abandon him as he was bold to alter that Canon of Scripture which he found received in God's Church 9. What Books of Scripture the Protestants of England hold for Canonical is not easie to affirm In their sixth Article they say In the name of the holy Scripture we do understand those Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament of whose Authority was never any doubt in the Church What mean they by these words That by the Churches consent they are assured what Scriptures be Canonical This were to make the Church Judge and not Scriptures alone Do they only understand the agreement of the Church to be a probable inducement Probability is no sufficient ground for an infallible assent of Faith By this rule of whose Authority was NEVER any doubt in the Church the whole book of Esther must quit the Canon because some in the Church have excluded it from the Canon as (o) Apud Euseb l. 4. hist c. 26 Melito Asianus (p) In Synop. Athanasius and (q) In carm de genuinis Scrip. Gregory Nazianzen And Luther if Protestants will be content that he be in the Church saith The Jews (r) Li. de serv arb con Eras tom 2. Wit sol 471. place the book of Esther in the Canon which yet if I might be Judge doth rather deserve to be put out of the Canon And of Ecclesiastes he saith This (Å¿) In lat serm conviviali us Franc. in 8. imp Anno 1571. book is not full there are in it many abrupt things he wants boots and spurs that is he hath no perfect sentence he rides upon a tong reed like me when I was in the Monastery And much more is to be read in him who (t) In Ger. colloq Lutheri ab Aurifabro ed. Fran. tit de lib. vet nov Test fol. 379. saith further that the said book was not written by Solomon but by Syrach in the time of the Macchabees and that it is like to the Talmud the Jews Bible out of many books heaped into one work perhaps out of the Library of King Prolomaeus And further he saith that (u) Ib. tit edit Patriar Proph. sol 282. he doth not believe all to have been done as there is set down And he teacheth the (w) Tit. de li. Vet. Nov. Test book of Job to be as it were an argument for a Fable or Comedy to set before us an example of Patience And he (x) Fol. 380. delivers this general censure of the Prophets Books The Sermons of no Prophet were written whole and perfect but their Disciples and Auditors snatched now one sentence and then another and so put them all into one book and by this means the Bible was conserved If this were so the books of the Prophets being not written by themselves but promiscuously and casually by their Disciples will soon be called in question Are not these errors of Luther fundamental and yet if Protestants deny the Infallibility of the Church upon what certain ground can they disprove these Lutherian and Luciferian blasphemies O godly Reformer of the Roman Church But to return to our English Canon of Scripture In the New Testament by the above-mentioned rule of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church divers Books of the New Testament must be dis-canonized to wit all those of which some Ancients have doubted and those which divers Lutherans have of late denied It is worth the observation how the before-mentioned sixth Article doth specifie by name all the Books of the Old Testament which they hold for Canonical but those of the New Testament as they are commonly received we do receive and account them Canonical The Mysterie is easily to be unfolded If they had descended to particulars they must have contradicted some of their chiefest Brethren As they are commonly received c. I ask By whom By the Church of Rome Then by the same reason they must receive divers Books of the Old Testament which they reject By Lutherans Then with Lutherans they may deny some Books of the New Testament If it be the greater or less number of Voices that must cry up or down the Canon of Scripture our Roman Canon will prevail and among Protestants the Certainty of their Faith must be reduced to an Uncertain Controversie of Fact Whether the number of those who reject or of those others who receive such and such Scriptures be greater Their Faith must alter according to years and days When Luther first appeared he and his Disciples were the greater number of that new Church and so this claim Of being commonly received stood for them till Zuinglius or Calvin grew to some equal or greater number than that of the Lutherans and then this rule of Commonly received will canonize their Canon against the Lutherans I would gladly know why in the former part of their Article they say both of the Old and New Testament In the name of the holy Scripture we do understand those Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament of whose Authority was never any doubt in the Church And in the latter part speaking again of the New Testament they give a far different rule saying All the Books of the New Testament as they are commonly received we do receive and account them Canonical This I say is a rule much different from the former of whose Authority was NEVER any doubt in the Church For some Books might be said to be Commonly received although they were sometime doubted of by some If to be Commonly received pass for a good rule to know the Canon of the New Testament why not of the Old Above all we desire to know Upon what infallible ground in some Books they agree with us against Luther and divers principal Lutherans and in others jump with Luther against us But seeing they disagree among themselves it is evident that they have no certain rule to know the Canon of Scripture in assigning whereof some of them must of necessity err because of contradictory Propositions both cannot be true 10. Moreover the letters syllables words phrase or matter contained in holy Scripture have no necessary or natural connection with divine Revelation or Inspiration and therefore by seeing reading or understanding them we cannot inferr that they proceeed from God or be confirmed by divine Authority as because Creatures involve a necessary relation connection and dependance on their Creator Philosophers may by the light of natural reason demonstrate the existence of one prime cause of all things In Holy Writ there are innumerable truths not surpassing the sphear of humane wit which are or may be delivered by Pagan Writers in the self same words and phrase as they are in Scripture And as for some truths peculiar to Christians for example the mysterie of the blessed Trinity c. The only setting them down in Writing is not enough to be assured that such a Writing is the undoubted Word of God otherwise
it is apparent Because that is not perfect in any kind which wants some parts belonging to its integrity As he is not a perfect man that wants any part appertaining to the Integrity of a Man and therefore that which wants any accession to make it a perfect Rule of it self is not a perfect Rule And then the end of a Rule is to regulate and direct Now every instrument is more or lesse perfect in its kind as it is more or lesse fit to attain the end for which it is ordained But nothing obscure or unevident while it is so is fit to regulate and direct them to whom it is so Therefore it is requisite also to a Rule so farr as it is a Rule to be evident otherwise indeed it is no Rule because it cannot serve for direction I conclude therefore that both these properties are required to a perfect Rule both to be so compleat as to need no Addition and to be so evident as to need no Interpretation 7. Now that a writing is capable of both these perfections it is so plain that I am even ashamed to prove it For he that denies it must say That something may be spoken which cannot be written For if such a compleat and evident Rule of Faith may be delivered by word of mouth as you pretend it may and is and whatsoever is delivered by word of mouth may also be written then such a compleat and evident Rule of Faith may also be written If you will have more light added to the Sun answer me then to these Questions Whether your Church can set down in writting all these which she pretends to be divine unwritten Traditions and add them to the verities already written And Whether she can set us down such interpretations of all obscurities in the Faith as shall need no farther interpretations If she cannot then she hath not that power which you pretend she hath