it is not so Thus in steed of prooving out of S. Lukes Preface to his Gospell that his Gospell containes all Points necessary to salvation you plainly deprive both Preface and Gospell of all credit due to them as to the word of God And therfor you cannot draw Arguments from them for yourself against vs. 106. 4. Since it cannot be denyed but that the Holy Ghost might haue vsed the pen of S. Luke to deliver what best pleased his Divine wisdom and Goodness neither can we by humane reason or topicall and seeming probable discourses gather with certainty how far he decreed from Eternity to vse the writing of that holy Evangelist dare any man presume by the strenthg of witt or arguments to force God himself to decree and performe what he imagines should haue been donne yourself Pag. 102. N. 128. affirme this ground to be false that That course of dealing with men seemes always more fit to Divine providence which seems most fit to humane reason And P. 104. N. 136. you say It is our duty to be humbly thankfull for those sufficient nay abundant meanes of salvation which God hath of his owne Goodness granted vs and not conclude he hath done that which he hath not done because forsooth in our vaine judgements it seems conveniâ—nt he should haue done so And Pag. 84. N. 85. Though iâ— were convenient for vs to haue one Judg of controversyes yet it hath pleased God for reasons best known to himself not to allow vs this convenience These passages of yours I relate in this place as very considerable not only for this present occasion but as a generall antidote against your poysonous manner of proving your opinions not by authority or evideÌ„t texts of scripture but with some conceypts or reasons of your owne which you apprehend as probable But this humane prudence is but foolishness when it is applyed to determine what were the Free Eternall decrees of God whose thoughts are raysed aboue our imaginations more than Heaven aboue earth And to come to our purpose the Holy Ghost might haue decreed to teach the world by S. Luke either all things necessary to every man or necessary to the perfect constitution of the Church or mysticall Body of Christ or no things necessary but only profitable or some necessary and some profitable leaving other points necessary or profitable to be learned from the other Canonicall writers or from the Church and Tradition In all which cases the word All had bene truly verifyed because S. Luke had perfectly written All that the Holy Ghost intended to be written by his meanes concerning the words and works of our Blessed Saviour For seing as I sayd aboue All cannot be taken in the most vniversall sense which of it self it might beare the particular limitation or restriction therof must wholy depend on the hidden will and Decree of God which we cannot know with certainty by any humane probable discourse but only by Revelation and consequently no sound and certaine limitation or explication of the vniversall particle All can be given except that which I haue declared that S. Luke hath delivered All according to the End prescribed by the Motion and Inspiration of the Holy Ghost Otherwise what certaine reason can be given why all the Evangelists do somtyme deliver the self same Points and somtyme not yea some one expresses some particular which all the rest haue omitted Or why of these millions of words or deèds which all of them haue omitted some were not sett downe as well as those which now we reade in theÌ„ And so vpon due consideration the expressing the word All cannot he of any advantage to you because it must haue been vnderstood though it had not bene expessed and being expressed signifyes no more then if it had bene only vnderstood and collected from the nature of Holy Scripture and Priviledg of Canonicall Writers for whom we may and must most certainly avouch that they perfectly sett downe All things according to the direction which they receyved from the Holy Ghost Yourself teach Pag. 35. N. 7. that Christians haue meaâ—es sufficient to determine not all controversyes but all necessary to be determined and why should you judg it an incongruity in vs to say that S. Luke wrote not all the words and works of our Sauiour but all necessary to be written by him whose purpose if it had bene to make a Catechisme or Creed or a Summe of Christian Doctrine would haue required an other forme and method different from the Historicall way which he and other Evangelists hold And that S. Luke proposed to himself a farr different End appeares by Eusebius L. 3. C. 24. affirming that S. Luke wrote for this only reason that he saw some others
you wholy but by word of mouth and that thervpon Paul also sayd we speake wisdome amongst the perfect But the word wholy in your parenthesis is wholy your owne false glosse to make those Heretikes seeme like to vs Catholiques wheras it is plaine as we haue heard out of your owne confession that those Heretiks held scripture vnfitt to proue any truth at all and not only vnfitt to proue all necssary truths because they held it not to be the infallible word of God but to contayne falshoods and contradictions and your conscience cannot but beare witness that we do not deny the sufficiency of scripture alone and necessity of tradition vpon any such Atheistical perswasion as that was 164. This also appeares by S. Irenaeus in the first Chapter of the same Book which you cited where he sayth against those Heretiks Neither is it lawfull to say that they preached before they had receyved perfect knowledge as some presume to say boasting that they are correctours of the Apostles And this horrible Heresy he confutes because the Apostles did not preach till first they had receyved the Holy Ghost Where I beseech you remember with feare and trembling your owne doctrine that the Apostles did erre about preaching the Gospell to Gentils and in some things did not deliver divine truths but the dictates of humane reason and all this after they had receyved the Holy Ghost and then consider whether you or wee disagree from S. Irenaeus and detract from the sufficiency of scripture which if these your doctrines were true would be of no greater authority than those absurd Heritiks wickedly affirmed it to be with whom therfore you do in this perfectly agree This also appeares by the words of S. Irenaeus Lib 1. Cap 29 where he sayth of Marcion the Heretike he perswaded his disciples that his word was more to be believed than the Apostles who delivered the Gospell 165. You could not also but speak against your conscience while you liken the Tradition which Catholiks belieue to those of the sayd wicked Heretiques who indeed agreed with you in the point of denying the Traditions which we defend as is fully witnessed by S. Irenaeus in that very Chapter and Book which you alledg and therfor you are inexcusable in laying to our charge the traditions of those men For S. Irenaeus in the same Lib 3. Cap 2. having sayd that when those Heretiks are pressed with scripture they fly to tradition he adds But when we provoke them to that Tradition which comes from the Apostles and which is kept in the Churches by the Successions of Priests they oppose themselves against Tradition saying that they themselves being wiser not only than Priests but also than the Apostles haue found out the sincere truth And so it comes to passe that they assent neither to scripture nor Tradition Which is agreeable to the Title of that Chapter Quod neque scripturis c. as I sayd aboue Wherby it appeares that they rejected Catholike Traditions derived from the Apostles by succession of Pastours and therfor when they appeale to Tradition it was to certaine secret traditions of their owne men which even yourself Pag. 344. N. 28. affirme out of S. Irenaeus where you say that Catholikes alledged Tradition much more credible than that secret tradition to which those heretikes pretended against whom he S. Irenaeus wrote And Pag. 345. N. 29. You speake most clearly and effectually to your owne confutation For there you make a paraphrase of some words of S. Irenaeus and make him speake in this manner You heretiks decline a tryall of your doctrine by scripture as being corrupted and imperfect and not fit to determine Controversyes with out recourse to Tradition and insteed thereof you fly for refuge to a secret tradition which you pretend that you receaved from your Antecessours Do not these words declare both that those heretiks held scripture to be corrupted and that they relyed vpon certaine hidden and vaine traditions of their owne As contrarily it is evident out of S. Irenaeus that the Fathers were wont to convince heretiks by Tradition coming from the Apostles and which is conserved in the Churches by succession of Priests which demonstrates that there was no necessity that all necessary points should be written and you wrong S. Irenaeus alledging him to the contrary wheras it is most certaine and evident that this holy Father writes most effectually in favour of Traditions descending to vs by a continued succession of Bishops and Pastours ād particularly of the Bishops of Rome whose succession and names he setteth downe to his tyme as may be seene Lib. 3. Chap 3. and then concludes by this order and succession that tradition which is in the Church derived from the Apostles and preaching of the truth came to vs. And this is a most full demonstration that it is one and the same life-giving Faith which from the Apostles to this tyme hath bene in the Church conserved and delivered in truth I beseech the Reader for the good of his owne soule to read what this holy Father writes of traditions Lib. 3. C. 4.25.40 and Lib. 4. C. 43. where he hath these remarkeable words wherfore we ought to obey those Priests which are in the Church and haue succession from the Apostles who with Episcopall succession haue receyved the certaine gift of truth according to the pleasure of the Father But others who depart from the principall succession and haue their conventicles in what place soever we ought to hold for suspected either as Heretikes and of ill doctrine or as schismatikes and provd and pleasing themselves or els as hypocrites doing these things for lucre and vainglory And yet further L. 4. C. 45. he hath these words Paul teaching vs where we may find such he meanes Faithfull persons whom our Lord hath placed ouer his family of whom he spoke in the end of the precedent 44. Chapter saith he placed in his Church first Apostles secondly Prophets thirdly Doctours where therfor the gifts of our Lord are placed there we ought to learne the truth with whom there is a succession of the Church from the Apostles and that is constantly kept which is wholsome vnblemished for conversation and not spurious but incorruptible in doctrine that is both for manners and Faith affirming that in neither of those the Church can erre For those men do keepe our Faith which is in one God who made all things and expound to vs the scriptures without danger And the same he sayth L. 4 C. 63. yea even vvhitaker Controu 1. 9. Q. C. 9. saith We confess with Irenaeus the Authority of the Church to be firme and a compendious demonstration of Canonicall doctrine a posteriori Where vve see Whitaker speakes of doctrine and not only of conserving and consigning scripture to vs. And S. Epiphanius is so cleare for traditions Heresi 61. we must vse traditions for the scripture hath not all things and therfor the Apostles delivered
the same tyme in thâ— same circumstances necessary to be belieyed Out of which words it followeth that seing one can at no tyme disbelieue or dissent from that for which he hath the same reason in vertue wherof he belieues another thing he must necessarily belieue it according to your doctrine Secondly If we belieue a thing meerly for some humane or naturall Reason you will not I belieue be able to shew that we are obliged to belieue any one thing and are not obliged to belieue another for which we haue the same reason For if the command be only this that reason obliges vs to belieue that which in reason deserves belief the reasons being equall the necessity of believing must be equall But if the command of believing be supernaturall or some Positiue Divine Precept then this must be notifyed to vs by revelation and so there will not be the same reason for both but as different as is between humane reason and divine revelation and therfore Thirdly If I haue the same reason of divine revelation to belieue both there is alwayes an equall necessity for the belief of those things for the belief wherof there is that equall reason of divine reuelation and so your subtilty That there is not alwayes an equall necessity for the belief of those things for the belief wherof c is against reason against yourself aÌ„d against all divinity 11. I haue no tyme to loose in examining your saying If any man should doubt or disbelieue that there was such a man as Henry the eight king of England it were most vnreasonably done of him yet it were no mortall sin nor sin at all God having no where commanded men vnderpayne of damnation to belieue all which reason induceth them to belieue Yet perhaps some wold aske whether you suppose that he who in the example you giue so doubts or disbelieves doth it vincibly or invincibly If invincibly then in him it is not vnreasonable because he in such circumstances could judg no otherwise and so in him it is reasonable For it falls out often that a true judgment may be imprudent and vnreasonable if it be framed lightly and for insufficient reasons and contrarily one may judge amisse for the materiall truth in it self and yet judg prudently if he be moved by probable reasons and so a true judgment may be rash and a false one prudent But if he who so doubts be supposed to erre vincibly you will not easily excuse him from all fault for example of pertinacy and obstinacy of judgment against all wise men or precipitation or imprudency or at least from an idle thought in his extravagant vnreasonable false and foolish belief which surely can be of no solid profit for himself or others or for the glory of God and you know our B. Saviour hath revealed that every idle word is a sin But whatsoever be sayd of your Doctrine taken in generall that God hath no where commanded men to belieue all which reason induceth them to belieue yet I leaue it to be considered whethert he particular example which you giue may not seeme in it self to imply somthing of the dangerous for if it be no sin at all to belieue that there was never any such man as Henry the eight and I suppose you will say the same of other like examples of Kings Princes Commonwealths and Magistrats some perhaps will infer That if your Doctrine were true it could be no sin at all to belieue that they had no lawfull Successours seing no body can succeed to a Chimera or to a No-Body or a Non-Entity as you say King Henry may be without sin believed to haue bene 12 But at least your frends will thinke you haue spoken subtilly and to the purpose in your other reason or example That as an Executor that should performe the whole will of the dead should fully satisfy the law though he did not belieue that Parchment to be his written will which indeed is so So I belieue that he who believes all the particular doctrines which integrate Christianity aÌ„d lives according to theÌ„ should be saved though he neither believed nor knew that the Gospels were written by the Evangelists nor the Epistles by the Apostles Yet in this also you either erre against truth or overthrow your owne maine cause For if such an Executor did not belieue that Parchment to be the dead mans written will and had no other sufficient ground to belieue the contents to be his will he should neither satisfy the law which gives him no power but in vertue of the dead mans will nor his owne conscience but should vsurpe the office without any Authority and expose himself to danger of committing great injustice by disposing the goods of the dead against his meaning and depriving of their right those to whom for ought he knowes they were bequeathed by the true will of the party deceased Now apply this your case to our present Question and the result will be that seing according to Protestants de facto we know the contents of Scripture and the Will and Commands of God delivered therin only by Scripture it selfe aÌ„d by no other meanes of Tradition or declaration of the Church if one be not obliged to belieue the Scripture he cannot be obliged to belieue all or any of the particular doctrines which integrate Christianity nor can judge himself obliged to liue according to them nor can any man without injury depriue men of the liberty which they possess by imposing vpon their consciences such an obligation 13. And here I must not omitt your saying that a man may be saued though he should not know or not belâ—â—ue the Scripture to be a Rule of Faith no nor to be the word of God Where you distinguish between being a Rule of Faith and being the word of God wheras it is cleare that nothing caÌ„ be a Rule of ChristiaÌ„ Faith except it be the word of God because Christian Faith as I sayd hath for its Formall Object the Divine RevelatioÌ„ or word of God aÌ„d nothing which is not such caÌ„ be a Rule of our Faith D. Potter Pag 143. saith The chief Principle or ground on which faith rests and for which it formally assents vnto those truths which the Church propounds is Divine Revelation made in the Scripture Nothing less then this nothing but thâ—s caÌ„ erect or qualify an act of supernaturall faith which must be absolutely vndoubted and certaine In which words although he erre against truth in saying that the Divine Revelation on which Faith must rest must be made in scripture seing Gods word or Revelation is the same whether it be written or vnwritten yet even in that errour he shewes himself to be against your errour that one may belieue or reject scripture in which alone divine revelation is made according to him aÌ„d so take away scriptures or the belief of them all Revelations and Faith must be taken away and he declares
practicè and effectually we judg the Articles of Christian Faith to deserue and require of vs vnder payne of damnation a most certaine infallible belief beyond all precedent Motives of credibility which judgment being the beginning of supernaturall Faith and of it self an Act of great difficulty to humane Reason requires a particular assistance of Divine Grace 72. 4. If we receyue Scripture vpon this your fallible Tradition we shall haue greater certainty of the Bookes of prophane Authours that they were written by such men than that the Books of Scripture were written by those whom we belieue to haue written them because the Tradition is more full for those than for these as I sayd aboue as also there are many works of those men which never any Christian or other called in question wheras scarcely any Book of Scripture hath not bene questioned even by Christians as they are despised and denyed by all the enemyes of Christian Religion It will also follow for the like reason that we are more certaine that there was such a man as Henry the eight King of England Coesar Pompey c. Then that there was such a man as Jesus Christ as I haue shewed already and yet what Christian can heare such blasphemyes without just indignation and horrour 73. 5. Protestants are wont to object that we giue greater credit to men than to the word of God because we belieue the scripture for the authority of Gods church This is of no force against vs who belieue the church to be infallibly assisted and inspired by the Holy Ghost and that God speakes by the church and consequently that the voyce of the church is the voice of God and so we belieue the word of God for the authority and Testimony of God as all must acknowledg the Primitiue of Christians to haue receyved and believed the Scriptures vpon the authority of the Apostles who yet were men but men inspired and infallibly directed by the Holy Ghost But the Objection turned against you is vnanswerable because you ground the belief of scripture and all the contents therof vpon men expressly as they are fallible and subject to Errour whose words you must belieue more than the word of God according to your owne Rule Pag. 377. N. 59. we must be surerof the Proofe than of the thing proved otherwise it is no Proofe 74. This Argument I confirme by your words Pag. 143. N. 30. There is not the same reason for the Churches absolute infallibility as for the Apostles and Scriptures For if the church fall into Errour it may be reformed by comparing it with the rule of the Apostles Doctrine and scripture But if the Apostles haue erred in delivering the Doctrine of Christianity to whom shall we haue recourse for the discovering and correcting their errour Againe there is not so much strength required in the Edifice as in the Foundation and if but wise men haue the ordering of the building they will make it much a surer thing that the Foundation shall not fail the building then that the building shall not fall from the Foundation Now the Apostles and Prophets and Canonicall writers are the foundation of the Church therfor their stability in Reason ought to be greater then the Churches which is built vpon them Again a dependent infallibility cannot be so certaine as that on which it depends But the infallibility of the Church depends vpon the infallibility of the Apostles as the streightness of the thing regulated vpon the streigness of the Rule Therfor the Churches infallibility is not so certaine as that of the Apostles This is your discourse which I pray you apply to our present purpose in this manner There is not the same reason for the Scriptures infallibility as for Tradition For if some Apocryphall Scripture be obtruded for Canonicall it may be reformed by comparing it with vniversall Tradition But if vniversall Tradition hath erred in delivering the Canon of Scripture to whom or to what shall we haue recourse for the discovering and correcting that errour of proposing Apocryphall Scripture Againe if but wise men haue the ordering of a building they will make it a much surer thing that the Foundation shall not faile the building then that the building shall not fall from the foundation Now vniversall Tradition of men subject to errour is to you the Foundation of Scripture therfor their authority in your reason ought to be greater then the Scripture which is built vpon them Againe a dependent infallibility cannot be so certaine as that on which it depends But the infallibility of Scripture depends vpon the infallibility of vniversall Tradition of men Therfor the Scriptures infallibility is not so certaine as that of the Tradition of men that is neither the one nor the other is certaine What say you to this application and to your Doctrine which forces vs to make it But this application rests not here For as you haue told vs that the infallibility of the Apostles must be greater then that of the Church so for the same reasons the infallibility of the Church must be to vs greater then that of the Apostles yea of Christ himself seing you belieue the Apostles and our Saviour Christ to haue bene infallible and to haue proved their infallibility with Miracles only by your vniversall Tradition of the Church which therfor is the foundation on which your belief concerning the Apostles and our Saviour depends and consequently their infallibility is not so certaine to you as the fallible Tradition of men For we must examine and measure our knwledg of the words and workes of the Apostles and our Saviour by Tradition and not Tradition by them because Tradition to you is a Principle in nature and precedent to our belief of Christ the Apostles and Scripture which depend on it as the streightness of the thing regulated vpon the streightness of the Rule 75. 6. Before we belieue Scripture in your way there is no Principle but Reason placed between Motives which you confess make it only probable that Scripture is the Word of God and Arguments which seeme very strong and convincing that the Mysteries contained in Scripture are contrary to the sayd only Principle Reason besides the difficultyes which to the same Reason seeme great and insuperable in answering seeming contradictions of Scripture to it self which are so many and so intricate as certainly they will appeare to any judicious Man vnanswerable without submission to some infallible Authority as a support for humane Reason against the strength of them as appeares by the great paynes taken by learned men and the difference of wayes in satisfying such difficultyes and finally by a true confession that when they haue done their vttermost the last and best refuge is to captivate their vnderstanding to the Obedience of Faith and one thing is most certaine and evident that Protestants reject divers Bookes of Scripture receyved by Catholikes for Canonicall vpon incomparably less seeming difficultyes or