of being an Infallible Teacher of all divine verities and an infallible Interpreter of obscurities in the Faith for she cannot teach us all divine verities if she cannot write them down neither is that an interpretation which needs again to be interpreted If she can Let her do it and then we shall have a writting not only capable of but actually endowed with both these perfections of being both so compleat as to need no Addition and so evident as to need no Interpretation Lastly whatsoever your Church can do or not do no man can without Blasphemy deny that Christ Jesus if he had pleased could have writ us a Rule of Faith so plain and perfect as that it should have wanted neither any part to make up its integrity nor any cleerness to make it sufficiently intelligible And if Christ could have done this then the thing might have been done a writting there might have been indowed with both these properties Thus therefore I conclude a writing may be so perfect a Rule as to need neither Addition nor Interpretation But the Scripture you acknowledg a perfect Rule for as much as a writing can be a Rule therefore it needs neither Addition nor Interpretation 8. You will say that though a writing be never so perfect a Rule of Faith yet it must be beholding to Tradition to give it this Testimony that it is a Rule of Faith and the Word of God I answer First there is no absolute necessity of this For God might if he thought good give it the attestation of perpetuall miracles Secondly that it is one thing to be a perfect Rule of Faith another to be proved so unto us And this though a writing could not be proved to us to be a perfect rule of Faith by its owne saying so for nothing is proved true by being said or written in a book but only by Tradition which is a thing credible of it self yet it may be so in it self and contain all the material objects all the particular articles of our Faith without any dependance upon Tradition even this also not excepted that this writing doth contain the rule of Faith Now when Protestants affirm against Papists that Scripture is a perfect Rule of Faith their meaning is not that by Scripture all things absolutely may be proved which are to be believed For it can never be proved by Scripture to a gainsayer that there is a God or that the book called Scripture is the word of God For he that will deny these Assertions when they are spoken will believe them never a whit the more because you can shew them written But their meaning is that the Scripture to them which presuppose it Divine and a Rule of Faith as Papists and Protestants do contains all the material objects of Faith is a compleat and total and not onely an imperfect and a partial Rule 9. But every Book and Chapter and Text of Scripture is infallible and wants no due perfection and yet excludes not the Addition of other books of Scripture Therefore the perfection of the whole Scripture excludes not the Addition of unwritten Tradition I answer Every Text of Scripture though it hath the perfection belonging to a Text of Scripture yet it hath not the perfection requisite to a perfect Rule of Faith and that only is the perfection which is the subject of our discourse So that this is to abuse your Reader with the ambiguity of the word Perfect In effect as if you should say A text of Scripture may be a perfect Text though there be others beside it therefore the whole Scripture may be a perfect Rule of Faith though there be other parts of this Rule besides the Scripture and though the Scripture be but a part of it 10. The next Argument to the same purpose is for Sophistry cosen-german to the former When the first books of Scripture were written they did not exclude unwritten Tradition Therefore now also that all the books of Scripture are written Traditions are not excluded The sense of which argument if it have any must be this When only a part of the Scripture was written then a part of the divine doctrine was unwritten Therefore now when all the Scripture is written yet some part of the divine doctrine is yet unwritten If you say your Conclusion is not that it is so but without disparagement to Scripture may be so without disparagement to the truth of Scripture I grant it but without disparagement to the Scripture's being a perfect Rule I deny it And now the Question is not of the Truth but the perfection of it which are very different things though you would fain confound them For Scripture might very well be all true though it contain not all necessary Divine Truth But unlesse it do so it cannot be a perfect Rule of Faith for that which wants any thing is not perfect For I hope you do not imagine that we conceive any antipathy between God's Word written and unwritten but that both might very well stand together All that
relie Do not you cite Scripture or Tradition or both on both sides And do you not pretend that both these are the infallible Truths of Almighty God 51. You close up this Section with a fallacy proving forsooth that we destroy by our confession the Church which is the house of God because we stand only upon Fundamental Articles which cannot make up the whole fabrick of the Faith no more than the foundation of a house alone can be a house 52. But I hope Sir you will not be difficult in granting that that is a house which hath all the necessary parts belonging to a house Now by Fundamental Articles we mean all those which are necessary And you your self in the very leaf after this take notice that D. Potter doth so Where to this Question How shall I know in particular which Points be and which be not Fundamental You scurrilously bring him in making this ridiculous answer Read my Answer to a late Pamphlet intituled Charity Mistaken c. There you shall find that Fundamental Doctrins are such Catholick Verities as principally and essentially pertain to the Faith such as properly constitute a Church and are necessary in ordinary course to be distinctly believed by every Christian that will be saved All which words he used not to tell what Points be Fundamental as you dishonestly impose upon him but to explain what he meant by the word Fundamental May it please you therefore now at last to take notice that by Fundamental we mean all and only that which is necessary and then I hope you will grant that we may safely expect Salvation in a Church which hath all things Fundamental to Salvation Unless you will you say that more is necessary than that which is necessary 53. Ad § 19. This long discourse so full of un-ingenuous dealing with your adversary perhaps would have done reasonably in a Farce or a Comedy and I doubt not but you have made your self and your courteous Readers good sport with it But if D. Potter or I had been by when you wrote it we should have stopt your carere at the first starting and have put you in mind of these old School-Proverbs Ex falso supposito sequitur quodlibet and Uno absurdo dato sequuntur mille For whereas you suppose first that to a man desirous to save his soul and requiring whose direction he might rely upon the Doctors answer would be Upon the truly Catholick Church I suppose upon better reason because I know his mind that he would advise him to call no man Master on Earth but according to Christs command to rely upon the direction of God himself If he should enquire where he should find this direction He would answer him In his Word contained in Scripture If he should enquire what assurance he might have that the Scripture is the Word of God He would answer him that the doctrin it self is very fit and worthy to be thought to come from God nec vox hominem sonat and that they which wrote and delivered it confirmed it to be the Word of God by doing such works as could not be done but by power from God himself For assurance of the Truth hereof he would advise him to rely upon that which all wise men in all matters of belief rely upon and that is the consent of Ancient Records and Universal Tradition And that he might not instruct him as partial in this advice he might farther tell him that a Gentleman that would be nameless that has written a Book against him called Charity maintained by Catholiques though in many things he differ from him yet agrees with him in this that Tradition is such a principle as may be rested in and which requires no other proof As indeed no wise man doubts but there was such a man as Julius Caesar or Cicero that there are such Cities as Rome or Constantinople though he have no other assurance for the one or the other but only the speech of people This tradition therefore he would counsel him to rely upon and to believe that the Book which we call Scripture was confirmed abundantly by the works of God to be the Word of God Believing it the Word of God he must of necessity believe it true and if he believe it true he must believe it contains all necessary direction to eternal happiness because it affirms it self to do so Nay he might tell him that so far is the whole Book from wanting any necessary direction to his eternal Salvation that one only Author that hath writ but too little Books of it S. Luke by name in the beginning of his Gospel and in the beginning of his Story shews plainly that he alone hath written at least so much as is necessary And what they wrote they wrote by Gods direction for the direction of the world not only for the Learned but for all that would do their true endeavour to know the will of God and to do it therefore you cannot but conceive that writing to all and for all they wrote so as that in things necessary they might be understood by all Besides that here he should find that God himself has engaged himself by promise that if he would love him and keep his Commandements and pray earnestly for his Spirit and be willing to be directed by it he should undoubtedly receive it even the Spirit of Truth which shall lead him into all truth that is certainly at least into all necessary Truths and suffer him to fal into no pernicious error The sum of his whole direction to him briefly would be this believe the Scripture to be the Word of God use your true endeavour to find the true sense of it and to live according to it and then you may rest securely that you are in the true way to eternal happiness This is the substance of that Answer which the Doctor would make to any man in this case and this is a way so plain that fools unless they will cannot err from it Because not knowing absolutely all truth nay not all profitable truth and being feee from err our but endeavouring to know the truth and obey it and endeavouring to be free from err our is by this way made the only condition of Salvation As for your supposition That he would advise such a man to rely upon the Catholique Church for the finding out the doctrin of Christ he utterly disclaims it and truly very justly There being no certain way to know that any Company is a true Church but only by their professing the true doctrin of Christ And therefore as it is impossible I should know that such a company of Philosophers are Peripateticks or Stoicks unless I first know what was the doctrin of the Peripateticks and Stoicks so is it impossible that I should certainly know any company to be the Church of Christ before I know what is the doctrin of Christ the Profession whereof constitutes the visible Church the
thing to any thing 57. Wherein I am yet more confirmed by the Answer you put in his mouth to your next demand How shall I know whether he hold all Fundamental points or no For whereas hereunto D. Potter having given one Answer fully satisfactory to it which is If he truly believe the undoubted Books of Canonical Scripture he cannot but believe all Fundamentals and another which is but something towards a full satisfaction of it That the Creed contains all the Fundamentals of simple Belief you take no notice of the former and pervert the latter and make him say The Creed contains all Fundamentals of Faith Whereas you know and within six or seven lines after this confess that he never pretended it to contain all simply but all of one sort all necessary Points of simple belief Which assertion because he modestly delivers as very probable being willing to conclude rather less than more than his reasons require hereupon you take occasion to ask Shall I hazzard my soul on probabilities or even wagers As if whatsoever is but probable though in the highest degree of probability were as likely to be false as true Or because it is but Morally not Mathematically certain that there was such a Woman as Q. Elizabeth such a man as H. the 8. that is in the highest degree probable therefore it were an even wager there were none such By this reason seeing the truth of your whole Religion depends finally upon Prudential motives which you do but pretend to be very credible it will be an even wager that your Religion is false And by the same reason or rather infinitely greater seeing it is impossible for any man according to the grounds of your Religion to know himself much less another to be a true Pope or a true Priest nay to have a Moral certainty of it because these things are abnoxious to innumerable secret and undiscernable nullities it will be an even wager nay if we proportion things indifferently a hundred to one that every Consecration and Absolution of yours is void and that whensoever you adore the Host you and your Assistants commit Idolatry That there is a nullity in any Decree that a Pope shall make or any Decree of a Council which he shall confirm Particularly it will be at least any even wager that all the Decrees of the Council of Trent are void because it is at most but very probable that the Pope which confirmed them was true Pope If you mislike these Inferences then confess you have injur'd D. Potter in this also that you have confounded and made all one Probabilities and even Wagers Whereas every ordinary Gamester can inform you that though it be a thousand to one that such a thing will happen yet it is not sure but very probable 58. To make the measure of your injustice yet fuller you demand If the Creed contains only points of simple belief how shall you know what points of belief are necessary which direct our practise D. Potter would have answered you in our Saviours words Search the Scriptures But you have a great mind it seems to be dispairing and therefore having proposed your Question will not suffer him to give you Answer but shut your ears and tell him still he chalks out new paths for desperation 59. In the rest of your interlude I cannot but commend one thing in you that you keep a decorum and observe very well the Rule given you by the great Master of your Art Servetur ad imum Qualis ab incepto processerat sibi constet One vein of scurrility and dishonesty runs clean through it from the beginning to the end Your next demand then is Are all the Articles of the Creed for their nature and matter Fundamental and the Answer I cannot say so Which Answer though it be true D. Potter no where gives it neither hath he occasion but you make it for him to bring in another question and that is How then shall I know which in particular be and which be not Fundamental D. Potter would have answered It is a vain question believe all and you shall be sure to believe all that is Fundamental 60. But what says now his prevaricating Proxy What does he make him say This which follows Read my Answer to a late Popish Pamphlet intituled Charity Mistaken There you shall find that Fundamental doctrins are such Catholique verities as principally and essentially pertain to the Faith such as properly constitute a Church and are necessary in ordinary course to be distinctly believed by every Christian that will be saved They are those Grand and Captital Doctrins which make up our Faith that is the Common Faith which is alike pretious in all being one and the same in the highest Apostle and the meanest believer which the Apostle elsewhere cals The first Principles of the Oracles of God and The form of sound words 61. But in earnest Good Sir doth the Doctor in these places by you quoted make to this question this same sottish answer Or do you think that against an Heretique nothing is unlawful Certainly if he doth answer thus I will make bold to say he is a very fool But if he does not as indeed he does not then But I forbear you and beseech the Reader to consult the places of D. Potter's Book and there he shall find that in the former half of these as you call them varyed words and phrases he declared only what he meant by the word Fundamental which was needful to prevent mistakes and cavilling about the meaning of the word which is metaphorical and therefore ambiguous and that the latter half of them are several places of Scripture imployed by D. Potter to shew that his distinction of Fundamental and not Fundamental hath express ground in it Now of these two places very pertinent unto two very good purposes you have exceeding fairly patcht together a most ridiculous Answer to a Question that D. Potter never dreamed of But the words you will say are in D. Potters Book though in divers places and to other purposes Very true And so the words of Ausonius his obscene Fescennine are taken out of Virgil yet Virgil surely was not the Author of this Poem Besides in D. Potters book there are these words Dreâ—d Soveraign amongst the many excellent vertues which have made your Majesties person so dear unto God c. And why now may you not say as well that in these he made Answer to your former question what Points of the Creed were and what were not Fundamentals 62. But unlâ—ss this question may be answered his doctrin you say serves only either to make men despair or else to have recourse to these whom we call Rapists It seems a little thing will make you despair if you be so sullen as to do so because men will not trouble themselves to satisfie your curious questions And I pray be not offended with me for so esteeming it because as