contradictions and falshoods then are found in those Bookes of Scripture which both Catholikes and Protestants admit Now say I in this case what shall Reason doe being left to itself without any Authority beside itself The Motives and humane Testimonyes of your tradition produced in favour of Christianity are only probable as you affirme Arguments to the contrary seeme convincing and such as haue bene held for Principles among the best Philosophers as I shewed vpon another occasion and therfor Christian Religion is accounted foolishness to the Gentils and we treate of the tyme before one is a Christian who theÌ„ will oblige such a Man being in possession of his Liberty to accept vnder paine of damnation an obligation positively to belieue and to liue according to the Rules of Christian Faith only vpon fallible inducements in opposition to so great seeming evidence to the contrary 76. Neither can you in your grounds say that Miracles wrought in confirmation of Christian Religion ought to be prevalent against all seeming evidence of reason For you teach that true Miracles may be wrought to delude men for avoyding of which delusion it may seeme wisdome and safest to sticke close to the Principles of Reason wherby though he may chance to be deceyved yet he cannot be accounted rash imprudent or inexcusable 2. you must suppose that Miracles and all other Motives end in probability alone for if they surpass probability you grant Christian Faith to be infallible and then the difficulty still remaynes how one can be obliged to imbrace meere probabilityes and such as you confess are not able to rayse our mynd to a higher and more firme assent than they themselves are against and as I may say in despight of seeming evidence of Reason opposed only by such probabilityes 3. This Answer is not pertinent to our present Question which is not to treate how farr one may be obliged by Miracles either evident by sense to those who see them wrought or asserted and delivered by an authority believed to be infallible as we Catholikes belieue Gods church to be but we speak of Miracles wrought in great distance of tyme and place from vs commended and believed only by your fallible tradition which therfor leaves this doubt whether one can be obliged to preferr fallible humane tradition confessedly insufficient to cause a certaine assent before seeming evidence and certainty of naturall Reason And it seemes easy to demonstrate that Protestants if they will be constant to their owne assertions and proceedings must yield to that seeming evidence of Reason For it cannot be denyed without great obstinacy and impudency that in all ages there haue bene wrought frequent great and evident Miracles by the professours of the Catholique Religion recorded by men eminent for learning wisdome and Sanctity who would be credited in whatsoever case or cause of highest concernment and testifyed not by one or a few or many single persons but by whole Communityes Cittyes and Countryes by meanes of which Miracles Infidels haue beene and are at this day converted from the worship of Idols to know the true God and whom he hath sent Jesus Christ and yet notwithstanding all these Miracles which are able to convert Pagans Protestants will not conceiue themselves obliged to belieue that such Miracles were wrought or that those Articles of our Faith in confirmation wherof they were wrought are true And why Because they seeme contrary to naturall Reason as the Reall Presence Transubstantiation c Seing theÌ„ they reject Catholique Doctrines confirmed by Miracles in regard of that seeming contrariety to Reason how can they pretend Reason to receaue Scripture and the contents therof for example the Misteryes of the B. Trinity the Incarnation of the Son of God the Creation of all things out of nothing the Resurrection of the Dead and other such Articles which they make shew to belieue and are no less yea much more seeming contrary to reason then those doctrines of Catholikes which they reject Wherfor our finall Conclusion must be that to deny an infallible Authority both to propose Scripture and deliver infallible Traditions is to vndermine and ouerthrow Christian Religion 77. 7. Since Scripture may be corrupted as some haue bene lost and in particular Protestants affirme even the Vulgate Translation which anciently was vsed in the Church to be corrupted as also the Greek and Hebrew your Tradition cannot secure vs what in particular is or is not corruted because it delivers only as it were in gross such or such Bookes but cannot with certainty informe vs of all corruptions additions varietyes and alterations as occasion shall require Thus some both Catholikes and Protestanis teach that Additions haue been made even to Pentateuch others assirme the same of the Bookes of Josue Kings and Hieremy and the like Additions might and perhaps haue been made to other Bookes at least we cannot be sure of the contrary if we consult only your fallible Tradition neither can we know by it that such Additions proceeded from the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost And as Protestants are wont to say that a very great number of Catholique Doctrines which they vntruly call errours crept in by little and little as you also say Pag 91. N. 101. so what certainty can they haue that corruptions in Scriptures yea whole Apocriphall Bookes may not in tyme haue gained the repute of being Canonicall As for corruptions in Scripture you speak dangerously in saying Pag 141. N. 27. As for the infallibility of the Church it is so farr from being a proof of the Scriptures incorruption that no proof can be pretended for it but incorrupted places of Scripture which yet are as subject to corruption as any other and more likly to haue bene corrupted if it had bene possible then any other and made to speake as they do for the advantage of those meÌ„ whose ambitioÌ„ it hath bene a long tyme to bring all vnder their authority And afterward I would aske how shall I be assured that the Scriptures are incorrupted in these plaâ—es which arealledged to proue the infallibility of the Church seing it is possible and not altogeather improbable that these men which desire to be thought infallible wheÌ„ they had the government of all things in their owne hands may haue altered them for their purpose Do not these words giue scope for the enemyes of Christian Religion to object that we cannot be certaine of any Text of Scripture whether or no it be incorrupted For as you say it is not altogeather improbable that we haue altered some places for our purpose of proving the infallibility of the Church so you may say we haue done the same in other places to prove other Points of our belief and the like may be sayd of all others who teach different Doctrines that they will incline to corrupt Scripture in favour of their severall Sects Neither can we haue any certainty whether this which may be done hath not bene practised and
not this a goodly Tradition to be the ground of our belief of Scripture and all Christian Religion May not the enemyes of Christian Religion triumph and say we can alledg no Authors which may not justly be questioned whether they be not corrupted Which in effect is all one for erecting an Act of Faith as if we were sure they were corrupted 86. 6. You say Seing the Roman church is so farr from being a sufficient foundation for our belief in Christ that it is in sundry regards a dangerous temptation against it why should I not much rather Conclude Seing we receiue not the knowledg of Christ and Scriptures from the church of Rome neither from her must we take his Doctrine or interpretation of Scripture But still I must aske from what true Christian church could England or any member of any church in England receyue the Scripture and knowledg of Christ except from the Church of Rome and such as agreed with Her You confess it is not necessary to proue any church distinct from ours before Luther and yet you will not deny but it is necessary to receiue the Scripture from some church seing you profess to belieue the Scripture which you hold for a sufficient foundation of your belief in Christ vpon the sole Authority of the church and therfor you must take the direct negatiue of your conclusion and say seing we receiue the knowledg of Christ and Scriptures from the church of Rome from her we must take his Doctrine and the interpretation of Scripture Having thus pondered your sayings and proved that they overthrow Christian Religion we may now goe forward to impugne this your Tradition And therfor 87. 9. We haue shewed how vncertaine and dangerous your Tradition must needs be by reason of corruption to which all writings haue bene subject if your Assertions were true But besides this I will demonstrate how insufficient your Tradition must be of it self ād much more if you add the sayd danger of corruption Pag 273. N. 56. You alledg Charity Maintayned saying Part. 1. Chap 5. N. 17. VVhen Luther appeared there were not two distinct visible true Churches one pure the other corrupted For to faine this diversity of two Churches cannot stand with record of Historyes which are silent of any such matter and then you reply in these words The ground of this is no way certaine nor here sufficiently proved For wheras you say Historyes are silent of any such matter I answer there is no necessity that you or I should haue redd all Historyes that may be extant of this matter nor that all should be extant that were written much less extant vncorrupted especially considering your Church which had lately all power in her hands hath bene so perniciously industrious in corrupting the monuments of Antiquity that made against her nor that all records should remayne which were written nor that all should be recorded which was done Nothing could haue bene spoken more effectually to proue the necessity of a Living Judge who being once vpon good and solid reason most certainly believed to be infallible as the Apostles proved their owne infallibility takes away all doubt or possibility of feare least the want or corruption or alteration or contrariety of any writings or records may weaken our Belief of whatsoever such an Authority proposes For till one be setled in the strength of such an Authority one may be doubting of whatsoever fallible Tradition whether there may not be extant some Storyes Records or Tradition contrary to that which he followes there being no necessity that he should haue redd all Storyes nor that all Historyes or Records should be extant that were written which if they had bene extant and had come to his knowledg perhaps might haue moved him to relinquish the Tradition which now he embraceth nor that all should be recorded which was done and therfor he cannot tell whether somthing may not haue bene done repugnant to that which his Tradition induces him to belieue nor finally whether the Tradition on which he relyes hath not bene corrupted and therfor sit only to lead him into and keepe him in errour Which yet is further confirmed by your words Pag 266. N. 35. Why may not you mistake in thinking that in former Ages in some country or other there were not alwayes some good Christians which did not so much as externally bow their knees to your Baal And then Sr why may not you mistake in thinking that in former ages there were not alwayes some good Christians who did not agree with those from whom you take your Vniversall Tradition which therfor will indeed cease to be Vniversall Do you not see how strongly you argue against yourself And yet my next Reason will affoard more in this kind 88. 10. I take an Argument from what you deliver Pag 130. N. 6. where impugning some who as you say Hold the Acceptation of the decrees of Councells by the Vniversall Church to be the only way to decide Controversyes You haue these words VVhat way of ending controversyes can this be when either part may pretend that they are part of the Church and they receaue not the decree therfor the whole Church hath not receyved it I beseech you apply your owne words thus what way of ending Controversyes about the Canon of Scripture can this be when either part may pretend that they are part of the Church and they receiue it not therfor the whole Church hath not receyved it By this doctrine of yours those Heretiks who as you confess Pag 361. N 40. out of S. Irenaeus did accuse the Scriptures as if they were not right and came not from good Authority might haue defended themselves by saying the whole Church had not receyved them because they themselves were part of the Church and did not receiue them According to this account your vniversall Tradition comes to be nothing because whosoever dissent from the rest will be ready to say that they also are part of the whole and so no Tradition contrary to them can be vniversall just as you say that Luther and his fellowes departed not from the whole Church because they did not depart from themselves and they were part of the Church Also Pag 362. N. 41. You overthrow your owne Tradition while you write thus Though the constant and vniversall delivery of any doctrine by the Apostolike Churches ever since the Apostles be a very great Argument of the truth of it Yet there is no certainty but that truth even Divine truth may through mens wickedness be contracted from its vniversality and interrupted in its perpetuity and so loose this Argumēt and yet not want others to justify and support itself For it may be one of those principles which God hath written in all mens harts or a conclusion evidently arising from them It may be either contayned in Scripture in express termes or deducible from it by apparēt consequēce But good Sr. seing that the Canō of
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
though the absolution be valid At least these considerations are more then sufficient to put every dying man and indeed every man in mynd to implore the Divine assistance and to endeavour the exercising an Act of Contrition If you be resolved not to approue these Answers let vs see what better you can giue and how you will apply it to satisfy the Argument which I haue made to shew that the Faith and salvation of Protestants rely vpon vncertaine Grounds 49. You say Pag 79. N. 68. That it is altogeather as abhorrent from the goodness of God to suffer an ignorant Lay-mans soule to perish meerly for being misled by an vndiscernable false Translation which was commended 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 as it is to damne a penitent sinner for a secret defect in that desired Absolution which his Ghostly Father perhaps was an Atheist and could not giue him or was a villaine and would not 50. I answer as aboue The totall and proper cause of damnation of men is their sin and not any secret defect or invalidity in the Absolution and therfore in your case an vnlearned man shall not be damned meerly for being missled by an vndiscernable false Translation but for the sins which he hath voluntarily committed and his damnation can be imputed to himself alone and in no sense to any want on Gods behalfe from whose Goodness it is not abhorrent to suffer a manes soule to perish for his sins which punishment he might haue permitted and inflicted in the very moment wherin they were committed for sin of it self gives most just cause for a man to be instantly lodged in Hell as we see māy are permitted to dy in the Act of some wickedness without foresight of that just punishment hanging over their head and therfore without possibility to repent vpon the motiue of being so forewarned neither shall they be damned for their vnvoluntary omission of repentance in that case but for the sin itself never forgiven And this I returne to say your self must affirme as I proved aboue For suppose by such a false Translation on were misled into some errour destructiue of a Fundamentall poynt of Faith such a man cannot be saved and it would not be abhorrent from the Goodness of God to damne such a person not for his errour which we suppose to be vnvoluntary but for his sins God hath promised pardon to repentant sinners but hath no where obliged himself to expect their leasure for repenting or to giue his efficatious Grace at their pleasure who believing man to be what he is infiinitely inferiour to the Divine Majesty and infinitely obliged to his Goodness and God to be what He is infinite in all kind of perfections and sin to be what it is infinitely vgly deformed and malitious a sinner I say firmely believing all this and yet differring his repentance if it were but for one momēt must blame himself alone if he dy without true repentance and so be damned for his sins never repented If I were not well acquainted with your custome of contradicting yourself I should wonder that you should object to vs as a thing abhorrent from the Goodness of God that men should be permitted to be misled by a false Translation and so chance to be damned seing you teach that God may in his Justice permit true Miracles to be wrought to delude men in punishment of their sins and besides this seing you affirme true Repentance to consist not only in harty sorrow and firme purpose to amend but to require as you say Pag 392. N. 8. the mortification of the Habits of all Vices and effectuall conversion to newness of Life and Vniversall Obedience and withall that an Act of Attrition which we say with Priestly Absolution is sufficient to salvation is not mortification which being a worke of difficulty and tyme cannot be performed in an Instant It followes clearly out of this Doctrine that neither Attrition nor Contrition can saue a poore soule at the houre of death because this your kind of Repentance being a Worke of difficulty and tyme cannot be performed in an instant Nor can such a man be saved at that tyme though he doe as much as God can require of him for his salvation in those circumstances You object against vs as a huge absurdity that one may be damned by reason of an invalid Absolution when as yet it is in the Penitentes will assisted with Gods Grace to exercise an Act of Contrition wherby he shall certainly be saved and yet you are not afrayd to tell vs that a sinner though he do all that possibly he can and haue that most perfect kind ofsorrow which is called Contrition yet cannot be saved without the Mortification of the Habits of all vices and effectuall conversion to a newness of life and Vniversall Obedience Which things cannot be performed in an instant but require long tyme And then his damnation shall not proceed from his not doing as much as he is able in those Circumstances for we suppose him to do all that nor for any accidentall defect in applying such Meanes as Almighty God hath provided but because according to your Doctrine God hath not provided sufficient Meanes for the salvation of a Repentant sinner at the houre of his death Which to affirme is no better then blasphemy and makes mens salvation depend not only vpon vncertaintyes as you object to vs but also vpon impossibilityes And they shall be damned by reason of the nature of those very Meanes which are appointed by God for forgiveness of their sins and salvation that is by your way of Repentance The like I may say of your Doctrine That Attrition alone is sufficient for salvation which being certainly most false and if you haue any modesty must be even in your owne Oppinion vncertaine as not being the common opinion of Protestants for ought I know you put salvation of soules vpon Grounds which are in themselves and not only in the application of them vncertaine And the same I say of your wicked Doctrine that Christian Faith is not infallible which must be a sourse of all other vncertaintyes 51. Having thus answered for ourselves and retorted your Arguments it will not be amiss to examine what you vndertake to speake for vs without any Commission to a considering man lying on death bed who feeles or feares that his Repentance is but Atrition only and not Contrition and consequently believes that if he be not really absolved by a true Priest he cannot possibly escape damnation Such a man for his comfort you tell first you who will haue mens salvation depend vpon no vncertaintyes that though he verily belieue that his sorrow for sinnes is a true sorrow and his purpose of amendment a true purpose yet he may deceiue himself perhaps it is not and if it be not
the Eucharist depend vpon the casualtyes of the Consecrators true Priesthood and intention and yet commanding men to belieue it for certaine that he is present and to adore the Sacrament which according to your Doctrine â—â—â—ought they can possibly know may be nothing els but a piece of bread so exposing them to the danger of idolatry and consequently of damnation 65. Answer First Who will not wonder you should object to vs danger of idolatry by reason of some particular case or application of a generall true Ground which can be neither Heresy nor formall idolatry while Protestants are exposed to danger of Heresy and idolatry and consequently of damnation by reason of the very generall Ground by which their Actions should be directed Luther and Lutherans belieue the Reall Presence and divers of their chiefest Writers expressly teach that Christ is to be adored in the Eucharist And Kemnitius proves it by the severall sayings of the Saints Austine Ambrose and Gregory Nazianzen The Reader may be pleased to see Brierley Tract 2. Cap 1. Sect 3. Seing then Zwinglians Calvinists Socinians and all they who deny the Reall Presence hold the opinion of Lutherans to be false and that the Eucharist for substance is but a piece of bread according to your Objection those Lutherans expose themselves not only to the danger of idolatry and consequently of damnation but also to certaine idolatry if the Faith of Sacramentaryes be certainly true as themselves hold it to be On the contrary side If Christ be really and substantially present in the Sacrament they who deny both his Presence and Adoration are Heretiks and expose themselves to the danger of a sin no lesse haynous than idolatry For it is no less if not more injurious to deny that honour to any person which is due to him than it is to yeild greater respect than is due rather this latter is less grievous that that former because to exibite due honour is one of those precepts which Divines call Affirmatiue and do not oblige for all tymes but expressly to deny that honour which is due to one yea and avouch it not to be due is ranked in the class of Negatiue Precepts which oblige for all places tymes and other circumstances Thus we are not obliged to be at all tymes in act of adoring God but we are bound never to deny the supreme honour which Divines call Latria to be due to his Divine Majesty If therfor Lutherans be Hererikes and Idolaters for adoring Christ in the Eucharist if it be only a piece of bread other Protestants shall be Heretikes and as bad or worse than Idolaters if indeed Christ true God and man be really present The difference then and doubtfullness among you concernes Matter of Faith but that which you object to vs concernes only matter of Fact We are most assured of this generall Ground Christ is reâ—â—â— present in the Consecrated Hoast but it is not an Article of Faith that this Hoast in particular is Consecrated or that that which seemes to be bread and wine is indeed such You say We command men to belieue for certaine that Christ is present in the Eucharist but for certaine you speake against your conscience if you would haue the Reader to belieue that we command men to belieue with certainty of Faith that Christ is present in this or that particular Hoast though vnless we haue some grounded positiue reason to the contrary we ought not positively to doubt which would be but an Act of imprudency or perhaps vncharitableness or injustice as it happens in a thousand cases wherin we haue no certainty of Faith or Metaphisicall evidence and yet it would be meere foolishness positively and practically to doubt of them nor could there be in this case any shadow of danger to committ formall or culpable Idolatry Religion is a morall Uertue and requires not for its direction in particular occasions the certainty of Faith but is regulated by the vertue of Prudence which in our case doth most reasonably judg that Christ is really present in that Hoast which we haue good reason to judge is Consecrated and if there be no danger of formall idolatry there can be no danger of damnation But in the meane tyme you should consider that by your fallible Faith you can haue no certainty that Christ either is or is not present in the Eucharist and so you expose yourself to the danger of a grievous sin by not believing and adoring Christ if really he be present Besides seing you hold that any errour against Divine Revelation is damnable in itself no man must read Scripture or seeke to find the sense therof least he chance to misse of the true meaning aÌ„d so expose himself to danger of coÌ„mitting a thing damnable in itself You blame Charity Maintained because you conceaue he would not haue vs subject to any vncertainty in matters belonging to salvation and yet now you object against all Catholiques that they adore our Saviour when they are not absolutely certaine that he is present though indeed if passion did not blind you you would condemne Lutherans only who belieue that bread remaynes and therfor if Christ be not really present as you hold for certaine he is not they adore that which is nothing els but a piece of bread wheras we Catholikes believing that bread doth not remayne cannot possibly direct our intentions and Adoration to bread but to Christ himself and so the most that can be imagined will only be this that we adore Christ thinking he is where he is not our intention being still carried to him aÌ„d not to any Creature which if you will hold for true idolatry you must condemne all good Christians of idolatry who adore God as He is in Heaven Earth and everie where though in the opinion of your fellow Socinians He be really and substantially only in Heaven Even Dr. Taylor in his Liberty of Prophesying Pag 258. Numb 16. speakes home to the purpose of freeing Catholiks from all danger of idolatry in these words idolatry is a forsaking the true God and in giving the Dâ—vine Worship to a Creature or to an idoll that is to an imaginary God who hath no foundation in essence or existence And is that kinde of superstition which by Divines is called superstition of an vndue object Now it is evident that the Object of their Adoration that which is represented to them in their mindes their thoughts and purposes and by which God principally if not solely takes estimate of humane actions in the blessed Sacrament is the only true and eternall God hypostatically ioyned with his holy humanity which humanity they belieue actually present vnder the veile of the SacrameÌ„tall signes And if they thought him not bresent they are so farre from worshipping the bread in this case that themselves professe it to be idolatry to doe soe which is a demonstration that their soule hath nothing in it that is idololatricall If their confidence