submit to the Lawes of the King of England but should indeed resolve to obey them in that sense which the King of France should put upon them whatsoever it were I presume every understanding man would say that I did indeed obey the King of France and not the King of England If I should pretend to believe the Bible but that I would understand it according to the sense which the chief Mufty should put upon it Who would not say that I were a Christian in pretense only but indeed a Mahumetan 11. Nor will it be to purpose for you to pretend that the Precepts of Christ are so plain that it cannot be feared that any Pope should ever go about to dissolve them and pretend to be a Christian For not to say that you now pretend the contrary to wit that the law of Christ is obscure even in things necessary to be believed and done and by saying so have made a fair way for any fowl interpretation of any part of it certainly that which the Church of Rome hath already done in this kind is an evident argument that if she once had this power unquestioned and made expedite and ready for use by being contracted to the Pope she may do what she pleaseth with it Who that had lived in the Primitive Church would not have thought it as utterly improbable that ever they should have brought in the worship of Images and picturing of God as now it is that they should legitimate Fornication Why may we not think they may in time take away the whole Communion from the Laity as well as they have taken away half of it Why may we not think that any Text and any Sense may not be accorded as well as the whole 14. Ch. of the Ep. of S. Paul to the Corinth is reconciled to the Latine-Service How is it possible any thing should be plainer forbidden than the worship of Angels in the Ep. to the Colossians than the teaching for Doctrines mens commands in the Gospel of S. Mark And therefore seeing we see these things done which hardly any man would have believed that had not seen them Why should we not fear that this unlimited power may not be used hereafter with as little moderation Seeing devices have been invented how men may worship Images without Idolatry and kill innocent men under pretence of Heresie without murder Who knows that some tricks may not be hereafter devised by which Lying with other mens wives shall be no Adultery taking away other mens goods no theft I conclude therefore That if Solomon himself were here and were to determine the difference Which is more likely to be mother of all Heresie The denial of the Churches or the affirming of the Popes Infallibility that he would certainly say This is the mother give her the childe 12. You say again confidently That if this Infallibility be once impeached every man is given over to his own wit and discourse which if you mean discourse not guiding it self by Scripture but only by principles of nature or perhaps by prejudices and popular errors and drawing consequences not by Rule but Chance is by no means true if you mean by Discourse right Reason grounded on Divine Revelation and common Notions written by God in the hearts of all men and deducing according to the never failing rules of Logick consequent deductions from them If this be it which you mean by discourse it is very meet and reasonable and necessary that men as in all their actions so especially in that of greatest importance the choice of their way to happiness should be left unto it and he that follows this in all his opinions and actions and does not only seem to do so follows alwayes God whereas he that followeth a Company of men may oft-times follow a company of beasts And in saying this I say no more than S. John to all Christians in these words Dearly beloved believe not every spirit but try the spirits whether they be of God or no and the rule he gives them to make this tryal by is to consider Whether they confess Jesus to be Christ that is the Guid of their Faith and Lord of their Action not whether they acknowledge the Pope to be his Vicar I say no more than S. Paul in exhorting all Christians To try all things and hold fast that which is good then S. Peter in commanding all Christians To be ready to give a reason of the hope that is in them then our Saviour himself in forewarning all his Followers that if they blindly followed blinde guides both leaders and followers should fall into the ditch and again in saying even to the people Yea and why of your selves judge yee not what is right And though by passion or precipitation or prejudice by want of reason or not using what they have men may be and are oftentimes led in error and mischief yet that they cannot be misguided by Discourse truly so called such as I have described you your self have given them security For what is Discourse but drawing conclusions out of premises by good consequence Now the Principles which we have setled to wit the Scriptures are on all sides agreed to be infallibly true And you have told us in the fourth Chap. of this Pamphlet That from truth no man can by good consequence infer falshood Therefore by Discourse no man can possibly be led to Error but if he err in his Conclusions he must of necessity either err in his Principles which here cannot have place or commit some error in his Discourse that is indeed not Discourse but seem to do so 13. You say Thirdly with sufficient confidence That if the true Church may erre in defining what Scriptures be Canonical or in delivering the sense thereof then we must follow either the private Spirit or else natural wit and judgment and by them examine what Scriptures contain true or false Doctrine and in that respect ought to be received or rejected All which is apparently untrue neither can any proof of it be pretended For though the present Church may possibly err in her judgment touching this matter yet have we other directions in it besides the private spirit and the examination of the contents which latter way may conclude the negative very strongly to wit that such or such a Book cannot come from God because it contains irreconcileable Contradictions but the Affirmative it cannot conclude because the contents of a Book may be all true and yet the Book not written by Divine inspiration other direction therefore I say we have besides either of these three and that is The testimony of the Primitive Christians 14. You say Fourthly with convenient boldness That this infallible Authority of your Church being denyed no man can be assured that any parcell of Scripture was written by Divine inspiration Which is an untruth for which no proof is pretended and besides void of modesty and full of impiety The
soever it is holds that which indeed is opposite to the sense of the Scripture which God intended for it is impossible that God should intend Contradictions But then this intended sense is not so fully declared but that they which oppose it may verily believe that they indeed maintain it and have great shew of reason to induce them to believe so and therefore are not to be damned as men opposing that which they either know to be a Truth delivered in Scripture or have no probable Reason to believe the contrary but rather in Charity to be acquitted and absolved as men who endeavour to find the Truth but fail of it through humane frailty This ground being laid the Answer to your ensuing Interrogatories which you conceive impossible is very obvious and easie 14. To the first Whether it be not in any man a grievous sin to deny any one Truth contained in holy Writ I answer Yes if he knew it to be so or have no probable Reason to doubt of it otherwise not 15. To the second Whether there be in such denial any distinction between Fundamental and not-Fundamental sufficient to excuse from Heresie I answer Yes There is such a Distinction But the Reason is because those Points either in themselves or by accident are Fundamental which are evidently contained in Scripture to him that knows them to be so Those not-Fundamental which are there-hence deducible but probably only not evidently 16. To the third Whether it be not impertinent to alledge the Creed as containing all Fundamental Points of Faith as if believing it alone we were at Liberty to deny all other Points of Scripture I answer It was never alledged to any such purpose but only as a sufficient or rather more than a sufficient Summarie of those Points of Faith which were of necessity to be believed actually and explicitly and that only of such which were meerly and purely Credenda and not Agenda 17. To the fourth drawn as a Corollary from the former Whether this be not to say that Of Persons contrary in belief one part only can be saved I answer By no means For they may differ about Points not contained in Scripture They may differ about the sense of some ambiguous Texts of Scripture They may differ about some Doctrines for and against which Scriptures may be alledged with so great probability as may justly excuse either Part from Heresie and a self-condemning Obstinacy And therefore though D. Potter do not take it ill that you believe your selves may be saved in your Religion yet notwithstanding all that hath yet been pretended to the contrarie he may justly condemn you and that out of your own principles of uncharitable presumption for affirming as you do that no man can be saved out of it CHAP. II. What is that means whereby the revealed Truths of God are conveyed to our Understanding and which must determine Controversies in Faith and Religion OF our estimation respect and reverence to holy Scripture even Protestans themselves do in fact give testimony while they possess it from us and take it upon the integrity of our custody No cause imaginable could avert our will from giving the function of supreme and sole Judge to holy Writ if both the thing were not impossible in it self and if both reason and experience did not convince our understanding that by this Assertion Contentions are increased and not ended We acknowledge holy Scrippture to be a most perfect Rule for as much as a Writing can be a Rule We only deny that it excludes either divine Tradition though it be unwritten or an external Judge to keep to propose to interpret in a true Orthodox and Catholique sense Every single Book every Chapter yea every period of holy Scripture is infallibly true and wants no due perfection But must we therefore inferr that all other Books of Scripture are to be excluded lest by addition of them we may seem to derogate from the perfection of the former When the first Books of the Old and New Testament were written they did not exclude unwritten Traditions nor the Authority of the Church to decide Controversies and who hath then so altered their nature and filled them with such jealousies as that now they cannot agree for fear of mutual disparagement What greater wrong is it for the written Word to be compartner now with the unwritten than for the unwritten which was once alone to be afterward joyned with the written Who ever heard that to commend the fidelity of a Keeper were to disauthorize the thing committed to his custody Or that to extol the integrity and knowledge and to avouch the necessity of a Judge in suits of Law were to deny perfection in the Law Are there not in Common-wealths besides the Laws written and unwritten customs Judges appointed to declare both the one and the other as several occasions may require 2. That the Scripture alone cannot be Judge in Controversies of Faith we gather it very clearly From the quality of a writing in general From the nature of holy Writ in particular which must be believed as true and infallible From the Editions and Translations of it From the difficulty to understand it without hazard of Error From the inconveniences that must follow upon the ascribing of sole Judicature to it and finally From the Confessions of our Adversaries And on the other side all these difficulties ceasing and all other qualities requisite to a Judge concurring in the visible Church of Christ our Lord we must conclude that She it is to whom in doubts concerning Faith and Religion all Christians ought to have recourse 3. The name notion nature and properties of a Judge cannot in common reason agree to any meer writing which be it otherwise in it its kind never so highly qualified with sanctity and infallibility yet it must ever be as all writings are deaf dumb and inanimate By a Judge all wise men understand a person endued with life and reason able to hear to examine to declare his mind to the disagreeing parties in such sort as that each one may know whether the sentence be in favour of his cause or against his pretence and he must be applyable and able to do all this as the diversity of Controversies Persons Occasions and Circumstances may require There is a great and plain distinction betwixt a Judge and a Rule For as in a Kingdom the Judge hath his Rule to follow which are the received Laws and Customs so are not they fit orable to declare or be Judges to themselves but that office must belong to a living Judge The holy Scripture may be and is a Rule but cannot be a Judge because it being always the same cannot declare it self any one time or upon any one occasion more particularly then upon any other and let it be read over an hundred times it will be still the same and no more fit alone to terminate Controversies in Faith than the Law
some sayings of Plato Trismegistus Sibyls Ovid c. must be esteemed Canonical Scripture because they fall upon some truths proper to Christian Religion The internal light and inspiration which directed and moved the Authors of Canonical Scriptures is a hidden Quality infused into their understanding and will and hath no such particular sensible influence into the external Writing that in it we can discover or from it demonstrate any such secret light and inspiration and therefore to be assured that such a Writing is divine we cannot know from it self alone but by some other extrinsecal Authority 11. And here we appeal to any man of judgement whether it be not a vain brag of some Protestants to tell us that they wot full well what is Scripture by the light of Scripture it self or as D. Potter words it by (y) Pag. 141. that glorious beam of divine light which shines therein even as our eye distinguisheth light from darkness without any other help than light it self and as our ear knows a voice by the voice it self alone But this vanity is refuted by what we said even now that the external Scripture hath no apparent or necessary connexion with divine inspiration or revelation Will D. Potter hold all his Brethren for blind men for not seeing that glorious beam of divine light which shines in Scripture about which they cannot agree Corporal light may be discerned by it self alone as being evident proportionate and connatural to our faculty of seeing That Scripture is Divine and inspired by God is a truth exceeding the natural capacity and compass of man's understanding to us obscure and to be believed by divine Faith which according to the Apostle is argumentum (z) Heb. v. 1. non-apparentium an argument or conviction of things not-evident and therefore no wonder if Scripture do not manifest it self by it self alone but must requâ—re some other means for applying it to our understanding Nevertheless their own similitudes and instances make against themselves For suppose a man had never read or heard of Sun Moon Fire Candle c. and should be brought to behold a light yet in such sort as that the Agent or Cause efficient