in regard that these may chance not to be so cleare as of themselves alone to convince 2. He teaches That the objects of Her certainty are not Questions vnnecessary but such as belong to the substance of Faith publike Doctrine and things necessary to salvation and we haue heard him say ad fundamentum Fidei pertinere quidquid Ecclesia tenet sive in Doctrina sive in cultu That whatsoever the Church holds either in Doctrine or in worship belongs to the fundation of Faith and that all things defined by the Church are as if they were primary principles of Faith and so according to him all things defined by the Church belong to the substance of Faith and are necessary to salvation 98. But here is not an end of Potters taxing Dr. Stapleton without ground and against truth For Pag 161. he saith Stapleton hath a new pretty devise that the Church though she be fallible and discursiue in the Meanes is yet Propheticall and depends vpon immediate Revelation and so infallible in delivering the Conclusion And Pag 169. he saith Bellarmin leaves his companion Stapleton to walke alone in this dangerous path and avoweh to the contrary De Concil Lib 1 Chap § Dicuntur igitur that Councells neither haue nor write immediate Revelations But Mr. Doctour to speake truth Bellarmin leaves Stapleton just as you leaue your art of citing Authors against their meaning Bellarmin teaches That Councells neither haue nor write immediate Revelations And does not Stapleton purposely teach and carefully proue the same And does he not doe it even in the first and Third Notabili which immediatly precede that fourth Notabile out of which you pretend to draw that which you call a new pretty devise How then can you say that Stapleton teaches that the Church is Propheticall and depends vpon immediate Reuelation in delivering the Conclusion seing he teaches expressly the contrary Nay doth he not in that very fourth Notabili which you cite expressly say Ecclesiae Doctrina non est simpliciter Prophetica aut ex Revelationibus immediatis dependens The doctrine of the Church is not simply Propheticall or depending vpon immediate Revelations Who would haue believed that in matters of so great consequence you could vse so litle sincerity Dr. Stapleton teaches the same and proves very learnedly Princip Doctrin Contr 4. Lib 8. C. 15. Which very Chapter you also cite and yet make no conscience to tell vs that Bellarmin in this leaues Stapleton But how then doth Stapleton say the Doctrine of the Church is discursiue in the Meanes but is Propheticall and divine in the Conclusion Answer We haue shewed that Stapleton sayes expressly in the same place That the Doctrine of the Church is not Propheticall And besides he explicates the word Prophetica by the word Divina which you leaue out and sayth it is divina propter ea quae in tertio quarto Argumentis produximus for the causes which we alledged in the Third and Fourth Arguments In which Arguments he proved that the Church is infallible and cannot erre because she is guided and taught by an infallible maister the Holy Ghost as the Prophets were and in this agrees with Prophets though as I sayd out of Stapletons express words with this difference that the Prophets had immediate Revelations which the Church pretends not to haue but is infallibly directed by the Holy Ghost to imbrace and declare former revelations made to the Apostles vppon which assistance the certainty and infallibility of her definitions rely and not vpon discourses or inducements 99. Potters falsification will appeare more by these words of Stapleton The Doctrine of the Church is discursiue in the meanes but is propheticall and Divine in the Conclusion which Potter cites thus the the Church though she be fallible and discursiue in the Meanes is yet Propheticall and depends vpon immediate Revelation and so infallible in delivering the conclusion What a mixture is here of Potters words with the words of Stapleton Which say not that the Church depends vpon immediate Revelation but the direct contrary as we haue sayd and his Parenthesis and so infallible is also a falsificarion as if Stapleton had grounded the infallibility of the conclusion vpon immediate revelation wheras he groundes it vpon an other principle as we haue seene This being supposed that Stapleton teaches the Church to haue no immediate Revelations and the certainty of her Definitions to depend on the assistance of the Holy Ghost not vpon humane disceâ—â—se and inducements or Premises the Doctour had no Reason to say that Stapletons doctrine is a fansie repugnant to Reason and to itself He Objects pag 168. A conclusion followes the disposition of the Meanes and results from them But this is not to the purpose seing the Definitions of the Church are called by Stapleton Conclusions only because they are that which the Church determines and concludes not because they are formall Conclusions essentially as such depending on Premises Neither doth it follow that there can be no vse of diligence and discourse if the Church be infallible in the sense I haue declared Thus the Apostles in their Councell Act. 15. did vse diligence and as the Scripture saith there was made a great disputation and they alledged the working of Miracles aÌ„d other Arguments of Credibility and yet no Christian will deny but that the Apostles were infallible So the Church must on her behalfe vse diligence and discourse that all things on her parte may be done more sweetly in order to the perswading of others but the absolute certainty of her definitions and conclusions must rely vpon those words which the Apostles vsed Visum est Spiritui Sancto nobis It hath seemed good to the holy Ghost and vs. Neither likwise doth it follow that the Canons of Councells are of equall authority with holy Scriptures in which every reason discourse Text and word are infallible which we need not say of Councells though they be certaine and infallible for the substance of their definition Wherof more may be seene in Catholique Writers and particularly in Bellarmine whom even Potter doth cite de Concill Lib 2. Chap 12. and yet as if he had seene no such matter in Bellarmine inferrs against Stapleton who fully agrees with Bellarmine that if the canons of Councells be divinely inspired they must be of equall Authority with the Holy Scriptures 100. Many other Arguments might be brought to proue the necessity of an infallible Living Guide and Ecclesiasticall Traditions from Scriptures Fathers Theologicall Reasons which I omitt referring the Reader to Charity Maintayned Part. 1. Chap 2. and 3. and in this whole Worke I haue vpon many occasions proved the same For this point is so transcâ—â—dent and necessary that we must meete with it almost in all Controversyes concerning Faith and Religion This I must not omitt that I having answered and confuted all the Objections which you could make against the Arguments and Reasons alledged by Charity
Maintayned it followes that they remaine still in force and proue this most necessary Truth Scripture alone is not a sufficient Rule of Faith but Tradition and a living Judg are necessary to determine Matters belonging to Faith and Religion And whosoever will take an other way will haue reason and God grant it proue not too late to tremble at those words of Uincent Lirinens contra Heres Cap 23. concerning Origen Dum parvi pendit antiquam Christianae Religionis simplicitatem dum Ecclesiasticas Traditiones Veterum magisteria contemnens quaedam Scripturarum capitula novo more interpretatur meruit vt de se quoque Ecclesiae Dei diceretur Si surrexerit in medio tui Propheta Et paulò post Non audies inquit verba Prophetae illius While he despises the ancient simplicity of Christian Religion while contemning Ecclesiasticall Traditions and magistery of the Ancient he interprets some places of Scripture in a new manner he deserved that it should be also sayd to the Church of him If there shall rise in middes of thee a Prophet And a litle after thou shalt not heare the words of that Prophet God grant that every one heare this wholsome advise The neglect therof alone hath beene cause of Schismes and heresyes in ancient Tymes and never more than in these lamentable dayes of ours 101. But because you do without end object that we cannot proue the infallibility of the Church without running round in a Circle proving the Church by Scripture and Scripture by the Church which is in effect to proue the Church by the Church and the Scripture by Scripture I will in the next Chapter endeavour to confute and shew the vanity of this so often repeated Objection CHAP V. IN WHAT MANNER AND ORDER WE PROVE THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHVRCH 1. I Say in what manner and order For we having already proved the Infallibility of the Church inremaines only now to declare how we can do it without falling into a Circle proving the Scripture by the Church and the Church by the Scripture which you object without end though if you be a man of any solid learning it is impossible you could be ignorant of the Answer which Catholike Writers giue to this common objectiō We grant that with different sorts of persons we must proceed in a different way If one belieue not the Church or Notes proprietyes and prerogatives belonging to Her and yet belieue Scripture to be the Word of God to such a man the Church may be proved by Scripture as contrarily to him who believes the Infallibility of the Church it may be demonstrated in vertue of Her Authority what Scripture is Canonicall and what is the true sense therof by informing him what Canon the Church receyves and what Interpretation she gives Thus in regard Protestants deny the Infallibility of the Church but pretend to belieue Scripture to be the Word of God to them we proue by Scripture the perpetuall Existence Vnity Authority Sanctity Propagation efficacy Infallibility and other Propertyes of the Church But speaking per se and ex natura rei the Church is proved independently of Scripture which we receyue from the Church as you grant which was in Being before the Scripture as all must yield and yet at that tyme there wanted not meanes to find the Church For none could haue believed the Scripture to be Infallible vnless first they believed the Writers to be infallible and many were converted to the true Church before they could belieue the Scripture as not extant at that tyme. So that all must grant that there be Meanes and Arguments wherby some men may gaine such credit as others may and ought vnder payne of damnation to belieue that they are Persons to be accepted as Messengers of God and Teachers of Divine Doctrine 2. Thus Moyses the Prophets our Saviour Christ the Apostles all Apostolicall men by whom God hath converted Nations to the true Faith and knowledg of Him did proue themselves true Preachers by many effectuall and most certaine inducements independently of the Old or New Testament yea S. Irenaeus relates as you expressly grant that some Nations were made Christians without any knowledg of the Scripture As therfore our Lord and Saviour Christ his Aposties and all they who afterward converted the world to Christian Religion proved themselves to be sent by God being verifyed of them He that heareth you heareth me and he that despiseth you despiseth me and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me by Miracles Sanctity of life Efficacy of Doctrine admirable repentance of sinners Chang of manners Conversion of all sorts of Persons of all Countryes through the whole world and this to a Faith Profession and Religion that proposes many Points as necessary to be believed aboue and seemingly contrary to humane Reason and against mens naturall inclinations togeather with the consideration of the constancy of Martyrs Abnegation of Confessours Purity of Uirgins Fortitude even of the youngest Age and weaker sexe and other admirable conspicuous Notes and strong inforcements to gaine an absolute and vndoubted assent to whatsoever they should propose in Matters concerning Faith and Religion So the Church of God by the like still continued Arguments and Notes of many great and manifest Miracles Sanctity Sufferings Uictory over all sorts of enemyes Conversion of Infidels all which Notes are dayly more and more conspicuous and convincing and shall be encreasing the longer the world shall last and it seemes God in his wisdome and Goodness hath blessed vs very particularly since the appearing of Luther and other moderne Heretikes for the greater confusion of them and glory of his Church and the same I say of the name Catholique which is continually more verifyed by accession of new Countreyes as also that of succession of Bishops from the Apostles particularly in the Sea of Rome Vnity Stability Perpetuity The Church I say by these and the like evident Arguments proves that she deserves credit as the first Doctours and Preachers did and consequently that her Doctrine and Definitions in Matters concerning Faith are certainly true And we may with all truth avouch that whosoever either denyes these Notes of Miracles and the rest to be found in the Catholique Roman Church or despises them as insufficient opens an inevitable way for Jewes Turks Gentils and all enemyes of Christian Religion to deny the truth therof which to them must be proved by such Arguments as are evidently found in the Roman Church and in no other Congregation Moreover as the Apostles and Apostolicall men were not believed to be Infallible because they wrote Scripture but contrarily their Writings or Scriptures are believed to be infallibly true because the Writers were preendued with Infallibility which Infallibility was proved by Miracles and other Arguments so the Church is believed infallible in force of the same Arguments abstracting from any proofe drawen from Scripture wherby we are uery sure not to run in a
that the chiefest malice in Heresy consists not in being against such or such a materiall Object or Truth great or little Fundamentall or not Fundamentall but in the opposition it carryeth with the Divine testimony which we suppose to be equally represented in both kinds of Points Fundamentall and not Fundamentall And therfore he must either say that Obedience is to be yielded in both which were most absurd or in neither And that it may be securely yielded in both we must acknowledg a Judge endued with infallibility Neither doth A. C. Set vp private Spirits to controll Generall Councells which Catholiks belieue to be infallible but that absurdity flowes out of the doctrine of Protestants affirming them to be fallible even in Fundamentall Points and consequently private men are neither obliged nor can rely on their Authority in matters of Faith for which Morall Certainty is not strongh enough but may Judge as they find cause out of Scripture or reason and may oppose their Decrees nor can ever obey them against their Conscience And if all Councells be fallible what greater certainty can I receaue from the second than from the first if we meerly respect their Authority For if I be mooved with some new reason or Demonstration I am not mooved for the Authority of the Councell but for that Reason which seemes good to mee And is not this to set vp private men and Spirits to controll Generall Councells 46. Sixthly He saith A Generall Councell cannot easily erre manifestly against Fundamentall Verity From whence I inferr that seing Luther opposed the whole Church and so many Generall Councells held before his tyme he is to be presumed to haue opposed them not for any manifest Fundamentall but at most for Errours not Fundamentall to speake as Protestants do For indeed Councells cannot erre in either kind in which Points not Fundamentall he sayth men are to yield Obedience and therfore He and all those who formerly did and now do follow his example are to be judged guilty of Schisme 47. Seaventhly He saith It may seeme very fit and necessary for the Peace of Christendome that a Generall Councell thus erring should stand in force till evidence of Scripture or a Demonstration make the Errour to appeare as that another Councell of equall Authority reverse it In these words he gives vs Catholikes no small advantage against the Capitall principle of Protestants that Scripture alone containes evidently all necessary Points For if evidence of Scripture or a Demonstration may be so inevident or obscure to a whole lawfull Generall Councell that it may fall into Fundamentall Errours which in the grounds of Protestants are opposite only to some Truth evidently contained in Scripture it is evident that he and other Protestants say nothing when they talke of evidence of Scripture but that indeed every one makes and calls that evident which he desires should be so And how is it possible that a true Generall Councell should be so blind as not to see that which is evident And this indeed is to set vp private Spirits to controll Generall Councells I will not vrge what he meanes by a Demonstration when he distinguisheth it from Evidence of Scripture A Demonstration implyes an vndeniable and as I may say an Evident Evidence and if it be an Evidence distinct from the Evidence of Scripture which according to Protestants containes evidently all necessary Points of Faith it must be evidence of naturall Reason which is common to all men And how can a Generall Councell erre against such a kind of Evidēce But as I sayd Evidēce with Protestāts is a voluntary word which they make vse of to their purpose Besides Scripture is no lesse evidēt in innumerable points not fundamētall than it is in some which are Fundamentall and therfore all who belieue Scripture are obliged to belieue those no less than these vnless men will say that it is not damnable to belieue and professe somthing evidently knowne to be against Scripture and therfore in this there can be no distinction between Fundamētall ād not fundamētall Points ād so a Generall Councell may as easily erre against Fundamentall Articles as against Points not Fundamentall clearly delivered in Scripture in which case it is destructiue of salvation to erre against either of those kinds I haue beene somwhat long in pondering his words because I vnderstand the booke is esteemed by some and I hope it appeares by what I haue now said out of it that we may be saved that a Living judg of controversyes is necessary that Luther and all Protestants are guilty of the sin of Schisme Three as mayne and capitall Points in fauour of vs against Protestants as we can desire and they feare 48. Herafter we will ponder Mr. Chillingworths words for our present purpose who speaking of Generall Councells saith Pag 200. N. 18. I willingly confess the judgment of a Councell though not infallible is yet so farr directiue and obliging that without apparent reason to the contrary it may be sin to reject it at least not to affoard it an outward submission for publike peace-sake As also we will consider Potters words Pag 165. speaking thus We say that such Generall Councells as are lawfully called and proceed orderly are great and awfull representations of the Church Catholique that they are the highest externall Tribunall which the Church hath on Earth that their Authority is immediatly derived and delegated from Christ that no Christian is exempted from their censures and jurisdiction that their decrees bind all persons to externall obedience and may not be questioned but vpon evident reason nor reversed but by an equall authority that if they be carefull and diligent in the vse of all good Meanes for finding out the truth it is very probable that the good spirit will so direct them that they shall not erre at least not Fundamentally 49. But let vs proceed in proving that Protestants hold Points not Fundamentall not to be of any great moment and much less to be destructiue of salvation It is cleare that Protestants differ among them selves in many Points which they pretēd to be only not Fundamētall ād say they do not destroy the ubstāce of Faith nor hinder thē from being Brethren and of the same Church And why because such Points are small matter as Whitaker speakes Cont ◠Quest 4. Cap 3. Things in different and tittles as King James saith in his Monitory Epistle Matters of no great moment as Andrewes Respons ad Apolog Bellarmin Cap 14. No great matters Apology of the Church of England Matters of nothing as Calvin calls them Admonit Vlt Pag 132. Matters not to be much respected if you believe Martyr in locis Classe 4. C. 10. § 65. Formes and phrases of speech as Potter speaks Pag 90. a curious nicity Pag 91. 50. Out of all which we must conclude both out of the words deeds and principles of Protestants First that errours against Points not Fundamentall are not
destructiue of salvation being but matters of small consideration in their account Secondly That they can not be excused from Schisme who forsooke all Churches for Points not Fundamentall and of so small moment in which they disagree amongst themselves and in diverse of which many of them agree with vs against their pretended Brethren which is to be well observed Thirdly that Chillingwâ— had no reason Pag 11 to say to Charity Maintayned produce any one Protestant that ever did so that is affirme that every errour not Fundamentall is not destructiue of salvation and I will giue you leaue to say It is the only thing in Question seing I haue proved out of many chiefe Protestants that for which he sayth no one can be produced yea and I can yet produce a full confession of Mr. Chillingworth himself that Errours in not Fundamentalls are not destructiue of salvation nor such as may necessitate or warrant any man to disturbe the peace or renounce the Communion of a Church Thus he speakes in his Answer to the Direction N. 39. Though I hold not the Doctrine of all Protestants absolutely true which with reason cannot be required of me while they hold contradictions yet I hold it free from all impiety and from all Errour destructiue of salvation or in itselfe damnable For the Church of England I am perswaded that the constant Doctrine of it is so pure and Orthodox that whosoever believes it and lives according to it vndoubtedly he shall be saved and that there is no errour in it which may necessitate or warrant any man to disturbe the peace or renounce the communion of it Here I obserue first If the doctrine of Protestanss whom he expressly confesses to hold contradictions and consequently some of them to hold errours at least in Points not Fundamentall be free from all errour destructue of salvation or in itselfe damnable it followes that errours against Points not Fundamentall are not destructiue of salvation nor in themselves damnable which is the thing I intended to proue 2. What he saith of the Errours among Protestants that they are not destructiue of salvation he must also say of our pretended errours both because commonly of disagreeing Protestants one part agrees with vs as also because as I sayd diverse of them stand directly with vs against the common course of the rest and finally because the reason of being or not being damnable is common to all Points not Fundamentall which are supposed to contradict some divine revelation sufficiently propounded which to doe if it be destructiue of salvation must be so for all such Points if not in none at all 3. If the constant doctrine of the Church of England be so pure that whosoever believes it and lives according to it vndoubtedly he shall be saved and that there is no errour in it which may necessitate or warrant any man to disturbe the peace or renounce the communion of it you must say seing Luther and his followers did and do disturbe the peace and renounce the communion of the whole Church of God before his tyme which must be supposed to haue erred only in Points not Fundamentall otherwise it had beene no Church they did and do that for which there was no necessity and for which they had no warrant and therfore cannot avoide the just imputation of Schisme For the same reason also that the Church erred only in points not Fundamentall you must grant that whosoever believes as the Church did and lives accordingly vndoubtedly shall be saved For I am sure you belieue the Church of England to haue erred in diverse Points and in particular in her 39. Articles which was her constant doctrine if she had any constant at all In particular your conscience tells you that you belieue not the Mystery of the Blessed Trinity and much less that our Saviour Christ was true God and consubstantiall with his Father to say nothing of other Points of those 39. articles And is it not ridiculous to heare you talke of purity of doctrine of the Church of England which you belieue to be stayned with such Errours But you wrote for Ends If then salvation may be so assured in the Church of England you must grant the same of that Church which Luther and his associates forsooke and that therfore they certainly exclude themselves from salvation by forsaking the communion of them amongst whom salvation was so certaine and remember your words Pag 272. N. 53. it concernes every man who separates from any Churches communion even as much as his salvation is worth to looke most carefully to it that the cause of his separation be just and necessary For vnless it be necessary it can very hardly be sufficient To which proposition if we subsume but it cannot be necessary to separate for avoyding that errour or attaining that Truth which to avoyde or attaine is not necessary to salvation therfore Luther who separated from the Church for Points not necessary cannot pretend any necessary or sufficient cause for such his separation aÌ„d consequeÌ„tly was guilty of the sin of Schisme 4. But yet you will still be making good that in these matters Protestants and yourself in particular haue no constancy but say and vnsay as may best serue their turne You tell vs the doctrine of all Protestants is free from all Errour in it selfe damnable which agrees not with what you say of Protestants Pag 19. If we faile in vsing such a measure of industry in finding truth as humane prudence and ordinary discretion shall advise in a matter of such consequence our Errours begin to be malignant and justly imputable as offenses against God and that loue of his truth which he requires in vt And Pag 306. N. 106. For our continuing in the Communion of Protestants notwithstanding their Errours the justification hereof is not so much that their Errours are not damnable as that they require not the belief and profession of these Errours among the conditions of their Communion And Pag 279. N. 64. The visible Church is free indeed from all Errours absolutely destructive and vnpardonable but not from all errour which in itselfe is damnable not from all which will actually bring damnation vpon them that keepe themselves in them by their owne voluntary and avoidable fault If the visible Church be not free from errour which in itselfe is damnable how could you say that the Protestant Church of England is free from all errour damnable in itselfe But why do I cite particular passages You giue a generall Rule concerning all Errours Pag 158. N. 52. in these words If the cause of it an errour be some voluntary and avoidable fault the Errour is it selfe sinfull and consequently in its owne nature damnable as if by negligence in seeking the Truth by vnwillingnes to find it by pride by obstinacy by desiring that Religion shoudl be true which sutes best with my ends by feare of mens â—ll opinion or any other worldly feare or