from which it proceeded were kept hidden from him could such a one by only beholding the light certainly know Whether it were produced by the Sun or Moon c Or if one hear a voice and had never known the Speaker could he know from whom in particular that voice proceeded They who look upon Scripture may well see that some one wrote it but that it was written by divine inspiration how shall they know Nay they cannot so much as know who wrote it unless they first know the Writer and what hand he writes as likewise I cannot know whose voice it is which I hear unless I first both know the person who speaks and with what voice he useth to speak and yet even all this supposed I may perhaps be deceived For there may be Voices so like and Hand so counterfeited that men may be deceived by them as birds were by the Grapes of that skilful Painter Now since Protestants affirm knowledge concerning God as our supernatural end must be taken from Scripture they cannot in Scripture alone discern that it is his voice or writing because they cannot know from whom a writing or voice proceeds unless first they know the person who speaketh or writeth Nay I say more by Scripture alone they cannot so much as know that any person doth in it or by it speak any thing at all because one may write without intent to signifie or affirm any thing but only to set down or as it were paint such characters syllables and words as men are wont to set copies not caring what the signification of the words imports or as one transcribes a writing which himself understands not or when one writes what another dictates and in other such cases wherein it is clear that the Writer speaks or signifies nothing in such his writing and therefore by it we cannot hear or understand his voice With what certainty then can any man affirm that by Scripture it self they can see that the Writers did intend to signifie any thing at all that they were Apostles or other Canonical Authors that they wrote their own sense and not what was dictated by some other man and finally and especially that they wrote by the infallible direction of the holy Ghost 12. But let us be liberal and for the present suppose not grant that Scripture is like to corporal light by it self alone able to determine and move our understanding to assent yet the Similitude proves against themselves For light is not visible except to such as have eyes which are not made by the light but must be presupposed as produced by some other cause And therefore to hold the similitude Scripture can be clear only to those who are endued with the eye of Faith or as D. Potter above cited saith to all that have (a) Pag. 141. eyes to discern the shining beams thereof that is to the believer as immediately after he speaketh Faith then must not originally proceed from Scripture but is to be presupposed before we can see the light thereof and consequently there must be some other means precedent to Scripture to beget Faith which can be no other than the Church 13. Others affirm that they know Canonical Scriptures to be such by the Title of the Books But how shall we know such Inscriptions or Titles to be infallibly true From this their Answer our Argument is strengthned because divers Apocryphal writings have appeared under the Titles and Names of sacred Authors as the Gospel of Thomas mentioned by (b) Cont. Adimantum c. 17. S. Augustine the Gospel of Peter which the Nazaraei did use as (c) L. 2. haeretic fab Theodoret witnesseth with which Seraphion a Catholique Bishop was for some time deceived as may be read in (d) Li. 6. c. 10. Eusebius who also speaketh of the Apocalyps of (e) Lib. 6. c. 11. Peter The like may be said of the Gospels of Barnabas Bartholomew and other such writings specified by Pope (f) Dist Can. Sancta Romana Gelasius Protestants reject likewise some part of Esther and Daniel which bear the same Titles with the rest of those Books as also both we and they hold for Apocryphal the third and fourth Books which go under the name of Esdras and yet both of us receive his first and second book Wherefore Titles are not sufficient assurances what Books be Canonical which (h) In his defence art 4. pag. 31. D. Covel acknowledgeth in these words It is not the Word of God which doth or possibly can assure us that we do well to think it is the Word of God the first outward motion leading men so to esteem of the Scripture is the Authority of Gods Church which teacheth us to receive Mark ' s Gospel who was not an
the Jewish Church endued with an absolutely infallible direction in case of moment as all Points belonging to divine Faith are Now the Church of Christ our Lord was before the Scriptures of the New Testament which were not written instantly nor all at one time but successively upon several occasions and some after the decease of most of the Apostles and after they were written they were not presently known to all Churches and of some there was doubt in the Church for some Ages after our Saviour Shall we then say that according as the Church by little and little received holy Scripture she was by the like degrees devested of her possessed Infallibility and power to decide Controversies in Religion That sometime Churches had one Judge of Controversies and others another That with moneths or years as new Canonical Scripture grew to be published the Church altered her whole Rule of Faith or Judge of Controversies After the Apostles time and after the writing of Scriptures Heresies would be sure to rise requiring in God's Church for their discovery and condemnation Infallibility either to write new Canonical Scripture as was done in the Apostles time by occasion of emergent Heresies or Infallibility to interpret Scriptures already written or without Scripture by divine unwritten Traditions and assistance of the holy Ghost to determine all Controversies as Tertullian saith The soul is h De test aniâ— cap. 5. before the letter and speech before Books and sense before style Certainly such addition of Scripture with derogation or substraction from the former power and infallibility of the Church would have brought to the world division in matters of faith and the Church had rather lost than gained by holy Scripture which ought to be farr from our tongues and thoughts it being manifest that for decision of Controversies Infallibility setled in a living Judge is incomparably more useful and fit than if it were conceived as inherent in some inanimate writing Is there such repugnance betwixt Infallibility of the Church and Existence of Scripture that the production of the one must be the destruction of the other Must the Church wax dry by giving to her Children the milk of sacred Writ No No. Her Infallibility was and is derived from an inexhausted Fountain If Protestants will have the Scripture alone for their Judge let them first produce some Scripture affirming that by the entring thereof Infallibility went out of the Church D. Potter may remember what himself teacheth That the Church is still endued with Infallibility in Points Fundamental and consequently that Infallibility in the Church doth well agree with the truth the sanctity yea with the sufficiency of Scripture for all matters necessary to Salvation I would therefore gladly know out of what Text he imagineth that the Church by the coming of Scripture was deprived of Infallibility in some Points and not in others He affirmeth that the Jewish Synagogue retained infallibility in herself notwithstanding the writing of the Old Testament and will he so unworthily and unjustly deprive the Church of Christ of Infallibility by reason of the New Testament Especially if we consider that in the Old Testament Laws Ceremonies Rites Punishments Judgements Sacraments Sacrifices c. were more particularly and minutely delivered to the Jews than in the New Testament is done our Saviour leaving the determination or declaration of particulars to his Spouse the Church which therefore stands in need of Infallibility more than the Jewish Synagogue D. Potter i Pag. 24. against this argument drawn from the power and infallibility of the Synagogue objects That we might as well inserr that Christians must have one Soveraign Prince over all because the Jews had one chief Judge But the disparity is very clear The Synagogue was a type and figure of the Church of Christ not so their civil