censure of Holy Scripture He who soone believes is light of heart that is they could haue no Act of Divine supernaturall faith which requires the particular assistance of the Holy Ghost and this cannot be given to produce or foster such fooleryes or imprudences In the same manner you take no notice of that which Cha Ma in the same Section cites out of Calvin Ep. 141. we haue been forced to make a separation from the whole world nor aske him how he could say so without strayning and how they made a separation from the whole world nor how they could say so seing so many millions followed them But I beseech you consider that even Luther himselfe for his owne opinions and apostasy proceeded by degrees so farr as that he pretended to submitt himselfe to the Pope And then how could so many follow him at the first instant when himselfe knew not what to follow And at that tyme was he not alone neither Catholike nor setled in any other doctrine And seing in those doubts and doctrines some tyme must passe before he himselfe was setled or could instill them to others it is manifest that he opposed himselfe to All Churches then extant and then we must by your owne Rule say that All opposed themselves to him that is they believed at that tyme those Articles and embraced those rites Liturgy and publike manner of worshipping God which he condemned which is true even of those who afterward were seduced by him and so it is most true that in the beginning he opposed himselfe to All and All opposed themselves to him as appeares by that which he further sayth Ep ad Argentinenses Anno 1525. Christum a nobis primò promulgatum audemus gloriari We dare glory that Christ was first diuulged by vs. Mark primo first and Conrad Schlusselburg in Theolog Calvinist L. 2. saith It is impudency to say that many learned men in Germany before Luther did hold the doctrine of the Gospell The like sayings of others concerning Luther may be seene in Ch Ma P. 1. P. 267. It is therfore true that he opposed himselfe to All and All to him 117. Object 12. Charity Maintayned Part 1. P. 202. N. 57. to proue it vniversally true that there can be no just cause to forsake the Communion of the visible Church of Christ alledges S. Austine saying Ep 48. It is not possible that any may haue just cause to separate their Communion from the communion of the whole world and call themselves the Church of Christ as if they had separated themselves from the Communion of all Nations vpon just cause Against this Argument you object thus Pag 302. N. 101. It is one thing to separate from the Communion of the whole world another to separate from all the Communions in the world One thing to divide from them who are vnited among themselves Another to divide from them who are divided among themselves Now the Donatists separatet from the whole world of Christians vnited in one Communion professing the same Faith serving God after the same manner which was a very great Argument that they could not haue just cause to leaue them according to that of Tertullian Variasse debuerat error Ecclesiarum quod autem apud multos vnum est non est erratum sed traditum But Luther and his followers did not so The world I meane of Christians and Catholikes was divided and subdivided long before he divided from it and by their divisions had much weakned their owne Authority and taken away from you this plea of S. Austine which stands vpō no other foundatiō but the vnity of the whole worlds Communiō 118. Answer Ex ore tuo te judico Your owne Answer overthrowes your owne doctrine Whosoever separates from the Communion of the whole world in that wherin the whole world agrees separates from the Communion of the world because to vse your owne words this is to divide from them who are vnited among themselves and is not to divide from them who are divided among themselves But Luther divided himselfe from the whole world in points wherin the whole world was vnited therfore he divided himselfe from the Communion of the whole world The Minor that Luther divided himselfe from the whole world in Points wherin the whole world was vnited that is as Protestants falsely affirme in errours and corruptions common to the whole then visible Church Charity Maintayned Pag P. 61. N. 9. and P. 167. N. 12. hath proved out of learned Protestants as also we haue seene even now by the confession of Luther Calvin and Schlusselb and the thing is cleare of itselfe and even bragged of by Luther and his followers Neither is there any speech more common among Protestants then that the whole visible Church was corrupted ād this is the reason which you ād other Protestāts yeild in excuse of your leaving the Communion of all Churches otherwise there could haue beene no pretence of a reformation If saith the Protestant Gregorius Milius in Argumentâ Confessione Art 7. de Ec There had beene right believers which went before Luther in his office there had then beene no need of a Lutheran Reformation Therfore the argument of ha Ma taken out of S. Austine holds good and strong no lesse against Luther who separated from all Churches in Points wherin they were not divided but vnited than it was of force against the Donatists Yea further it proves that those supposed errours which Luther pretend to reforme were indeed Orthodox truths even by the Rule which you alledg out of Tertullian variasse debuit error Ecclesiarum quod autem apud multos vnum est non est erratum sed traditum Seing then All Churches before Luther agreed in those doctrines which he vndertooke to reforme they cannot be errours being the same not only apud multos among many as Tertullian speakes but apud omnes among all Christian Churches in the world And this reason taken out of Tertullian growes stronger in our case even by your saying that The world of Christians and Catholiks was divided and subdivided long before Luther divided from it because when so many yea and all who otherwise are divided and subdivided yet agree vnanimously in some Points that very consent amongst men of so very different dispositions affections and opinions is more then a very great Argument that Luther and his followers could not haue just cause to leaue them as you argue against the Donatists From whence it also followes that you are in an errour of pernicious consequence while you say that Christians and Catholikes by then Divisions had much weakned their owne authority and taken away from vs Catholikes this plea of S. Austine which stands vpon no other foundation but the vnity of the whole worlds Communion seing this vnity yieldes a stronger argument in our present case by the Divisions and subdivisions of which you talke and therfore doth not takeaway but strengthen our plea out of S.
Church is not only secure but certaine and easy and therfore necessary Thus your mayne Objection is turned against your selfe And then it is further inferred that if it either be no sin or at least a less offense to profess errours than to forsake the Church she may justly exact and injoyne vnder Censures that to which every one is obliged by the Law of God notwithstanding any pretence or supposition of errours For when the Holy Fathers vnanimously agree that it is not possible there can be any just cause to forsake the Church they must suppose that either she cannot fall into any errour which is most true and indeed they suppose it otherwise there could be no difference betweene the vniversall and a particular Church which may fall into errour and so be forsaken or els you must grant that they did not conceiue any eriours could excuse the leaving her Communion And this vnaninâ—ous consent alone were sufficient for Christians to belieue that the profession of errours cannot be so great an evill as separation from the Church is Nevertheless reason it selfe grounded in principles of Faith convinceth the same For in true Divinity it is Fundamentall to the Faith of a Christian not to disbelieue any one point sufficiently proposed as revealed by God as Potter expressly grants and you say further that it is to giue God the ly and therfore to profess as a point of Faith any thing contrary to the beliefe of the Church is to say she erred fundamentally and fell into infidelity as Potter saith every one doth who denyes a Divine Truth sufficiently proposed and consequently to profess that the Church erred is to say that she perished which Potter saith is in the matter and nature of it properly hereticall and so Whosoever saith the Church erred he himselfe by that very saying professes indeed a damnable heresy which is worse than to profess an errour contrary only to a Truth supposed to be not Fundamentall nor necessary and so by your owne confessions though I grant your confessions contradict yourself we proue our intent 123. Besides it is no less evident that it is essentially and Fundamentally evill to disbelieue a truth knowne to be witnessed by God than to profess externally some point which one believes not to be true yea that first must be the ground for which you say it is damnable to profess against ones conscience an errour repugnant to Divine Revelation For if it be not damnable to deny interiourly such a truth much lesse can it be damnable to profess exteriourly only a deniall of that which one believes to be revealed by God For it is to be considered that we speake not of any internall errour but only of the externall profession of an errour not Fundamentall which alone is not so great a sinne as internall Heresy nor so vast a Mischiefe as the inconvenience of Schisme is which is destructiue of the whole Church essentially including communion in profession of one Faith Liturgy c. and necessarily brings with it a deluge of scandall irreligiosity contempt disobedience and in one word vniversitatem malorum and therfore S. Thomas teaches 2.2 Quest 29. Art 2. ad 3. that amongst sins against our neighbour Schisme is the most grievous because it is against the spirituall good of the multitude or community and as Cha Ma saith Part 1. Pag 156. N. 6. As there is as great difference betweene the crime of rebellion or sedition and debates among private men as there is inequality betwixt one man and a whole kingdome or Common wealth so in the Church Schisme is as much more grievous than sedition in a Kingdome or Common wealth as the spirituall good of soules surpasses the Civill and politicall weale See here the sayings of the Holy Fathers in Charity Maintayned Part 1. Pag 157. N. 70. of the grievousness of Schisme All which is confirmed by what we sayd even now that the profession of an errour in our case cannot so much as hurt a private person who constituted in an invincible perplexity doth not sin by embracing the less evill in the opinion of great Divines with whose Doctrine whosoever conformes his Conscience is certaine not to sin whatsoever the thing be in it selfe 134. Morover it is evident both in reason and by experience that Schisme always brings with it that very thing which you pretend to be so very inconvenient and damnable that is a profession of errours at least not Fundamentall by multiplying diversity of Sects and opinions as we see it happens among Protestants some of whoâ— must be in an errour And S. Hierome saith truly vpon those words of the Apostle which some casting of haue suffered ship wrack in their Faith though Schisme in the beginning may in some sort be vnderstood different from heresy yet there is no Schisme which doth not faine some Heresy to it selfe that so it may seeme to haue departed from the Church vpon good reason And is it not worse both to belieue and profess culpable errours than to belieue aright and faile only in the outward profession of that beliefe The former makes one a formall compleat Heretike both in conscience and judgment of the Church the latter is indeed no Heretike but only appeares so to be neither is he subject to the punishment of Heretiks The former offends in two respects in the beliefe of an errour and profession of it The latter only in profession which alone as I saied cannot be so sinfull as the errour of Heresy it selfe both because the profession is sinfull only by reason of the errour professed as also because by heresy one doubts or denyes some truth revealed by God which is immediatly against Gods supreme Uerity and veracity and so is against an Object of a Theologicall Uertue as S. Thomas saith 2.2 Quest 39. A â— c. Infidelitas est peccatum contra ipsum Deum secundum quod in se est veritas prima cui fides innititur But to profess a knowne errour is only against the precept of professing ones Faith which are distinct thinges and therfore as I sayd a culpable errour is worse than the only profession of an errour If you thinke that such an externall profession is worse than an internall errour because that is against ones conscience you are much mistaken it being certaine that not every sin of dissimulation against ones conscience is greater than any other sin as is cleare of it selfe to every Divine or Philosopher yea the externall sinfull profession of an errour flowes from the Heresy itself which ordinarily is a worse roote than humane feare hope or the like from which an externall false profession or dissimulation is wont to procede and therfore this is less damnable than that even though it were a finne and were not excused by the supposed invincible perplexity as we have Shewed it may be S. Thomas 2.2 Quest 39. Art 2. in corpore teaches that Infidelity ex suo genere is a greater
vnderstanding to an assent in despite of any pious affection of the will and reverence due to Gods Church and Councells and the many and great reasons which make for Her which is vnanswerably confirmed by considering that Protestants disagree amongst themselves and many of them in many things agree with vs which I must often repeate which could not happen if the reasons against vs were demonstratiue or evident and in this occasion your Rule that the property of Charity is to judge the best will haue place at least for as much as concernes those your owne Brethren who agree with vs As also your other saying Pag 41. N. 13. That men honest and vpright hearts true lovers of God and truth may without any fault at all some goe one way some another which shewes that there can be no evidence against the Doctrine of the Church with which even so many Protestants agree but that Catholikes haue at least very probable and prudent reasons not to depart from the Church in any one point and that although we should falsely suppose Her to erre in points not fundamentall the errour could not be culpable nor sinfull but most prudent and laudable And in this our condition is far different and manifestly better than that of Protestants who disagreeing not only both from the Church but amongst themselves also must be certaine that they are in errour which for ought they know may be fundamentall seing they cannot tell what Points in particular are fundamentall wheras we adhering to the Church are sure not to erre against any necessary or fundamentall truth And yourselfe say Pag 376. N. 57. He that believes all necessary Truth if his life be answerable to his Faith how is it possible he should faile of salvation 168. And then further vpon this same ground is deduced another great difference with great advantage on our side that Protestants are obliged vnder paine of damnation to make choyse of the more certaine and secure part and must not be content with a meere probability if they can by any industry care study prayer fasting almes-deeds or any other meanes attaine to a greater degree of certainty For if indeed they erre in any one Article of Faith necessary necessitate medij they cannot be saved even though their errour were supposed to be invincible as hertofore we haue shewed out of Protestants Wheras we being assured that adhering to the Church we cannot erre in any point of it selfe necessary to salvation for the rest we are sure to be saved if we proceed prudently and probably because the truth contrary to our supposed errours cannot be necessary necessitate medij as not being fundamentall Yea since indeed Protestants can haue no other true and solid meanes of assurance that they erre not Fundamentally except the same which we embrace of believing the Church in all her definitions they are obliged vnder deadly sin to belieue all that she proposes for feare of erring in some Fundamentall Article What I haue sayd that we proceede prudently though our Doctrines were supposed to be errours may be confirmed by an Adversary Dr. Jer Taylor who in his Liberty of prophesying § 20. N. 2. saieth that our grounds that truth is more ancient then falshood that God would not for so many Ages forsake his Church and leaue her in errour that whatsoever is new is not only suspitions but false are suppositions pious and plausible enough And then having reckoned many advantages of our Church he concludes These things and divers others may very easily perswade persons of much reason and more piety to retain that which they know to haue been the Religion of their fore-Fathers which had actuall possession and seizure of mens vnderstandings before the opposite professions had a name before Luther appeared And in express tearmes he confesses that these things are instruments of our excuse by making our errours to be invinc1ible which is the thing I would proue But here I must declare that when I say It is sufficient for vs to proceed probably and prudently It is still vpon a false supposition that the Church may erre in some Point not Fundamentall though in reall truth there be no such distinction For we are obliged vnder payne of damnation to belieue the Church equally in all points and vse all not only probable but possible meanes to find the true Church and belieue her with absolute certainty in all matters belonging to Faith and in particular That she cannot erre in any point Fundamentall or not Fundamentall without the beliefe of which truth Christian Faith cannot be certaine and infallible as hath been shewed at large 169. Thirdly I answer to your Objection That we absolutely deny the Catholique Church to be subject to errour either in Fundamentall or not Fundamentall Points or that she can erre either Fundamentally or damnably in what sense soever And therfore wheras you say Pag 280. N. 95. The errours of Protestants are not so great as ours we vtterly deny that our Church can belieue or propose any errour at all And though those Catholique Verityes which we belieue were errours yet they could not be greater than those of Protestants speaking in generall seing in all the chiefest controverted points we haue diverse chiefe learned men on our side who think themselves as good Protestants as those other from whom they disagree Besides in our Question respect must be had to the kind and not to the degree of errours that is nor whether the points be FundameÌ„tall or not FundameÌ„tall nor whether they which be Fundamentall be greater or less in their owne nature nor whether one not Fundamentall be worse than another not Fundamentall because if one errour not Fundamentall yield not sufficient cause to forsake the Communion of the Church another cannot otherwise you will not be able to assigne any Rule when the Church may be forsaken and when she cannor and it is damnable to professe against ones conscience any errour in Faith be it never so small which is the ground for which you say the Communion of the Church may be forsaken And lastly it is more wisdome to hold a greater vnfundamentall errour with the Church which I know by the confession of our Adversaryes cannot erre fundamentally than by holding a less vnfundamentall errour expose my selfe to danger of falling into fundamentall errours as I proved hertofore As it is less evill to commit a veniall sinne that is which abstracting from the case of perplexity would be certainly a veniall sinne than to expose ones selfe to true danger of falling into a mortall offence of God 170. Fourthly I answer that as I haue often noted according to you and Dr. Potter it is Fundamentall to the Faith of a Christian not to deny any point though otherwise of its nature not Fundamentall being proposed and belieued to be revealed by God and so your distinction between Fundamentall and damnable Points as if the eâ—â—ours of Catholiks and Protestants were damnable
be probably true as it is certainly most false In so much as D. Jeremy Tailor In his Liberty of Prophesying Pag. 252. speaking of some Doctrines of vs Catholikes which he saith lead to ill life he specifyes this that Attrition which is a low and imperfect degree of sorrow for sin or as others say a sorrow for sin commenced vpon any reason of temporall Hope or feare or desire or any thing else is a sufficient disposition for a man in the Sacrament of Pennance to receiue absolution and be justifyed before God by taking away the guilt of all his sins and the obligation to eternall paines So that already the feare of Hell is quite removed vpon conditions so easy that many men take more paines to get a groat than by this Doctrine we are obliged to for the curing and acquitting all the greatest sins of a whole life of the most victous persons in the world How contrary in another extreme is this Doctour to the chosen champion of English Protestants Mr. Chillingworth But as for our Doctrine concerning Attrition the Doctour is extremely mistaken to say no worse as will appeare to any that reads the sacred Councell of Trent declaring what sorrow is required to obtaine pardon of our sins or Catholique Divines writing on this subject For if the sorrow be conceyved vpon any Reason meerly of temporall Hope or feare as the Doctour speakes we teach that it is in no wise sufficient to make meÌ„ capable of Absolution or forgiveness of sins but it must proceed from some motiue knowne by supernaturall Faith for example the Feare of Hell or desire of heaven Secondly it cannot be produced by the naturall forces of men or Angells as being the Gift of God and requiring the speciall moon inspiration and grace of the Holy Ghost And therfore his examp of gaining a groat is so farr from being to he purpose or true that â—ontrarily all the wit paines and industry of all men that haue bee are or shall be yea or are possible to be created cannot arriue to it by all the naturall forces of them all though they were assisted with the heâ—â— of all Angells created or creable or of all other naturall Creatures contayned in the Omnipotency of Almighty God Thirdly such sorrow must extend itselfe to all deadly sins in order to which it is to be so effectuall that it must exclude all affection to them and the Penitent mâ—st be resolved rather to vndergoe a thousand deaths than once consernâ— to the least mortall sin And therfore Fourthly he must resolue to abyde for tyme to come all proximas occasiones or imminent danger â—f falling into any one mortall sin As also if he haue injured any man by â—aking away his good name or goods or limme or life he must effectâ—ally and speedily procure to giue satisfaction or make restitution according as the case shall require yea and somtyme if it be justly fearâ—d that delay will cause a failing in his purpose Absolution may prudâ—ntly or must be differred till he haue actually satisfyed all obligatioâ— the neglect wherof would proue to be a deadly sin And in a word thâ—t sorrow which we call Attrition differs from Contrition in the Motiuâ— only because contrition is conceived for sin as it is against the infinite Goodness of God Attritition as it is repugnant to our eternall Salvation and therfore contrition is an Act of the Theologicall Uertue of Charity Attrition of the Theologicall Uertue of Hope which as it moves vs to desire and hope everlasting happyness so it incites vs to feare the loss therof and out of that holy feare not to feare any other temporal loss with the prejudice of our soules according to those words of our Blessed Saviour do you not feare those who kill the body but cannot kill the soule but rather feare him who can punish with Hell fâ—re both the body and soule Which words declare that as I sayd a naturall feare meerly of temporall loss though it be even of our life iâ— not a sufficient disposition for pardon of sins as is signifyed by Do you not feare those who kill the body but cannot kill the soule but it must be conceyved for some losse knowne by supernaturall Faith as for the loss of heaven or paines of Hell as is signifyed by the second part of our Saviours speech and the adversatiue particle sed but feare hin who can c. This mistake of the Doctour being cleared I shall not nâ—d nor is it for my preseÌ„t purpose to confute his other following worâ— full of mistakes about Purgatory Indulgences c especially havâ—â—g spoken of the like subject in Answer to Mr. Chilling Objection â—bout Indulgences c But it is here sufficient for me to conclude tâ—â—t seing there is no certainty among Protestants what contrition is ecessary for salvation as we haue seene by the disagreeing doctrine of this Doctour Chillingworth Kemnitius Luther c it followes tâ—â—t they cannot be sure but that they erre in a point necessary to saâ—ation and that this your errour is very pernicious and prejudicious tâ—oules 4. Your second Errour is set done Pag 391. N. 8. Fine Where you say that although we pretent to be rigid defenders and stout champions for the necessity of good wores yet indeed we do it to make our owne functions necessary but Oâ—dience to God vnnecessary which will appeare to any man who conside what strict necessity the Scripture imposes vpon all men of essectuall mortisation of the Habits of all Vices and effectuall conversion to newnes of â—e and vniversall Obedience and withall remembers that an Act of Atâ—tion which you say with Priestly Absolution is sufficient to salvation is not mortification which being a worke of difficulty and tyme canno be performed in an instant Which reason proves that perfect Conâ—ition which is an Act produced in an instant is not sufficient foremission of sins Also Pag 292. N. 91. You call it a doct iâ—e of Licetiousness that though a man liue and dy without the practise of Christian vertues and with the Habits of many damnable sins vnmortifyed yet if â—e in the last moment of his life haue any sorrow for his sin this any is buâ—n vntruth of yours as appeares by what I sayd even now against Dr. â—aylor and joyne confession with it certainly he shall be saved And Pg 379. N. 70. You speake to Catholikes in this manner If I follow te Scripture I must not promise my selfe salvation without effectuall derelicton and mortification of all vices and the effectuall practise of all Christian vertues But your Church opens an easyer and a broader way to Heaven and though I continue all my life long in a course of sin and without the â—ractise of any vertue yet gives me assurance that I may be let into Heave at a poslerne gate even by any Act of Attrition at the houre of death if it be joyned with Confession or by an Act of Contrition
without Confesion Here you declare that perfect sorrow or Contrition is not a sufficient disposition for remission of sins even at the houre of death A doctrine fit only to make poore sinners despaite Against this Hypocryticall and desperate doctrine of yours I bring these reasons 5. First Wheras you require for remission of sins not only Sorrow and Detestation of offences past with a firme Purpose of amendment for tyme to come but also the Object of such an Act or Purpose that is Actuall amendment which you say being a worke of difficulty and tyme cannot be performed in an instant this Doctrine seemes to be contradicted by your selfe Pag 133. N. 12. In these words For those that haue meanes to find the truth and will not vse them they Protestants conceave though their case be dangerous yet if they dy with a generall Repentance for all their sins known and vnknowne their salvation is not desperate You seeme either to speake of men brought to the houre of death or at least you do not exclude such a case and of men in state of sin proceeding from negligence to find the truth which negligence must be caused by some deadly sinfull Feare Hope or some other vicious humane respect and consequently must haue produced some vicious Habits and yet you seeme to say such men may be saved by a generall Repentance which being only generall cannot descend to all particulars as the mortification of all particular ill Habits must doe yea you suppose that the particular sinfull errours are not known to them and much less can those vicious Habits from which they proceed be mortifyed which cannot be done at that exigent of imminent death And therfore either the doctrine which you seeme to teach that it is possible for such men to be saved at the houre of their death is false or els you must grant that Repentance requires not the mortification of all vicious Habits 6. Secondly As I sayd of your Doctrine concerning the fallibility of Christian Faith and of your Doctrine of Attrition that they could serue only to bring men to damnation so I say of this your Assertion that no sinner who vnderstands and believes it to be true can avoide desperation at the houre of death when he sees that the extirpation of all vicious Habits is impossible and yet Necessary to true Repentance and salvation of his soule Protestants are wont to receiue the Communion at the houre of their death which I suppose you will say ought not to be done without true Repentance of their sins vnless you will suppose all Protestants at the houre of their death to be free from sin which is against that which Protestants themselves suppose as shall instantly appeare and yet it is impossible for them at that tyme to attaine your Repentance by extirpation of all vicious Habits In your Booke of Common-prayer in the Order of visiting the sicke it is sayd Here shall the sicke person make a speciall confession if he feele his conscience troubled with any â—eighty matter Therfore as I sayd Protestants may haue some weighty matter at the houre of their death And then is set downe the forme of Absolution which the Ptiest or Minister is to giue But how can he who feeles his Conscience troubled with any weighty matter truly repent at that last houre by your kind of Repentance which you say is a worke of difficulty and tyme Or how can he be absolved without true Repentance 7. Thirdly This Assertion is contrary to two doctrines very common and as I may say capitall amongst Protestants that Faith only justifyes and that it is impossible to keepe the commandements For that Act of Faith which they call justifying and remissiue of sin is exercised in an instant and would saue a man though he should dy before it were in his power to extirpate all vicious Habits And if it be impossible to keepe all the commandements it is impossible not to committ some sinfull Acts wherby they are broken and which must necessarily leaue after them some vicious Habits and so insteed of extirpating all vicious Habits men must still be producing new ones How then can you say Pag 40â— N. 31. Repentance is an essectuall conversion from all sin to all holynes Is not the breaking of Gods commandements a sin Or can he be converted from all sin to all holyness and to vniversall Obedience as you speake who cannot avoide sin but must still be disobeying 8. Fourthly In your doctrine what shall become of such as being newly converted to the Faith of Christ from Paganisme Judaisme or Turcisme are baptized at the houre of death and yet were full of vicious Habits which they haue no tyme to Mortify or roote out Or will you deny true Repentance and Remission of sin to those who after a life ledd in many grievous sins and after the Production of many ill Habits being suddenly converted to Christian Faith were baptized in their bloud before they could destroy so many vicious Habits 9. Fiftly If you duly consider what you say you will find your manner of Repentance to be impossible not only in the cases which I haue mentioned but to those also who liue a considerable tyme after forrow for their sinnes be it Attrition or Contrition For the Habits of vice as they were produced by frequency of acts so are they not taken away but by multiplication of contrary acts Neither do they consist in indivisibli so as if one degree be destroyed there may not remayne divers others which must be rooted out by little and little and yet while one habit is diminished or destroyed another may remaine entire and even be encreased for example while the habit of injustice is destroyed or diminished the habit of intemperance or impatience or timidity may remaine as they were vntouched or else growe to be more intense by acts of those vices Nay who doth so perfectly and totally vpon the very first onset relinquish any one vice that he is not morally speaking subject to be committing some one act or other of that former vice wherby the Habit will returne to receiue some increase And then how large a space of tyme may chance to slip away before the Habit of one and much more of all vices be perfectly rooted out Especially if it be deeply radicated and seconded and abbetted or rather prevented by some inclination arising from complexion temptation of the divell bad examples false principles of the world and other such causes which make the committing of sin obvious and easy wheras the contrary acts of vertue not only find great resistance for the reasons now mentioned but also because they are of themselves of a sublime nature and require great purity of intention without mixture of profit or pleasure or tincture of selfeloue which vniversall conjuncture and perfect harmony of all good circumstances is so necessary that the want of any one be it never so small depraves the whole
producible by our Acts but infused by God for enabling vs to loue his Divine Majesty aboue all things you would easily see that it could not be destroyed by parts but all togeather and that only in case of committing a deadly sin wherby the sinner in fact voluntarily prefers some creature before God his Creatour and therby ceaseth to loue him aboue all things which yet is essentiall to Charity and without which it cannot exist in any least degree Holy Scripture tells vs he that loves not remaines in death which declares that Charity is the life of the soule and de dly sin being the death therof if Charity may stand with deadly sin the life and death of the soule should abide togeather But as I sayd it appeares by this that you discourse of the Theologicall vertrue of Charity as of naturall acquired habits produced by our Acts may be encreased diminished produced and destroyed without any like alteration in the habits of the infused vertues which are of a different nature and higher kind And by this appeares how necessary it was to premise the Introduction concerning the infused habits and necessity of Grace 16. In the meane tyme every one may see that either you make small account of Scripture which yet you pretend to be a totall Rule of Faith or els that it is not cleare even when it seemes to speake most cleare For what principle is more received in Christianity or more evidently set downe in Scripture than that by true and harty Contrition a sinner doth instantly obtaine pardon of his sins And yet you deny this first principle and as it seemes can see no such evidence in Scripture concerning it The Protestant Church of England once so termed at the beginning of their morning Prayer hath this sentence out of the Psalme 51. according to their account a sorrowfull spirit is a sacrifice to God and that out of S. Luke 15.18.19 of the Prodigall child I will goe to my father and say to him Father I haue sinned against Heaven and against thee I am no more worthy to be called thy son who vpon such Repentance was instantly received into favour as S. Basill Homil de penit saith of him Caeperat dicere mox illum Pater complectitur He had searce begun to aske pardon when it was granted him And S. Chrysost priore epist ad Theodor laps In eo momento totius vitae peccata abstergit In that very instant the sins of his whole life were wiped away Thus we reade Ezech 33.12 The justice of the just shall not deliver him in what day soever he shall sinne and the imprety of the impious shall not hurt him in what day soever he shall convert frō his impiety Therfore as a just man doth instantly loosegrace by his sin so a sinner repēting doth presentlyobtaine pardon of his sin and lives by justifying grace God being more ready to pardon than punish And no wonder seing a sinner performes all that is in his power for that instant And god requires of vs no more than is in our power nor can he seriously command impossible things as you expressly confesse Pag 390. N. 7. in these words The Rule of the Law is also the dictate of common reason and equity that no man can be obliged to what is impossible We can be obleged to nothing but by vertue of some command Now it is impossible that God should command in carnest any thing which he knowes to be impossible For to command in earnest is to command with an intent to be obliged which is not possible he should doe when he knowes the thing commanded to be impossible These I say be your words ād they are very true but directly against the common doctrine of Protestants that it is impossible to keepe the commandements of God who surely commanded them in Scripture in good earnest and not in jeast neither is there any moment wherin a man indued with the vse of Reason may not avoide eternall damnation if he cooperate with Gods grace which is never wanting nor can there be any moment wherin a man may not hope to be saved It is a true Axiome of Divines facienti quod in se est c God doth not denye his Grace to him who doth all that lyes in his power assisted by grace I sayd A sinner doth all that lyes in his power at that instant For if he surviue he is obliged to keepe all the Commandements which oblige vnder mortall sin but this observance is not a part of Contrition or Repentance but only the Object therof for as much as Contrition implyes an effectuall purpose of keeping the Commandements And for that cause the same Prophet Uers 14.15.16 saith If I shall say to the impious Dying thou shallt dye and he do pennance from his sin and do judgment and justice and the same impious restore pledge and render robbery walke in the Commandements of life and do not any vnjust thing living he shall liue and shall notdy All his sins which he hath sinned shall not be imputed to him he hath done judgment and justice living he shall liue This appeares in the conversion and justification of David 2. Reg 12. who repenting had scarce vttered two words I haue sinned to our Lord when he heard of the Prophet Our Lord also hath taken away thy sin Where some obserue that the Prophet sayd not our Lord will take away thy sin de futuro but hath taken away thy sin de praeterito to signify that Contrition and remission of his sins mett in the same instant Which David himselfe witnesseth Psalm 31. V. 5. I sayd I will confess against me my injustice to our Lord and thou hast forgiven me the impiety of my sin Vpon which place S. Austine speaking in person of David saith my confession had not come so far as to my mouth and God heard the voyce of my hart My voyce was not yet in my mouth and the eare of God was already in my hart Actor 2.38 Peter sayd to them do pennance and be every one of you baptized in the name of Jesus Christ And Uers 42. They therfore that received his word were baptized But it is cleare that these men could not haue tyme to roote out all vicious habits therfore that cānot be required to true Repentance Prov 8. I loue those who loue me But how cā God be sayd to loue those who loue him if he forgiues not the sin but remaines offēded ād an enemy to one who loves him by true Contrition which implyes the loue of his divine Majesty aboue all things S. Austine in Enchirid C. 65. saith Not so much the measure or quality of tyme as of sorrow is to be considered For God doth not despise a contrite and humbled hart Which last words taken out of the 40. Psalme do of themselves proue our Assertion So that Scripture Fathers and Theologicall reasons do all concurre in this that effectuall sorrow for
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
an Eye togeather with the vnderstanding to see the Scripture Wherby it still appeares that not our vnderstanding alone but it with some other Helpe not produced by the Scripture must be compared to our corporall Eye The same may be sayd of Barons Criteria which cannot be seene without some particular light of the Holy Ghost and therfore our vnderstanding with that light is the Eye not produced by the Scripture but presupposed to the beliefe of Scripture And lastly you who teach that we belieue for the Authority of the Church must say that the eye wherby we see Scripture is our vnderstanding togeather with the Tradition of the Church Which Tradition therfore must be knowne and believed before we belieue Scripture and not be produced by Scripture 12. Wheras you say Transsubstantiation is fruitfull of such monsters contradictions but they that haue not sworne themselves to the defence of errour will easily perceiue that jam factum facere and factum infectum facere are equally impossible you speake wickedly and ignorantly We haue heard Dr. Taylor in his Liberty c § 10. N. 16. confessing that Christians belieue the Mystery of the Trinity with as much violence to the Principles of naturall and supernatur all Philosophy as can be imagined to be in the Point of Transubstantiation And it is certaine that this sacred Mystery of the Trinity to any learned Philosopher containess farr greater dissiculty than any that can be objected against Transubstantiation And yourselfe vpon a certaine occasion could say to some Protestants Either deny the Trinity or admitt Transubstantiation and it was answered we will rather admitt this than deny that And with good reason For if we respect humane discourse there are as I sayd more difficult objections against that Mystery than against this And if we regard Revelation Scripture is more cleare for the reall Presence and Transubstantiation than for the Mystery of the B. Trinity And if regard were to be had of Heretikes more haue hertofore impugned the Doctrine of the Trinity than of the Reall Presence and Transubstantiation But no wonder if they who reduce all certainty of Christian Faith to the weight of naturall Reason taking hold of the present tyme are glad vnder the name of Transubstantiation to vndermine the Doctrine of the B. Trinity and all the prime verityes proper to Christian Faith The other part of your Affirmation That jam factum facere and factum infectum facere are equally impossible is extreme bold seing so many great learned men hold the first and no man the latter being betweene them as great difference as betweene Est Est and Fuit non fuit But I feare you do not vnderstand what learned men meane by a Reproduction of the same existent thing or jam factum facere which signifyes only that the same thing is and is wheras every body knowes that factum infectum facere is to say That which was was not A manifest Contradiction Yet withall I must add that no Doctrine of the Catholique Church doth necessarily depend on that Question Whether it be impossible jam factum facere But enough of this least others haue occasion to say of me as you say truly of yourselfe in the close of this N. 48. I digress 13. I know not well what to make of your long and distracted discourse N. 49. we do not deny but that Protestants and other Heretikes may assent to some Mystery of Faith by a humane opinion and perswasion but that assent of theirs is not true Divine supernaturall Faith God not giving his particular Grace for believing one Article of Faith to him who denyes another equally proposed as revealed by God wherby even the infused Habit of Faith is destroyed Vnlearned Catholikes may exercise a true Act of Faith because indeed their assent comes to rely vpon a firme ground that is Divine Revelation propounded by an infallible meanes Gods Church wheras Heretikes haue no such ground for the resolution of their Faith as hath beene shewed in severall occasions 14. For gaining tyme and saving vnnecessary paines I had omitted to take notice of your N. 51.52 vnless your proceeding had forced me to say at least thus much that whosoever will reade aÌ„d compare the words of Ch Ma. with your Answer shall find that he speakes clearly and that you do so involue and obscure and alter what he spoke plainly that I know not what to make of your words He tells you that the Scripture is not such a first principle in Christianity that it may not be proved by another belonging to Christians namely by the Authority of the Uisible Church of Christ as yourself grant and to say as you doe that the Church or Tradition of the Church is a Principle not in Christianity but in Reason nor proper to Christians but common to all men for ought I can judge is repugnant to Reason and Christianity For what hath naturall Reason alone to doe with the Church of Christ which cannot be knowne except by some supernaturall Arguments as Miracles Sanctity Scripture Revelation c. 15. I do not vnderstand these your words N. 52. addressed to C. Mâ— That one part of Scripture may proue another part Canenâ—all and need no proofe of its owne being so you haue produced diverse Protestants that deny it but who they are that affirme it nondum constat I pray you where did Ch Ma say that there is any part of Scripture which needs no proofe of its being Canonicall Doth he not proue the necessity of a Living guide even by this Argument that otherwise we cannot be assured what Booke and parts of Scripture are Canonicall And for discerning what Bookes be Canonicall or suppositious are not Protestants wont to proue that such or such a Booke which they are pleased to stile Apocryphall is not conforme to other parts of Scripture and therfore cannot be Canonicall Do not yourselfe say N. 27. The Question whether such or such a Booke be Canonicall Scripture may be decided negatively out of Scripture by she wing apparent and irreconciliable contradictions between it and some other Booke confessedly Canonicall And may we not proue affirmatively for example that those Texts of the old Testament which are cited in the New are Canonicall because they are cited for such in Bookes which we belieue to be Canonicall I beseech you to what purpose or vpon what occasion given do you N. 51. vtter these words As if the Scripture might not be the first and most knowne Principle in Christianity and yet not the most knowne in all sciences Or as if to be a first Principle in Christanity and in all sciences Were all one Charity Maintayned said if Potter meane that Scripture is one of those Principles which being the first and most know ne in all sciences cannot be demonstrated by other Principles he supposes that which is in Question whether there be not some Principle for example the Church wherby we may come to the