Government of Christian Common-wealths or Kingdoms The Church succeeded to the Synagogue but not Christian Princes to Jewish Magistrates And the Church is compared to a house or k Heb. 13. family to an l Cant. 2. Army to a m 1 Cor. 10. Ephes 4. body to a n Mat. 12. kingdom c. all which require one Master one General one head one Magistrate one spiritual King as our blessed Saviour with fict Unum ovile o Joan. c. 10. joyned Unus Pastor One Sheepsold One Pastour But all distinct Kingdoms or Common-wealths are not one Army Family c. And finally it is necessary to Salvation that all have recourse to one Church but for temporal weale there is no need that all submit or depend upon one temporal Prince Kingdom or Common-wealth and therefore our Saviour hath left to his whole Church as being One one Law one Scripture the same Sacraments c. Whereas Kingdoms have their several Laws different governments diversity of Powers Magistracy c. And so this objection returneth upon D. Potter For as in the One Community of the Jews there was one Power and Judge to end debates and resolve difficulties so in the Church of Christ which is One there must be some one Authority to decide all Controversies in Religion 24. This Discourse is excellently proved by ancient S. Irenaeus p Lib. 5. c. 4. in these words What if the Apostles had not lest Scriptures ought we not to have followed the order of Tradition which they delivered to those to whom they committed the Churches to which order many Nations yield assent who believe in Christ having Salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit of God without letters or lake and diligent keeping ancient Tradition It is easie to receive the truth from God's Church seeing the Apostles have most fully deposited in her as in a rich store-house all things belonging to truth For what if there should arise any contention of some small question ought we not to have recourse to the most ancient Churches and from them to receive what is certain and clear concerning the present question 25. Besides all this the doctrine of Protestants is destructive of it self For either they have certain and infallible means not to err in interpreting Scripture or they have not If not then the Scripâ—ure to them cannot be a sufficient ground for infallible Faith nor a meet Judge of Controversies If they have certain infallible means and so cannot err in their interpretations of Scriptures then they are able with infallibility to hear examine and determine all Controversies of Faith and so they may be and are Judges of Controversies although they use the Scripture as a Rule And thus against their own doctrin they constitute another Judge of Controversies besides Scripture alone 26. Lastly I ask D. Potter Whether â—his Assertion Scripture alone is Judge of all Controversies in Faith be a fundamental Point of Faith or no He must be well advised before he say that it is a Fundamental Point For he will have against him as many Protestants as teach that by Scripture alone it
obedience and as our Saviour said of some so the Scripture could it speak I believe would say to you Why call ye me Lord Lord and do not that which I command you Cast away the vain and arrogant pretence of infallibility which makes your errors incurable Leave picturing God and worshipping him by pictures Teach not for Doctrin the commandements of men Debarr not the Laity of the Testament of Christ's Blood Let your publique Prayers and Psalms and Hymns be in such language as is for the edification of the Assistents Take not from the Clergy that liberty of Marriage which Christ hath left them Do not impose upon men that Humility of worshipping Angels which S. Paul condemns Teach no more proper sacrifices of Christ but one Acknowledg them that die in Christ to be blessed and to rest from their labours Acknowledge the Sacrament after Consecration to be Bread and Wine as well as Christs body and bloud Acknowledg the gift of continency without Marriage not to be given to all Let not the weapons of your warfare be carnal such as Massacres Treasons Persecutions and in a word all means either violent or fraudulent These and other things which the Scripture commands you do and then we shall willingly give you such Testimony as you deserve but till you do so to talk of estimation respect and reverence to the Scripture is nothing else but talk 2. For neither is that true which you pretend That we possess the Scripture from you or take it upon the integrity of your Custody but upon Universal Tradition of which you are but a little part Neither if it were true that Protestants acknowledged The integrity of it to have been guarded by your alone Custody were this any argument of your reverence towards them For first you might preserve them entire not for want of Will but of Power to corrupt them as it is a hard thing to poyson the Sea And then having prevailed so farr with men as either not to look at all into them or but only through such spectacles as you should please to make for them and to see nothing in them though as cleer as the sun if it any way made against you you might keep them entire without any thought or care to conform your doctrin to them or reform it by them which were indeed to reverence the Scriptures but out of a perswasion that you could qualify them well enough with your glosses and interpretations and make them sufficiently conformable to your present Doctrin at least in their judgement who were prepossessed with this perswasion that your Church was to Judge of the sense of Scripture not to be judged by it 3. For whereas you say No cause imaginable could avert your will for giving the function of supreme and sole Judge to holy Writ but that the thing is impossible and that by this means controversies are increased and not ended you mean perhaps That you can or will imagine no other cause but these But sure there is little reason you should measure other mens imaginations by your own who perhaps may be so clouded and vailed with prejudice that you cannot or will not see that which is most manifest For what indifferent and unprejudicate man may not easily conceive another cause which I do not say does but certainly may pervert your wills and avert your understandings from submitting your Religion and Church to a tryall by Scripture I mean the great and apparent and unavoidable danger which by this means you would fall into of losing the Opinion which men have of your Infallibility and consequently your power and authority over mens consciences and all that depends upon it So that though Diana of the Ephesians be cryed up yet it may be feared that with a great many among you though I censure or judge no man the other cause which wrought upon Demetrius and the Craftsmen may have with you also the more effectual though more secret influence and that is that by this craft we have our living by this craft I mean of keeping your Proselytes from an indifferent tryal of your Religion by Scripture and making them yield up and captivate their judgement unto yours Yet had you only said de facto that no other cause did avert your own will from this but only these which you pretend out of Charity I should have believed you But seeing you speak not of your self but of all of your Side whose hearts you cannot know and profess not only That there is no other cause but that No other is imaginable I could not let this passe without a censure As for the impossibility of Scriptures being the sole Judge of Controversies that is the sole Rule for men to judge them by for we mean nothing else you only affirm it without proof as if the thing were evident of it self And therefore I conceiving the contrary to be more evident might well content my self to deny it without refutation Yet I cannot but desire you to tell me If Scripture cannot be the Judge of any Controversie how shall that touching the Church and the Notes of it be determined And if it be the sole Judge of this one why may it not of others Why not of All Those only excepted wherein the Scripture it self is the subject of the Question which cannot be determined but by natural reason the only principle beside Scripture which is common to Christians 4. Then for the Imputation of increasing contentions and not ending them Scripture is innocent of it as also this opinion That controversies are to be decided