Gospell vnless the authority of the Church did moue me is easily confuted That which moved the Saint to belieue the Gospell was not the authority of any particular Church but of the vniversall which deserves as much credit and is as infallible in one age as in another For if the whole Church of this age could erre what Priviledge of infallibility could we yield to the age before this and so vpward from one to another more than to this present age and so we could not ground any certainty vpon the Tradition of the whole Churâ—â— of all ages vpon which even yourselfe pretend to rely for the beâ—â—ere of Scripture Your other saying The Christian Tradition being as fall against Manâ—â—haâ—â—s as it was for the Gospell He S. Austine did well to conclude that he had as much reason to disbetieue Mantchaeus as to belieue the Gospâ—ll overthrowes the maine ground of Protestants that all thinges necessary to salvation are contained in Scripture alone For now it seemes you admitt a Tradition against the Doctrine of Manichaeus distinct from that Tradition wherby the Church delivers the Gospell and yet in this second Chapter Pag 114. N. 155. You say Scripture alone and no vnwritten Doctrine having atteâ—â—ation from Tradition truly vniverfall for this reason we conceiue as the Apostles persons while they were living were the only Iudges of Controversyes so their writings now they are dead are the only Rule for vs to Iudge them by If being pressed you tell vs perforce that there was no other Tradition against the Doctrine of Manichaeus but the Tradition which delivered Scripture and that they might be convinced of errour by Scripture alone you manifestly contradict S. Austine Cont Ep Fund Chap 5. cited by Charity Maintayned N. 18. I would not â—elieue the Gospell vnless the Authority of the Church did moue me Them therfore whom I obeyed saying belieue the Gospell why should I not obey saying to me do not belieue Manichaeus Where we see S. Austine professes to disbelieue the Doctrine of Manichaeus vpon the same Authority for which he believed Scripture which he professes to haue beene for the Authority of the Church as you also pretend to receiue the Scripture from the Church and therfore both the Scripture and Doctrine or interpretation therof we must receiue from the Church Which appeares more by the immediatly following words of S. Austine alledged by Charity Maintayned in the same N. 18. Choose what thou pleasest If thou shalt say belieue the Catholikes They warne me not to giue any credit to you If therfore I belieue them I cannot belieue thee If thou say do not belieue the Catholikes thou shalt not do well in forcing me to the Faith of Manichaeus because by the preaching of Catholikes I believed the Gospell it selfe If thou say you did well to belieue them commending the Gospell but you did not well to belieue them discommeÌ„ding Manichaenâ— Dost thou thinke me so very foolish that without any reason at all I should belieue what thou wilt and not belieue what thou wilt not Thus far S. Austine From whose words Cha Ma makes this reflection Do not Protestants perfectly resemble these men to whom S. Austine spake when they would haue men belieue the Roman Church delivering Scripture but not to belieue Her condemning Luther and the rest Against whom when they first opposed themselves to the Roman Church S. Austine may seeme to haue spoken no less prophetically than doctrinally when he sayd Lib de Utilit cred Cap 14. Why should I not most diligently inquire what Christ commanded of them before all others by whose authority I was moved to belieue that Christ commanded any good thing Canst thou better declare to me what he sayd whom I would not haue thought to haue beene or to be if the beliefe therof had beene recommended by thee to me This therfore I believed by fame strengthened with celebrity consent antiquity But every one may see that you so few so turbulent so new can produce nothing deserving authority What madness is this Belieue them that we ought to belieue Christ But learne of vs what Christ said Why I beseech thee Surely if they were not at all and could not teach me anything I would more easily perswade my selfe that I were not to belieue Christ than that I should learne any thing concerning him from any other than them by whom I believed him If therfore saith Cha Ma we receiue the knowledg of Christ and Scripture from the Church from her also must we take his Doctrine and interpretation of Scripture 27. The application of S. Austines words in your N. 99. to any particular Church is impertinent and doth not infringe the strength of S. Austines Argument who as I haue sayd received the Gospell vpoÌ„ the credit of the vniversall Church aÌ„d not vpoÌ„ the Authority of any particular Church or private person and of the vniversall Church he had all reason to say that as for her Authority he believed the Gospell so for the same authority he disbelieved the Doctrine of Manichaeus which that vniversall Church condemned But you equivocate when you do not distinguish between all the Churches of All Ages and all the Churches or vniversall Church of every Age which must be no less infallible than all the Churches of all Ages and is distinguished from everie particular Church of every age vpon which mistake your whole objection goes N. 99. about an Arian or a Grecian that they may pretend to make vse of S. Austines argument But wheras you say the ancient Goths or Wandals were converted to Christianity by the Arians it is but to doe a secret favour to the Arians your brethren For the Goths were not converted by the Arians from Gentilisme to Christianity but being first converted were afterward perverted by the Arians as may be seene in Baronius Ann 370. This answer confutes your passionate bitter declamation vented in your N. 101. 28. Your N. 100. demands whether Charity Maintayned be well in his wits to say that Protestants would haue men beâ—eue the Roman Church delâ—vering Scripture wheras they accuse her to deliver many Bookes for Scripture which are not so And do not bid men to receiue any Booke which she delivers for that reason because she delivers it 29. Answer as aboue that either you received the Scripture vpon the credit of the Roman Church and such Churches as agreed with her or else you received it meerly vpon your owne fancy admitting and rejecting Bookes at your pleasure and to this day you can haue no certainty of the Bible vnles you receaue it for that Reason because the Church delivers it And your admitting some Bookes and rejecting others which the Church receives doth only proue that you are formall Heretikes 30. You say N. 103. As to be vndersiandible is a condition requisite to a Iudge so is not that alone sufficient to make a Iudge otherwise you might make yourselfe Iudge of Controversyes I wonder
you would spend tyme in such toyes The maine Question being whether the Church or Scripture be Judge or Rule of Controversyes in Faith Charity Maintayned N. 19. proves that the Scripture cannot be such a Judge because it is not intelligible to all that is to vnlearned persons as the Church is and therfore inferrs that not the Scripture but the Church must be Judge And is not that a good consequence Besides you say that Charity Maintayned in the beginning of his N. 19. which you impugne vndertooke only to proue that Scripture is not a Judge Therfore you grant that he proved all that he vndertooke in that place though he added by way of supererogation that the Church must be that Judge which was the chiefe thing he intended to proue in this Chapter and which followes evidently of the Scriptures not being Judge it being supposed that either the Scripture or Church must be A grievous Crime in Charity Maintayned to proue a pertinent and most important Truth 31. The words of the Apostle Rom 14.5 Let every one abound in his owne sense are prophanely applyed by you as if every one might follow his owne sense for the interpretation of Scripture which delivers Divine Revelations and you confess that to disbelieue objects so revealed is damnable in it selfe S. Paul speakes of things indifferent and which at that tyme were neither commanded not absolutly forbidden to the Jewes in the Old Law which then was mortua but not mortifera dead but not deadly 32. Your N. 104. till the N. 106. inclusiuè haue beene answered at large You suppose N. 108. and N. 113. that to find out the true Church every one must be able to examine the succession of visible Professours of the same doctrine through all Ages or els to examine the Church by the conformity of her doctrine with the doctrine of the first Age as you speak N. 108. Both which we deny and affirme that the Catholique Church of every Age carryes along with her so many conspicuous Notes of the true Church and all her enemies appeare with so many Markes of Errour that no man who seriously thinkes of his Eternall Happyness can chuse but clearly see the difference and behold a way so cleare ita vt stulti non errent per eam This answer is solid and evident for vs. But you who teach that we receaue Scripture from the vniversall Tradition of the Churches of all Ages and not for the Testimony of the present Church how will you enable all men to examine whether the Scripture and much more whether every Booke and parcell of Scripture hath bene delivered by all Churches even till you arriue to the Primitiue Church and by it include the Apostles Wherin we may vse these your owne words N. 108. This tryall of necessity requires a great sufficiency of knowledge of the monuments of Christian Antiquity which no vnlearned can haue because he that hath it cannot be vnlearned You say also How shall he an vnlearned man possibly be able to know whether the Church of Rome hath had a perpetuall Succession of visible Professors which held always the same doctrine which they now hold without holding any thing to the contrary vnless he hath first examined what was the doctrine of the Church in the first Age what in the second and so forth And whether this be not a more difficult worke than to stay at the first Age and to examine the Church by the conformity of Her Doctrine with the Doctrine of the first Age every man of ordinary vnderstanding may Iudge But I would know how one can examine the Church by the conformity of her Doctrine with the Doctrine of the first Age except by the monuments and Tradition of all the Ages which intervene betwixt the first Age and his which no vnlearned can doe because he that can doe it cannot be vnlearned And so it seemes you will haue vnlearned men despaire of all meanes to find the true Faith Church and salvation Will you haue them passe as it were persaltum immediately from this present Age to the first or Primitiue Age of the Church without the helpe of writings or other meanes of the middle Ages What remedy therfore can there be to overcome these difficultyes except an infallible beliefe that the Vniversall Church of every Age cannot erre And that otherwise all will be brought to vncertaintyes euery man of ordinary vnderstanding may Judge 32. For Answer to your N. 110. till the 122. inclusiuè I say No man indued with reason will deny the vse of Reason even in matters belonging to Faith But we deny that Reason is not to yield to Authority when assisted by Gods Grace it hath once shewed vs some infallible Guide and Authority to which all must submitt and so as it were cease to be different particular men and be in a manner one vnderstanding guided by one visible infallible Judge for want wherof Protestants remaine irreconciliably divided into as many opinions as they are men of different vnderstanding and will yea one man is divided from himself as he alters his Opinions Reason then may dispose or manuduct vs to Faith but the Object into which Faith is resolved is the Divine Revelation at which Reason did point and to which it must submitt Otherwise Faith were but Opinion which even Dr Potter affirmes to be a good consequence And it should not be the Gift of God but the Act of it should be produced by the force of nature and the Habit be an acquired and not infused Habit which is evidently against Scripture as I proved in the Introduction I wonder how you dare alledge Scripture as you do as if the places which you alledg N. 116. for trying of Spirits did signify that we are to try them by humane Reason and not by the Doctrine of the Church and Holy Scripture interpreted by Her But in this you shew yourselfe to haue drunke the very quintessence of Socinianisme 33. Charity Maintayned had Reason to say N. 29. What good states men would they be who should ideate or fancy such a Commonwealth as these men haue framed to themselves a Church And N. 22. What confusion to the Church what danger to the Commonwealth this denyall of the Authority of the Church may bring I leaue to the consideration of any judicious indifferent man For if it be free for every one to thinke as he pleases who will hinder him from vttering his thoughts in matters which he conceives belong to Faith and to conforme his practise to his thoughts and words And by that meanes sowe discord in the Church and sedition in the Commonwealth And therfore what you say N. 122. that men only interpret for themselves is not alwaies true but their selfe interpretation may indeed redound to the hurt of other both Private ād Publicke Persons and Communityes if their thoughts chance to pitch vpon some object which may be cause of mischiefe 34. Howsoever N. 118.
could not haue believed Her in any one and so there had beene no meanes to attaine a Divine infallible Faith and that after the Canon of Scripture was persited the Church remaines infallible in Fundamentall Articles but may erre in Points not Fundamentall both which things are granted by Protestants I hope you will not deny but that the conclusion deduced from these Premises must be That she lost part and kept part of that infallibility with which she was endued before Scripture was written and that you haue an obligation to shew by some evident Text of Scripture that the Church by the writing therof was deprived of infallibility in Points not Fundamentall and conserved with infallibility in Fundamentall Articles beside what I sayd even now that according to your instance of a way the Church should haue bene deprived of infallibility when by writing of some Scriptures some points were made cleare in writing which before were believed only for the Authority of a Guide that is the Church And now consider whether Charity Maintayned may not say to you as you with your wanted humility speake to him jam dic Posthume de tribus capellis 45. Your N 141. hath beene answered in my confutation of your N. 124. concerning the infallibility of the high Priest and Jewish Church in your N. 142. you say to Charity Maintayned For particular rites and ceremonyes and orders for government our Saviour only hath left a generall injunction by S. Paul let all things be done decently and in order But what order is fittest i. e. what tyme what Place what Manner c is fittest that he hathleft to the discretion of the Governours of the Church But if you meane that he hath only concerning matters of Faith prescribed in Generall that we are to heare the Church and left it to the Church to determine what particulars we are to beliue The Church being nothing els but an aggregation of Believers this in effect is to say He hath left it to all believers to determine what particulars they are to belieue Besides it is so apparently false that I wonder you could content yourselfe or thinke we should be contented with a bare saying without any shew or pretence of proofe 46. Answer My hope was at the first general view of this section to haue answered it in very few words But vpon particular examination I find it to involve so many points of moment that to vnfold them will require some little more tyme and paynes First you cite Ch Ma. imperfectly His words Part 1. P. 69. N. 23. are He Dr. Potter affirmes that the Jewish Sinagogue retained infallibility in herselfe notwithstanding the writing of the old Testament and will he so vnworthily and â—â—justly depriue the Church of Christ of infallibility by reason of the New Testament Expecially if we consider that in the Old Testament Lawes Ceremonyes Rites Punishments Judgments Sacraments Sacrifices c were more particularly and minutely delivered to the Jewes than in the New Testament is done our Saviour leaving the determination or Declaration of particulars to his Spouse the Church which therfore stands in need of infallibility more than the Jewish Synagogue To these words you say I pray walke not thus in generality but tell vs what particulars And then you distinguish Rites and Ceremonyes and Orders for Governement from matters of Faith which indeed is no distinction if the matter be duly considered For although diverse Rites and Ceremonyes may chance to be of themselves indifferent and neither forbidden or commanded to be practised or omitted yet to be assured that indeed they are indifferent and not sinfull or superstitious and so infectiue of the whole Church we need some infallible authority And particularly this is true for the Hierarchy or Governement of the Church as I sayd hertofore which is a Fundamentall point if any can be Fundamentall to the constituting a Church For this cause Charity Maintayned expressly said that our aviour left to his Church the determination or declaration of particulars but you thought fit to leaue out the word declaration wheras we cannot certainly rely vpon the determination of any person or community without a power and infallibility to make a Declaration that the thing determined or ordained is lawfull and so a Determination or Ordination must suppose or imply in fact a declaration Do not you pretend to leaue vs for our superstitious Rites and Ceremonyes because you could not in conscience conforme yourselves to them And heere I may put the Reader in minde of the words which I cited aboue out of Moulin Epist 3 to Dr. Andrewes Non potui dicere primatum Episcoporum esse juris divini quin Ecclesijs nostris notam haereseos inurerem Enimvero obsirmare animum adversus ea quae sunt juris divini Deo jubentipertinaciter refragari planè est haeresis sive id Fidem attingat five disciplinam Thus your demand what particulars Charity Maitâ—yned vnderstood is answered namely that he vnderstood all particulars which occasion might require to be ordained determined and declared by the Church but in the meane tyme where or when did Ch Ma say or dreame that which you say is apparently false that our Saviour hath only concerning matters of Faith prescribed in generall that â—â—â—re to heare the Church and left it to the Church to determine what particulars we are to belieue Your conscience cannot but beare witness against your owne words that Charity Maintayned hath expressed a thousand tymes our doctrine that we are bound to belieue whatsoever is sufficieÌ„tly proposed as revealed by God professing every where that this is the Ground for which he avouches that of two disagreeing in matters of faith one must be in a damnable state and that for this cause we are bound to belieue every particular truth contained in Scripture or defined by the Church which are millions And therfore not the Doctrine of Charity Maintayned but your imputation is apparently false Yet to say the truth that Doctrine which you say is apparently false aÌ„d no less falsely imputed to vs might be very true if it should stand or fall by the strength only of the argument which you object against it though perhaps it did seeme to you a great subtility 47. The Church say you being nothing els but an aggregation of Believers this in effect is to say he hath left to all believers to determine what particulars they are to belieue To which I may answer as you say to Charity Maintayned I wonder you would impugne that as apparently false which must be apparently true if the ground of all your doctrine be true That every mans Reason prescribes to himselfe and determines what he is to belieue and so your kind of Church being nothing but an aggregation of believers in that manner it followes that it is left to all Believers to determine what particulars they are to belieue The like may be sayd of the Councell of Apostles which
well disposed towards an object evident can faile to see and vnderstand actually if such an object be placed within the spheare or compasse of their actuity And therfore if Scripture be evident whosoever can assent to it cannot possibly dissent from it Before I end this number you must be intreated to remember what you teach Pag 329. N. 7. that it is necessary to Faith that the object of it should not be so evidently certaine as to necessitate our vnderstanding to an Assent that so there might be some obedience in it which can hardly haue place where there is no possibility of disobedience as there is not where the vnderstanding does all and the will nothing Now if the vnderstanding be not necessitated by the evidence of Faith or contents of Scripture you must find some other meanes to moue the vnderstanding namely such as Protestants vsually prescribe which cannot exceede probability nor is sufficient for an Act of Faith And so your Arguments and Similitudes grounded vpon the plaine evidence of Scripture cannot be rightly applyed by you seing it is not an evidence sufficient to assure the vnderstanding without some other meanes which being but probable if you will arriue to certainty you must still haue recourse to the Church 67. Your N. 151. going vpon a false supposition that our first Proofes and Arguments for the infallibility of the Church are taken from Scripture need no Answer seing we haue proved the contrary at large It is true that having once found the true Church and by Her authority Canonicall Scriptures we do with good reason proue out of them the authority and infallibility of the same Church with other particulars concerning her which were not knowne by the first generall notion of her being the true Church but this is done without any pretence of such evidence as must force every mans vnderstanding to assent in that manner as the Principles of naturall Sciences do necessitate vs and therfore there alwayes remaines a necessity of a Living Judge 68. In your N. 154. I find nothing but an Aggregatum of diverse Heads of which we haue treated at large as the infallibillty of Christian Faith how farr the Motives or arguments of credibility concurre to an act of Faith The manner we hold in proving the Church and believing those articles which she proposes what vse there is of Reason in finding out the Church that in vaine you distinguish betweene Christianity and Popery as you speake seing there can be but one true Christian Church c And therfore I will goe forward having first toucht in a word that wheras you say to vs you should require only a morall and modest Assent to the proposalls of the Church and not a Divine as you call it and infallible Faith It seemes you confesse that your Faith is not to be called Divine as you professe it not to be infallible and therfore indeed not Divine but a meere humane perswasion even in those Points wherin you chance notto erre 69. To your N. 155.156.157.158.159.160 of which for the substance I haue spoken hertofore I will only say That you are still taking vpon you to declare the Doctrine of Protestants in their name without any commission from them Thus here you talke as if no Protestants held that Scripture may be proved to be the word of God by Scripture it selfe the contrary whereof we haue shewed in particular of Baron and Potter And Ch. Ma. Part 2. Chap 3. Pag 91. cites Dr. Willet in his meditation ypon the 122. Psalme Pag 91. who puts among whirle-points and buboles of new Doctrine as he speakes That the word of God cannot possibly assure vs what is the word of God And whatsoever you take vpon you yet Ch. Ma. had reason to say that seing it is to Protestants a most necessary Point of Faith to know what Bookes be Scripture and that this Point cannot be proved by Scripture it followes that all matters of Faith are not contained in Scripture wherby it appeares that God hath not tyed his testimony or Revelation to his written word alone but that you must of necessity admitt Tradition or His vnwritten Word and so not learne all necessary Points from Scripture And if one Tradition must be believed by Faith you can bring no positiue Rule or reason why there may not be some other Traditions without any prejudice to the perfection of Scripture 70. In your N. 160. you impugne these words of Charity Maintayned Part 1. Pag 73. N. 26. If Dr. Potter answer that their Tenet about the Scriptures being the only judge of Controversyes is not a Fundamentall Point of Faith then as he teacheth that the vniversall Church may erre in Points not Fundamentall so I hope he will not deny but particular Churches and private men are much more obnoxious to errour in such Points and in particular in this that the Scripture alone is judge of Controversyes And so the very Principle vpon which their whole Faith is grounded remaines to them vncertaine and on the other side for the selfe same reason they are not certaine but that the Church is judge of Controversyes Against which discourse you object A pretty Sophisme depending vpon this Principle that whosoever possibly may erre he cannot be certaine that he doth not erre And vpon this ground what will hinder me from concluding that seing you also hold that neither particular Churches nor private men are infallible even in Fundamentalls that even the Fundamentalls of Christianity remaine to you vncertaine A judge may possibly erre in judgment can he therfore never haue assurance that he hath judged right A traveller may possibly mistake his way must I therfore be doubtfull whether I am in the right way from my Hall to my Chamber Or can our London Carryer haue no certainty in the middle of the day when he is sober and in his wits that he is in the way to London These you see are right worthy consequences and yet as like your owne as an egg to an egge or milke to milke 71. Answer I hope it will be found that you triumph before any possibility of victory on your behalfe and that your Objection will be turned against yourselfe Where find you in Charity Maintayned any Argument depending vpon this principle that whosoever possibly may erre he cannot be certaine that he does not erre This is your fiction not any principle of Ch. Ma. His principle is in this Whosoever possibly may erre by relying vpon some Principle Ground or Reason he cannot be certaine that he doth not erre as long as he followes that Principle only without addition of any other helpe or greater light or certainty For if the Principle be of it selfe false fallible or contingent it cannot possibly being left to itselâ—e produce an infallible Assent which is the very Ground for which you teach Christian Faith to be fallible But it doth in no case follow from hence that absolutly whosoever may possibly
be infallible only in Fundamentall Points if she erre not in such Points she performes as much as our Saviour exacts at her hands seing he exacts no more than that which may bring her to salvation and it is not necessary that God assist her for more than salvation Or if he absolutely exact more than is necessary men are bound to doe more than is necessary and so more shall be necessary than is necessary because it is necessary to doe what we are bound to doe 30. You say to Ch. Ma The ground of your errour here is your not distinguishing betweene Actuall certainty and Absolute infallibility But in this you speake either against your owne conscience or against manifest truth For if you say the meaning of Cha. ma. to be that whosoever is actually certaine of one thing must haue an absolute infallibility in all other matters your Conscience cannot but tell you that He could haue no such meaning as if because I am actually certaine what I am doing at this instant I must therfore be infallible and know certainly what every one is doing in the Indyes But if you meane that it is an errour in Ch Ma to say that if one haue actuall certainty of a thing he must be infallible both in that ād all other for which he hath the same or like grounds to make him certaine then you erre against manifest truth it being evident that if I clearly see my selfe to haue an vndoubted Ground to belieue a thing it is impossible that I should erre in any other for which I also evidētly see that I haue the same certaine ground This is our case If I be actually certaine by evidence of Scripture of the truth of one thing I am certaine that I cannot erre in any other Point for which I haue the like evidence of Scripture as he who actually assents to a demonstration knowne to be such can neither erre in it nor in any other knowne to haue the like certainty This being supposed your examples proue against yourselfe as I shewed in an other like occasion 31. I haue already particularly and at large answered your N. 27.28.29 In your N. 30 33.34 you impugne Ch Ma. whose words I wish you had set downe as you found them in Him and not as you collect and offer them to the Reader whom therfore I must intreate to peruse the Author himselfe Ch. Ma. N. 13. saith That to limite the generall promises of our Saviour for his Church to Points Fundamentall as namely that the gates of Hell shall not prevaile against Her and that the Holy Ghost shall lead them into all truth c. is to destroy all Faith For by this manner of interpreting and limiting words whatsoever is delivered in Scripture concerning the infallibility of the Apostles or of Scripture it selfe may be restrained to infallibility in Fundamentall Points And in this Ch. Ma. hath reason For seing you haue no certaine Rule of Faith but Scripture whatsoever you cannot proue by evident Scripture cannot be to you certaine or a Point of Faith Let vs then take these words Matth. 16.18 The gates of Hell shall not prevaile c. Which our B. Saviour pronounced of the Church and those other Jo 16. V. 13.14.16 The spirit shall lead you into all truth and shall abide with you for ever which promise Potter saith Pag 153. was made directly and primarily to the Apostles who had the spirits guidance in a more high and absolute manner than any since them yet it was made to them for the behoofe of the Church and is verifyed in the Church vniversall The first words The gates of Hell shall not prevaile against Her Potter Pag. 153. limites they shall not prevaile so far as to sever it from the foundation that is that She shall not erre in Fundamentall Points Now I beseech you produce some evident Text of Scripture declaring that those words are not to be vnderstood as they sound that the Church shall be secure from all errours against Faith even in Points not Fundamentall which errours are gates that leade to hell seing they are as you often confesse damnable in themselves and so lead to hell and damnation but with this limitation that she shall be secured for Points Fundamentall Produce I say some such evident Text of Scripture and not topicall discourses of your owne In the meane tyme while you are busy about that impossible taske of producing some such Text 32. I will ponder the second place The spirit shall lead you into all truth and shall abide with you for ever which Potter saith is vnderstood of the Apostles and of the vniversall Church but so as being referred to the Apostles it signifyes all truths Fundamentall and not Fundamentall Points which is a harder explanation than that of the former words out of S. Matthew The gates of hell c. because you are engaged to alledge some evident Text of Scripture to proue that the very selfsame as I may saie indivisible Text which is acknowledged to speake both of the Apostles and of the Church must be forced and as it were racked to speake one thing of the Apostles and another of the Church All truth for the Apostles not all but only Fundamentall truth for the Church Bring I say some such evident Text of Scripture But it seemes you did easily perceiue that no such place could be pretended and therfore in stead of Scripture or the Word of God you offer only your owne conceits discourses and seeming congruences which are far beneath that certainty which is required for an act of divine Faith There is not say you N. 30. the same reason for the Churches absolute Infallibility as for the Apostles and Scriptures For if the Church fall into errour it may be reformed by comparing it with the Rule of the Apostles doctrine and Scripture But if the Apostles erred in delivering the Doctrine of Christianity to whom shall we haue recourse for the discovering and correcting their errour 33. Answer I haue often sayd that in matters knowne by revelation only and depending on the free will or decree of Almighty God we are not to proue by humane reason what he hath decreed Protestants grant that both the Apostles and the Church are infallible for Fundamentall Points If then one should make vse of your reason and say There is not the same reason for the Churches infallibility in Fundamentall Points as for the Apostles For if the Church fall into such errours it may be reformed by comparing it with the Rule of the Apostles doctrine and Scripture But if the Apostles haue erred in delivering the doctrine of Christianity to whom shall we haue recourse for the discovering and correcting their errour What would you answer Would you grant that the Church is not infallible in Fundamentall Articles because there is not the same reason for Her infallibility in Fundamentall Points as there is for the Apostles That were to deny the
common Doctrine of Protestants and the supposition If you answer that though there were not the selfe same reason or necessity for the Churches infallibility as for the Apostles which is all that that reason proves and so is a Sophisme a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter as if you should say This Truth is not proved by this particular reason therefore there can be no reason for it yet we cannot doubt but that there is some reason and cause whatsoever it be and therfore you must be content that Scripture declare God Almightyes Will that the Gates of Hell shall not prevaile against the Church in which Promise seing there is no restraint to Fundamentall Points it becomes not you to divide the same sentence into different meanings as they are applyed to the Apostles and as they haue reference to the Church Beside if one would imitate you in determining concerning divine matters according to humane apprehension and discourse he might in your owne Grounds quickly dispatch all and say that seing the errours of the vniversall Church can be only not Fundamentall there is no necessity of having recourse to any for the discovering and correcting them and so you cannot inferr that the Apostles for reforming errours in the Church need be infallible in Points not Fundamentall no more than you say the Church herselfe is Thus Pag 35. N. 7 You say Christians haue and shall haue meanes sufficient to determine not all Controversyes but all necessary to be determined And what Rule will you in your Groundes giue to determine what Points are necessary to be determined except by saying that eo ipso that they are not Fundamentall or not necessary to salvation to be believed they are not necessary to be determined as you say in the same place If some Controversyes may for many Ages be vndetermined and yet in the meane while men may be saved why should or how can the Churches being furnished with effectuall meanes to determine all Controversyes in Religion be necessary to salvation the end itselfe to which these meanes are ordained being as Experience shewes not necessary If then may we say the beliefe of vnfundamentall Points be not necessary to salvation which is the end of our Faith the meanes to beget such a Faith in the Church which you say must be the vniversall infallibility of the Apostles cannot be necessary Which is confirmed by what you say in your Answer to the Direction N. 32. It is not absolutely necessary that God should assist his Church any farther than to bring her to salvation How then can it be necessary in your ground that the Church be assisted for Points not Fundamentall Thus while by your humane discourses you will establish the vniversall infallibility of the Apostles you destroy it as not being necessary for discovering or correcting either Fundamentall errours from which the Church is free or vnfundamentall which are not necessary to be corrected or discovered Morover this very reason of yours proves a necessity of the Churches being vniversally infallible supposing the truth which we proved Chap 2. that Scripture alone containes not evidently and particularly all Points necessary to be believed and that even for those which it containes a Living Judge and Interpreter is necessary For this truth supposed I apply your Argument thus If any fall into errour by a false interpretation of Scripture it may be discovered and corrected by the Church But if the Church may erre to whom shall we haue recourse for correcting her errour And heere incidently I put you in minde of the Argument which you prize so much as to glory that you never could finde any Catholik who was able to answer it that if a particular man or Church may fall into errour and yet remaine a member of the Church vniversall why may not the Church vniversall erre and yet remaine a true Church The Answer I say is easy almost out of your owne words that there is not the same reason for every particular mans or Churches infallibility or security from error as for that of the Catholik Church For if private persons or Churches fall into errour it may be reformed by comparing it with the Decrees and Definitions of the vniversall Church But if the Church may erre to whom shall we haue recourse to correct her error As S. Hierom saieth Lib 1. Comment in Cap 5. Matth Si doctor erraverit à quo alio doctore emendabitur But of this I haue saied enough heretofore Lastly giue me leaue to tell you that in this and other Reasons which we shall examine you do extremely forget yourself and the state of our present Question which is not now whether there be the same reason or necessity for the Churches absolute infallibility as for the Apostles and Scriptures But whether we can proue the vniversall infallibility of the Apostles and not of the Church by the same Text of Scripture which speakes of both in the same manner But let vs heare your other reasons of disparity betweene the Apostles and the Church in Point of infallibility 34. You say in the same N. 30. There is not so much strength required in the Edifice as in the Foundation And if but wise men haue the ordering of the building they will make it much a surer thing that the Foundation shall not faile the building then that the building shall not fall from the Foundation Now the Apostles and Prophets and Canonicall Writers are the Foundation of the Church according to that of S. Paul built vpon the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets therfore their stability in reason ought to be greater than the Churches which is built vpon them 35. Answer Your conclusion therfore their stability in reason ought c shewes that you ground yourselfe on reason not on revelation and on a reason which is not so much as probable For you will not deny but that God might haue communicated absolute infallibility both to the Apostles and to the Church yet to the Church dependently of the preaching of the Apostles and then what would you haue sayd to your owne ground In reason more strength is required in the Foundation than in the Edifice seing in that case both the Foundation and Edifice should haue had an immoveable and firme strength and stability Your reason if you will haue it proue any thing against vs must goe vpon this principle that nothing which depends or which is builded vpon another for its certainty can be absolutely certaine which is a ground evidently false The Conclusion in a demonstratiue Argument is abfolutly certaine and yet depends on Premises The Church is infallible in Fundamentalls and yet in that infallibility is builded vpon the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets The absolute infallibility of the Apostles was builded vpon our B. Saviours Words and even his infallibility as man was builded vpon the infallibility of his God head and yet I hope you will not say that
when one allthings considered believes one parte only he is so farre from believing things which to his vnderstanding seeme contradictions that he is certaine not to belieue contradictions because he sees that he believes one parte only of the contradiction and rejects the other and is also certaine that as I saied contradiction must involue two parts And heere I would demand wherher you belieue indeed that contradictions can be true If you belieue they may be true then Christian Religion may teach Scripture may contayne God may reveale aÌ„d must assent to contradictions seing he cannot but assent to all truth And are not these blasphemyes If you belieue contradictions cannot be true how will you haue it possible for any man to belieue that which he believes not to be true You saied in your first Reason Whatsoever a man believes true that he may and must belieue And certainly I may better say Whatsoever a man believes nor to be true that he neither may nor can belieue and therfore seing all men in their right wits belieue that contradictoryes cannot be true it is impossible that they should belieue them But let vs procede to your 28. Fourth Reason Some men say you may be confuted in their errours and perswaded out of them but no mans errour can be confuted who together with his errour doth not belieue and grant some true principle that contradicts his errour For nothing can be proved to him who grants nothing neither can there be as all men know any rationall discourse but out of grounds agreed on by both parts Therefore it is not impossible but absolutely certaine that the same man at the same time may belieue contradictions 29. Answer First If it were lawfull to vse such an expressioÌ„ it might well be saied that it seemes fatall for you to be at variance with your self For I pray you suppose one to belieue that contradictions may be true How will you perswade him out of his errour By shewing him that he grants some true principle that contradicts his errour But if contradictories may be true and one may at the same time belieue them nothing will force him to leaue his errour though it appeare to contradict some principle which he grants because he may belieue both his supposed errous and that principle to betrue yea he neede not beleeue it to be an errour though it contradict some true principle seing both parts of contradictories may be true Chuse which you please May contradictories be true or be believed or no If they may then this Reason of yours proves nothing as I haue shewed Can they not be true nor be believed then to make good this Reason you denie that for which you alledg it and must say that one cannot at the same tyme belieue contradictions and that if he could do so this Reason were of no force A new kind of Logick to bring a Reason to proue a Conclusion which must be fals if the Reason or Proofe for it be of any force That is â—o proue that contradictions may be believed you vse an Argument which to haue any force must suppose they may not be believed How will you driue one from that which he believes by proposing a principle which even by your doctrine he conceyves may consist with that from which you would driue him So still that which I saied is true That your Arguments if they proue any thing must suppose or proue the direct contrary of that which you intend to proue by them and so not help but overthrow yourself Secondly If your Reason be of any force it can only proue that by ignorance one may hold contradictoryes which was needless to be proved it being a thing which no man denyes And then you must either acknowledg a contradiction or els acknowledg that you intended to proue that one may assent to express and knowen contradictions but that your Reason proved not so much as you did meane to proue by it For if your purpose was only to proue a possibility of assenting to contradictoryes not knowen to be such you contradict yourself in saying N. 47. Men should not assent to contradictions and that it is vnreasonable to doe so seing it is evident in case of probable or invincible ignorance a man may and ought to belieue them and it were vnreasonable to doe that which all the Reasons that he can consider tell him that he is to doe as he does and that it is not in his power to discover his errour by any reasons that can represent themselves to his vnderstanding It cannot be denyed but in that case he proceedes prudently and safely and therefore not vnreasonably but as he should doe and yourself confess that men may innocently as you speak be ignorant of the contradiction Yourself tell vs in your next Reason that we cannot without extream madnesse and vncharitablenesse deny that you belieue the Bible and yet we belieue that some part of your doctrine contradicts the Bible Now seing this last is certaine by evident experience of Protestants who interpret Scripture so as what one affirmes an other denyes to be the meaning thereof you must either grant that men may rationally belieue that kind of contradictions of which we speak or els with extreame madness and vncharitableness say that no Protestant who contradicts an other about the sense of Scripture does as he should doe but is vnreasonable in so doing Chuse then I returne to say whether you will say your meaning was in this fourth Reason to speak of express contradictions and confess that it comes not home to that purpose or els that you spoke not of such express contradictions and confess that in this N. 46. you contradict your N. 47. wherein you say One should not belieue contradictions and that it is vnreasonable to doe so 30. Your Fifth Reason we haue mentioned already That Protestants belieue all that is in the Bible to be true and yet we say that they belieue divers Doctrines against the Bible and consequently that they belieue Contradictions But seing this Reason if it proue any thing proues only that men may assent to Contradictions not knowen to be such it is already answered and confuted and demonstrated to be guilty either of insufficiency or to subsist by a manifest Contradiction to that for which you alledg it as I aÌ„swered to your fourth ReasoÌ„ 31. Your Sixth Reason is equally full of impiety malice and ignorance and is answered in a word That we absolutely are certaine there is implied no Contradiction in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and therfore it cannot serue to proue that men may belieue Contradictions And seing it speaks only of Contradictions not expressed in termes but only involved it is liable to all the same exceptions which I haue declared against your Fourth and Fifth Reason Neither can any expect or even indure that heere I should write a Book of Transubstantiation You know learned Catholike Writers haue answered all
those of Ch. Ma. who specifyed not necessary Doctrines but vsed the signe some which abstracts from necessary or not necessary and in that sence is more illimited and may be better divided into diverse members or parts and so more capable of being compendiated than if it were more simple and individed and as it were of it self a compendium before it could be compendiated Now I pray you tell the Doctor of Divinity that he speakes that which is hardly sense and demand of him these necessary Doctrines of which you say the Creed is an abridgment which are they Those that are out of the Creed or those that are in it Those that are in it it comprehends at large and therefore it is not an abridgment of them Those that are out of it it comprehends not at all and therfore it is not an abridgment of them Thirdly yourself in the beginning of this Chapter N. 1. and 5. say that the Doctors Assertion is that the Creed is a Summary of all those Doctrines or Credenda which all men are bound particularly to belieue and this you endeavour to make good through the whole Chapter Now you must ask yourself whether the Creed be a Summary of these Doctrines or Credenda which are in it or which are out of it c. and so apply your Argument against yourself and the Doctor In this very place you say if it be called an abridgment of the Faith this would be sense But if this would be sense I am sure your objection can haue none For then againe aske of yourselfe whether it be an abridgment of such points of the Faith as are in it or as are out of it and you will find that every syllable of your owne objection must be answered by yourselfe Besides is it an abridgment of all or of some part of the Faith You will not say it is an abridgment of all the Faith seing you confesse that much of the Faith is not in the Creed namely those points which you call agenda and you tell vs it cannot be an abridgment of such articles as it cōprehends not If then it be not an abridgmēt of all articles of Faith and yet is an abridgment of Faith as you confesse it must be an abridgment of some Articles of Faith which are the very words and proposition of Ch. ma. which you impugne and say it is hardly sense Fourthly Having told vs that all the necessary Articles of the Christian Faith are comprized in the Creed you add for this is the proper duty of abridgmēts to leaue out nothing necessary and to take in nothing vnnecescessary Now you grāt that there are in the Creed some articles not necessary or Fundamentall therfor the Creed or the composers therof faild in the proper duty of abridgments or if you deny this consequence you must deny your owne words that the proper duty of abridgments is to take in nothing vnnecessary or finally deny that which you expresly grant that in the Creed there are some points vnfundamentall and so heape contradiction vpon contradiction On the other side Agenda are necessary and yet are not contayned in the Creed and so neither part of your proper duty of abridgments is true The truth is you abuse the word necessary not distinguishing betweene necessary to be believed and necessary to be set downe in the Creed For neither is it necessary that all necessary points of beliefe be exprest in the Creed as you confesse Agenda are not nor is it necessary that no point vnfundamentall or vnnecessary be set downe therin only it was necessary for the Apostles to set downe all that which the Holy Ghost moved them to expresse with which it is also necessary for vs to be content notwithstanding your topicall humane reasons to the contrary But what answer shall we giue to your objection Truly it is so easy a taske that I scarsely judge it necessary to giue any at all For what is more easy then to say The Creed is an abridgment of some Articles not because it doth not containe them but because it containes them not at large with explanations proofes illustrations deductions sequels conclusions and the like For if one set downe at large all that he pretends to abridg he is not an Abbreviator but an Amanuensis or Copist And in this I may alledge your selfe who in this very Chapter N. 31. say Summaries must not omit any necessary Doctrine of that Science wherof they are Summaries though the Illustrations and Reasons of it they may omit Thus then the Creed may be an abridgment of some Articles both fundamentall and not fundamentall without any such non-sense as you are pleased to object But surely it will seeme somewhat strange to say as you doe Those Articles that are in the Creed it comprehends at large and therfor it is not an abridgment of them as if nothing can be set downe in the Creed or any other writing clearly and particularly but it must be set downe at large which is to take away all briefe and compendious treatises and therefore as I sayd your selfe must answer your owne objection Out of what we haue saied is answered your N. 66. wherein you and the Doctor must either suppose and begg the question in supposing that all points of simple belief are contayned in the Creed or els his Argumēt is of no force at all 56. To your N. 67.68 the Answer is very easy that all those interrogations of Potter which you call plaine and convincing Arguments are nothing but plaine beggings of the question and suppose that the whole way to heauen all Articles of Faith the whole Counsell of God all necessary matters are contained in the Creed which you know is the thing controverted The Doctour should first haue proved that the Creed containes all necessary points and then haue vrged those his interrogations May the Churches of after ages make the narrow way to heaven narrower then our Saviour left it c. Doe not you and the Doctour acknowledge that men cannot come to heaven by believing only the contents of the Creed but must also belieue Agenda and besides the Faith of both these kindes of Articles they must keepe the commandements and so the Doctour must answer his owne interrogations and he himselfe was guilty of what I haue sayd I meane that all his interrogations could be to no purpose vnless first it be proved that the Creed containes all necessary points For this cause Pag. 222. after he had in a concionatory way made his interrogations he sayth All that can be replyed to this discourse is this that the whole Faith of those times is not contained in the Apostles Creed as if a man should say this is not the Apostles Creed but a part of it Now Char. Maint Pag. 143. N. 25. and in the following numbers having answered this and other objections and some of them in his second part Chap. 7. through divers numbers
be in errour All that Ch. Ma. sayes is That if you erre in judging you cannot be saved in the Roman Church by reason of her errours you must rectify your conscience by judging the errours not to be fundamentall or damnable and therfor not excluding salvation Is this good dealing in you And why doe you say N. 106. A fifth falshood it is that we daily doe this favour for Protestants you must meane if you speake consequently to judge they haue no errours because we judge they haue none damnable Seing Ch Ma sayd most expresly that you doe the favour to other Protestants whome you cannot deny to be in some errours not to judge it damnable to liue in their communion because you hold their errours not to be fundamentall Once againe I must aske whether this be conscionable dealing 46. You are too resolute in this N. 106. to impugne the saying of Ch Ma That according to the Doctrine of all Divines ther is great difference betwixt a speculatiue perswasion and a practicall dictamen of conscience And I feare you doe not well vnderstand this true Doctrine when you say These are but divers words signifying the same thing neither is such a perswasion wholy speculatiue but tending to practise nor such a dictamen wholy practicall but grounded vpon speculation For you should say the contrary that a perswasion purely speculatiue is so far from tending to practice that oftentimes it is joyned with this judgment I cannot frame my practice according to this speculation and consequently my practice can not be grounded vpon such a speculation as Catholike Divines doe learnedly explicate particularly in the matter and forme of Sacraments But this is not a place to handle this matter at large it being sufficient to haue sayd that a speculation taken alone and abstracting from all other considerations of all sides oftentimes would proue pernicious if it were applyed to practice You falsify Ch Ma as if he did affirme that Protestants did only conceaue in speculation that the Church of Rome erred in some Doctrines and had not also a practicall dictamen that it was damnable for them to continue in the profession of these errours For Ch Ma sayth not that Protestants did only conceaue in speculation c. And had not also a practicall dictamen c. but his words are Although they had in speculation conceaved the vissble Church to erre in some Doctrines of themselves not damnable yet with that speculatiue judgment they might and ought to haue entertained this practicall dictamen that for points not suhstantiall to Faith they neither were bound nor lawfully could breake the bond of Charity by breaking vnity in Gods Church You see Ch Ma declares not what dictamen Protestants had but what they might and ought to haue had which are as different things as to say one is an honest man and might and ought to be such an one Ch Ma sayes not that Dr. Potter teaches in express words that Luther was obliged to forsake the Church for an vnnecessary light but that it followes vpon his assertion that he was bound to forsake her externall communion for poinrs not necessary to salvation 47. In your N. 107. your example that Euclide was not infallible yet was he certaine enough that twice two are foure is not to the purpos because such truths are evident by the light of nature as the mysteries of Christian Faith are not Otherwise how were it possible for you to disagree so irreconciliably as the world sees you doe 48. Ch Ma sayth N. 41. Since in cases of vncertaintyes we are not to leaue our Superiour nor cast of his obedience or publickly oppose his decrees your Reformers might easily haue found a safe way to satisfy their zealous conscience without a publick breach especially if with their vncertainty we call to minde the peaceable possession and prescription which by the confession of your owne brethren the Church and Pope of Rome did for many ages enjoy To this you answer by abbreviating the words of Ch Ma thus Your Church was in peaceable possession you must meane of her Doctrine and the Professors of it and enjoyed prescription for many ages and then you add Doctrine is not a thing that may be possessed and the Professors of it were the Church it selfe and in nature of Possessours if we may speake improperly rather then the thing possessed with whome no man hath Reason to be offended if they thinke fit to quit their owne possession But by what commission or warrant doe you say to Ch Ma you must meane of her Doctrine and the Professors of it as if his words must needs be so restrained Wheras the Church of Rome was in possession of Right not to bee opposed in her Doctrine by private persons she was in possession of the good Name and Estimation of being a true Church for which she is commended by S. Paul The Pope was in possession of power and jurisdiction over all Christians of making lawes Accepting appeales gathering Councells c. And both the Pope and Church were in possession of the Professors of her Doctrine that is Christians were their subjects who could not be seduced by fraude Schisme Heresy or violence without offence to God and man as you will not deny all lawfull Communities to haue Right that their subjects should not withdraw and divide themselves from such a mysticall Body Neither is it pertinent whether in this place we take possession as it is defined Detentio rei corporalis corporis animâ—jurisque adminiculo it being sufficient for our present purpose that it be that which is called quasi possessio the having any thing as we are sayd to haue hands feete life c. You say the Professors of the Doctrine were in nature of Possessors if we may speake improperly rather then the thing possessed with whome no man hath Reason to be offended if they thinke fit to quit their owne possession Answer It is strange that no man hath reason to be offended if men quit the possession or forsake the true Doctrine the grace of God or vertue or honesty because he is supposed to possesse them or for a man to depriue himselfe of some member of his body or even of life it selfe Your last words That the possession which the Gouvernours of our Church had for some ages of the party gouverned was not peaceable but got by fraude and held by violence are most injurious to Truth to Gods Church and to God himselfe as if our Saviours promise of a stable Church should be verified only by fraude and violence seing as I haue often sayd ther was no visible Church vpon earth except the Roman and those who agreed with her against the Doctrines which Luther did broach as Ch Ma shewes here Pag 173. and you doe not deny Pag 274. N. 56. where I obserue by the way that you say I know not who they be that say Luther reformed the whole Church wheras Ch
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
words 22. Your N. 30.31.32.33.34 doe only demonstrate that you vndertake to declare the Doctine of Protestants about good works repentance justification c without any commission from them which you could not but see and therfore are forced N. 33. to say If this doctrine about justification by Faith onlie be otherwise expounded then I haue here expounded I will not vnder take the justificatioÌ„ of it And therefore you had no reason to affirme that C Ma spoke without sense in saying that according to the rigid Calvinists Faith is either so strong that once had it can never be lost or so more then weake and so much nothing that it can never be gotten For seing that Faith which Calvinists hold to be justifying can never be lost if once it be gotten this Disjunctiue must needs be evidently true either it cannot be gotten or if it be gotten it cannot be lost That which you vntimely talk heere of the subject wherein God hath placed the Authority of defining matters of Faith hath bene answered already as much as this Work can permit without descending to particular Controversies against the purpose and Intention of Cha Ma who yet Part 2. Chap 5. N. 15.16.21 answers all the particular Authorities of Catholiques which Potter objects about this matter and shewes his ill dealing in alledging them But this is not the first tyme that you dissemble what Cha Ma delivers in his second Part though yet you make vse of it when it may serue your turne which certainlie is no just kind of proceding But to returne to your defense of other chiefe Protestants whereas Cha Ma saied heere N. 12. out of his Chap 3. N. 19. that justification by Faith alone is by some Protestants avouched to be the soule of the Church the principall Origin of salvation of all other points of Doctrine the chiefest and weightiest yet you say heere N. 32. For my part I doe hartly wish that by publique Authority it were so ordered that no man should euer preach or print this Dostrine that Faith alone justifies vnless he joynes these together with it that vniversall obedience is necessary to salvatioÌ„ if the Commandments cannot be kept how can the observation of them or vniversall obedience be taught as necessary to salvation And besides that those Chapters of S. Paul which intreat of justification by Faith without the works of the Law mark heere how impertinently Protestants apply the Authority of S. Paul against justification by works seing Mr. Chillingworth declares that he speaks of the works of the law were never read in the Church but when the 13. Chap. of the 1. Epist to the Corinth concerning the absolute necessity of Charity should be to prevent misprision read together with them So diffideÌ„t are you of this soule of the Church this principall origen of salvation of Protestants Your last lines are so obscure and confused that after consideration by myself aÌ„d with others I can drawe from them nothing but non-sense and for such I must leaue them Concerning our greater safety I haue touched in the Preface to the Reader some Points taken from your express doctrine and words which heere I judge needles to repeete 23. For Conclusion of my Book I disposed myself to giue a particular Answer to the conclusion of yours wherein you are not ashamed to say that you are well assured that Ch. Ma. had in his hands your Book twelue-months before it was published which vpon my certaine knowledg is must vntrue But vpon carefull examination thereof I finde that labour to be needless You would make the Reader belieue that Ch Ma omitted to answer some materiall points of Dr. Potters Book and that you had observed all the Directions which were given in that litle Treatise intituled A Direction be to observed by N. N. If he meane to proceede in answering the Book intituled Mercy and Truth or Charity Maintayned by Catholiques c But both these affirmations are fully and truly answered by an absolute deniall that either of them is true as any man will judge who shall consider the Answer of Cha Ma to Dr. Potter and this my answer to you And as for the latter in particular How can it be denied that you procede in a destructiue way which in that Direction you were warned to avoide who deny Christian Religion to be infallibly true And how can Christian Faith be supernaturall if it be only a probable Conclusion evidently deduced from evident probable Premises And I wonder with what face you can say heere § And lastly that thefe archer of all hearts knowes that you had no other end in writing this Book but to confirm the truth of the divine and infallible Religion of our dearest lord and Saviour Christ Iesus seing you haue endeavoured nothing more through your whole Book than to proue that Christian Religion is not infallible That you haue contradicted Dr. Potter hath bene shewed heretofore in severall occasions And the same I meane that you haue not observed those Directions might be demonstrated in everie particular if it were worth the labour but for that Direction which was not to contradict yourself you haue trangressed it so notoriously as I should never haue believed if my owne experience had not convinced me thereof which made it as hard to giue an answer to your Book as it is to make on coate fitting the moone in all its changes which is your owne similitude which I confess was one of the greatest difficultyes in answering to find you so various obscure contrary and contradicting yourself accordingly as you were prest with different Arguments that I could not but often say with much Truth Quis teneat vultus mutantem Protea Nodus FINIS INDEX In which Pr. signifieth the Preface I. the Introduction C. the Chapter N. the Number P. the Page A. Absolution validly given by an Heretique if he be a true Priest and hath intention to administer the Sacrament C. 4. N. 42. P. 377. 578. Absurdityes in Catholique Faith falsely supposed by I hil c. 1. n. 76. p. 90. but proved by his owne tenets to be truly in his Faith N. 77. and p. 97. n. 84 seq Accidents dispose to effects more noble then themselves yea held by many to be reall â—uses of substances c 1. n 79. 80. p 94. 95. Acts proper to necessary Powers must needs be produced if the meanes to worke be compleate but free Powers may with compleate meanes suspend the act c 11. n 65. p 694. seq The essence of acts ignorantly discoursed of by I hil c 12. n 21. p 721. seq Advertisements for whomsoever shall vndertake to answere this Booke not to follow I hil his stepps in commencing new controversies Pr. n. 5. 6. p. 2. 3. If the Apostles could erre in any poynt of Religion they can be certainly believed in none c. 2. n. 95. p. 200. c. 12. n. 47. p. 742. alibi Out Saviours Words to them as
and didst eate with them And accordingly S. Chrysostome Hom. 24. in Act. Cap. 11. saith Those who were of the circumcision not the Apostles did contend They were offended saith the scripture not a litle and marke vpon what pretense They sayd not why hast thou preacht But why hast thou eaten Neither did they object that of preaching for they knew that it was the gift of God According to which saying even the converted Jewes were not offended with S. Peter for preaching to but for eating with Gentils That before the conversion of Cornelius other Gentils were become Christians Cornel. a Lapide in Act. Cap. 10. post versum 48. affirmes and proves by divers arguments and therfor S. Peter was not ignorant that he and the other Apostles were to preach to the Gentils but he did abstaine from preaching publikly and as it were solemnly to avoide the offence of Jewes converted to Christ till by this heavenly vision he might sweetly aÌ„d effectually perswade them that such was the will of God Thus S. John Chrys Hom 22. in Act Cap 10 saith Because it was so to fall out that they would all accuse Peter as a breaker of the law which was very common with them he sayd necessarily and opportunely I haue never eaten Did he himself feare God forbid But Gods spirit did so direct him that he might haue in readynes a defense against those who would reprehend him c Not ô Lord because I haue never eaten any common or vncleane thing And a voyce came to him That which God hath purifyed do not thou call common This seemed to be spoken to him but indeed it was wholy directed to the Jewes for if the maister S. Peter be blamed much more they that is the Jewes for thinking that it was vnlawfull to eate with Gentils It appeares then that neither S. Peter nor the other Apostles did feare to deale and preach to the Gentils but the Holy Ghost spiritus moderabatur as S. Chrysostome speakes and ordained all for the satisfaction of others 35. But for better vnderstanding this whole matter we are to reflect on three things For we may consider first the eating of Jewes with Gentils 2. Eating meates forbidden to the Jewes 3. preaching to them Now S. Chrysostome as we haue seene observes that the Jewes were offended with S. Peter for eating with Gentils and if we consider as I may say the letter or the most immediate literall sense of the vision made to S. Peter it had respect to the Law of the Jewes to whom certaine meates were forbidden and esteemed vncleane as appeares Chap 10. V. 12. Where in were all fourfooted beasts and that creepe on the earth and foules of the aire and accordingly S. Peter sayd V. 14. I haue never eaten any common or vncleane thing And there is not any thing sayd directly and precisely of preaching to Gentils but at most by consequence because the Apostles could not commonly and constantly preach to them but that they should haue occasion to eate with them or els by way of signification or that vncleane meates in generall did also signify Gentils whom the Jewes esteemed as it were vncleane and irreligious persons Yet preaching and Eating are of their nature different as we may deale with an excommunicate person for his conversion though ordinarily we may not eate with him This being so you cannot affirme that the Apostles did thinke it vnlawfull to preach to the Gentils vnless you do also belieue that they judged Christians converted from Judaisme to be obliged to obserue the whole Law of the Jewes in conformity to the vision presented to S. Peter of all sorts of beasts or meates which the Jewes could not lawfully eate Will you grant this Will you ranke the Apostles with that faction of Pharisees converted to Christ which troubled the most primitiue Church by preaching that the Jewish Law was necessary to salvation even for converted Gentils S. Paul sayth If you be circumfised Christ shall profit you nothing Gal 5. N. 2. And do you thinke that the Apostles were in an errour which must draw vpon them so heauy a doome A Councell was gathered about this matter not that the Apostles could doubt therof but for satisfaction and quiet of Christians and in like manner that vision was shewed to S. Peter not for rectifying any errour of his owne about preaching to Gentils but for pacifying and setling the mynds of Jewes converted to Christianity Haue we not heard you say Pag. 101. N. 127. That it is cleare in Scripture that the observation of the Mosaicall Law is not necessary And therfor it cannot be imagined that the Apostles for whose authority we belieue the scripture could doubt therof Or if you thinke the Apostles might erre about the necessity of observing the Mosaicall Law what certainty can we haue notwithstanding the Definition of that first Councell but that still we may thinke the keeping of Moyses his Law to be necessary you see how much you did exaggerate in saying that the Apostles them selves for a tyme continued in an errour repugnant to a revealed Truth is vnanswerably evident from the story of the acts of the Apostles seing this Story as you will needs vnderstand it doth either proue nothing for your purpose or more than you will grant or is true in itself and so by proving too much you come to proue nothing at all and this only remaynes true That although scripture did containe all necessary truths yet we could not belieue them for such a scripture as you offer vs which certainly could be no Rule of Faith at all 36. Your Third errour for I am willing to reduce them to as small a number as I can though in those which I haue layd togeather in gross many particulars distinct from one another are involved as for example every one of the conditions which you require for infallibility of the writings of the Apostles be so many severall errours Your third errour I say is set downe in the same Pag 144. in the next Number 32. in these words For those things which they profess to deliver as the dictates of humane reason and prudence and not as Divine Revelations why we should take them to be Divine Revelations I see no reason nor how we can do so and not contradict the Apostles and God himself Therfor when S. Paul sayes 1. Epist to the Cor 7.12 To the rest speake I not the Lord And againe concerning Virgins I haue no commandment of the Lord but I deliver my judgment If we wâ—ll pretend that the Lord did certainly speake what S. Paul spake and that his judgment was Gods commandment shall we not plainly contradict S. Paul and that Spirit by which he wrote Which moved him to write as in other places Divine Revelations which he certainly knew to be such so in this place his owne judgment touching some things which God had not particularly revealed vnto him 37. This your doctrine
I confute as I haue done your other errours For if the Apostles somtyme deliver things as the dictates of humane Reason and prudence we cannot belieue with certainty any thing they deliver vnless you con giue vs a certaine Rule how to discerne when they vtter such things and when they deliver Divine Revelations Yea according to your Principles who must proue all by Scripture alone you must giue vs such a certaine Rule out of some evident Text of Scripture As you teach that God may permit true Miracles to be wrought to delude men much more may you say that he may permit the Apostles to write their owne dictamen and judgment without declaring whether they write only such dictamens or els deliver divine Revelations 38. S. Paul in this seaventh Chapter which you cite V. 39 40. even according to the Protestant English Translation Anni 1622. sayth the wife is bound by the Law as long as her husband liveth but if her husband be dead she is at liberty to be marryed to whom she will only in the Lord. But she i◠happyer if she so abide after my judgment and I think also that I haue the spirit of God Now consider I pray you that S. Paul in these words advises a thing for widdowes which God hath not commanded and so might haue sayd in this place I speake not our Lord and then when he adds I thinke also that I haue the spirit of God I aske whether he speake these words out of humane prudence or by divine Revelation and inspiration If he speake by divine Revelation you haue no reason to say that he delivers not a divine Revelation whē 12. he sayes To the rest speake I not our Lord. But if S. Paul in these words I think also that I haue the spirit of God speake not out of divine inspiration but only out of a probable hope or perswasion that he had the spirit of God how can we belieue by divine infallible Faith that his writings are true in any Point Especially if you consider that he teaches widdowes would be more blessed if they remayned so for this very Reason that he advises it and that he thinks himself to haue the spirit of God which proofe supposes that he was indued with an vniversall infallibility and that therfor his counsell in this particular matter was best And this word I thinke might with greater shew of reason make men belieue that S. Paul was not certaine that he had the spirit of God then the reason which you alledg that he spoke out of humane prudence For what consequence is this Our Lord hath commanded nothing in this particular but I giue this advise or Counsell as the best Therfor S. Paul speakes not by divine inspiration Or thus by inspiration I say God hath not commanded therfore I speake not by inspiration in that which I Counsell as if God could not inspire both parts of this speach that is both his saying that God did command and yet that the thing not commanded was better than the contrary seing both those Propositions are true and so one excluds not the other but both may be inspired by the author of Truth Nay if you say he spoke by inspiration for one part that there was no command it is very inconsequent to affirme that be spoke not by the like inspiration in the other I judge it the better and if he spoke by inspiration in both he spoke only out of humane prudence in neither In those words I haue not a Command of our Lord for Virgins but I giue Counsell doth S. Paul say any more than that virginity is not commanded or necessary to salvation which I hope you will say is a revealed Truth but only I counsell it And by what art can you persvvade men that he spoke the first I haue not a command of our Lord by Revelation and not the second considering that S. Paul makes no such difference in his act of belief or as I may say ex parte subjecti but only in the Object for not being commanded but only counselled both vvhich as I sayd being true both might be vtterd by divine inspiration as indeed they vvere And those other vvords speake I not our Lord shevv only that our B. Saviour left povver to the Apostles and their Successours to advise Counsell ordaine or command some things as severall occasions might require vvhich he himself had not commanded in particular Which is a most certaine Truth and the ground of Obedience and subordination to Lavvfull Pastors in Gods Church and cannot be denyed by protestants themselves and therfor it is not only a dictate of humane prudence 39. All this will appeare more manifest if we ponder S. Paules words as they lye He sayth V. 5. Defraud not one another except perhaps by consent for a tyme that you may giue yourselves to prayer and returne againe togeather least Satan tempt you for your incontinency Where we may consider how in the first part of this Verse there is a command of God defraud not one another except perhaps by consent for a tyme that you may giue yourselves to prayer in the greeke and to fasting which is not a command but a counsell ād thirdly returne againe togeather which is neither a command nor a counsell but a permissiō or indulgēce to avoyd ā evill ād not as a thing which he judged to be best which he declares in the next Uerse 6. But I say this by indulgence not by commandement and then V. 7. declaring what he judged to be the best he sayth For I would all men to be as my self and V. 8. But I say to the vnmarryed and to widdowes it is good for them if they so abide even as I also Behold then a Command a Counsell a Permission Now I aske whether in all these S. Paul spoke by Revelation or only out of humane prudence Or how can you without any least reason imagine that in some of them he spoke one way in others another And if you say so you will only clearly confirme what I sayd that we can haue no certainty when he vtters things revealed or only his owne judgment For although in the words rehearsed he say not expressly not I but our Lord nor not our Lord but I yet he might haue sayd so seing he declared both a Commandement of God and so might haue saied not I but our Lord and a Conunsell and might haue saied not our Lord but I And therfor when he sayth V. 10. and 11. But to them that be joyned in matrimony not I giue commandment but our Lord that the wife depart not from her husband and if she depart to remayne vnmarryed or to be reconciled to her husband And let not the husband put away his wife And V. 12. For to the rest I say and not our Lord you cannot infer that he speakes by another spirit or motion then in the precedent verses where he might haue vsed