by Scripture For if men did really and sincerely submit their judgements to Scripture and that only and would require no more of any man but to do so it were impossible but that all Controversies touching things necessary and very profitable should be ended and if others were continued or increased it were no matter 5. In the next words we have direct Boyes-play a thing given with one hand and taken away with the other an acknowledgment made in one line and retracted in the next We acknowledg say you Scripture to be a perfect rule for as much as a Writing can be a Rule only we deny that it excludes unwritten Tradition As if you should have said We acknowledg it to be as perfect a Rule as a Writing can be only we deny it to be as perfect a Rule as a writing may be Either therefore you must revoke your acknowledgment or retract your retractation of it for both cannot possibly stand together For if you will stand to what you have granted That Scripture is as perfect a Rule of Faith as a writing can be you must then grant it both so Compleat that it needs no addition and so evident that it needs no interpretation For both these properties are requisite to a perfect Rule and a writing is capable of both these properties 6. That both these properties are requisite to a perfect Rule
we say is this that we have reason to believe that God de facto hath ordered the matter so that all the Gospel of Christ the whole Covenant between God and man is now written Whereas if he had pleased he might so have disposed it that part might have been written and part unwritten but then he would have taken order to whom we should have had recourse for that part of it which was not written which seeing he hath not done as the progresse shall demonstrate it is evident he hath left no part of it unwritten We know no man therefore that sayes It were any injury to the written Word to be joyned with the unwritten if there were any wherewith it might be joyned but that we deny The fidelity of a keeper may very well consist with the authority of the thing committed to his custody But we know no one society of Christians that is such a faithfull keeper as you pretend The Scripture it self was not kept so faithfully by you but that you suffered infinite variety of Readings to creep into it all which could not possibly be divine and yet in several parts of your Church all of them until the last Age were so esteemed The interpretations of obscure places of Scripture which without Question the Apostles taught the Primitive Christians are wholly lost there remains no certainty scarce of any one Those Worlds of Miracles which our Saviour did which were not written for want of writing are vanished out of the memory of men And many profitable things which the Apostles taught and writ not as that which S. Paul glanceth at in his second Epistle to the Thessal of the cause of the hinderance of the coming of Antichrist are wholly lost and extinguished So unfaithful or negligent hath been this Keeper of Divine Verities whose eyes like the Keepers of Israel you say have never slumbred nor slept Lastly we deny not but a Judge and a Law might well stand together but we deny that there is any such Judge of Gods appointment Had he intended any such Judge he would have named him lest otherwise as now it is our Judge of Controversies should be our greatest Controversie 11. Ad § 2 3 4 5 6. In your second Paragraph you sum up those Arguments wherewith you intend to prove that Scripture alone cannot be Judge in Controversies Wherein I profess unto you before hand that you will fight without an Adversary For though Protestants being warranted by some of the Fathers have called Scripture the Judge of Controversie and you in saying here That Scripture alone cannot be Judge imply that it may be called in some sense a Judge though not alone Yet to speak properly as men should speak when they write of Controversies in Religion the Scripture is not a Judge of Controversies but a Rule only and the only Rule for Christians to judge them by Every man is to judge for himself with the Judgement of Discretion and to choose either his Religion first and then his Church as we say or as you his Church first and then his Religion But by the consent of both sides every man is to judge and choose and the Rule whereby he is to guide his choice if he be a natural man is Reason if he be already a Christian Scripture which we say is the Rule to judge Controversies by Yet not all simply but all the Controversies of Christians of those that are already agreed upon This first Principle that the Scripture is the Word of God But that there is any Man or any Company of men appointed to be Judge for all man that we deny and that I believe you will never prove The very truth is we say no more in this matter than evidence of Truth hath made you confess in plain terms in the beginning of this Chapter viz. That Scripture is a perfect Rule of Faith for as much as a writing can be a Rule So that all your Reasons whereby you labour to dethrone the Scripture from this Office of Judging we might let pass as impertinent to the Conclusion which we maintain and you have already granted yet out of courtesie we will consider them 12. Your first is this A Judge must be a person fit to end Controversies but the Scripture is not a person nor fit to end Controversies no more than the Law would be without the Judges therefore though it may be a Rule it cannot be a Judge Which conclusion I have already granted Only my request is that you will permit Scripture to have the properties of a Rule that is to be fit to direct every one that will make the best use of it to that end for which it was ordained And that is as much as we need desire For as if I were to go a journey and had a guide which could not err I needed not to know my way so on the other side if I know my way or have a plain rule to know it by I shall need no guide Grant therefore Scripture to be such a Rule and it will quickly take away all necessity of having an infallible guide But without a living Judge it will be no fitter you say to end Controversies than the Law alone to end suits I answer if the Law were plain and perfect and men honest and desirous to understand aright and obey it he that says it were not fit to end Controversies must either want understanding himself or think the world wants it Now the Scripture we pretend in things necessary is plain and perfect and men we say are obliged under pain of Damnation to seek the true sense of it and not to wrest it to their preconceived Fancies Such a law therefore to such men cannot but be very fit to end all Controversies necessary to be ended For others that are not so they will end when the world ends and that is time enough 13. Your next encounter is with them who acknowledging the Scripture a Rule only and not a Judge make the holy Ghost speaking in Scriture the Judge of Controversies Which you disprove by saying That the holy Ghost speaking only in Scripture is no more intelligible to us than the Scripture in which he speaks But by this reason neither the Pope nor a Councel can be a Judge neither For first denying the Scriptures the writings of the holy Ghost to be Judges you will not I hope offer to pretend that their Decrees the writings of men are more capable of this function the same exceptions at least if not more and greater lying against them as do against Scripture And then what you object against the holy Ghost speaking in Scripture to exclude him from this office The same I return upon them and their Decrees to debar them from it that they speaking unto us only in their Decrees are no more intelligible than the Decrees in which they speak And therefore if the Holy Ghost speaking in Scripture may not be a Judge
nothing that is material and considerable pass without some stricture or animadversion 30. You pretend that M. Hooker acknowledgeth that That whereon we must rest our assurance that the Scripture is God's Word is the Church and for this acknowledgement you referre us to l. 3. § 8. Let the Reader consult the place and he shall find that he and M. Hooker have been much abused both by you here and by M. Breerly and others before you and that M. Hooker hath not one syllable to your pretended purpose but very much directly to the contrary There he tells us indeed That ordinaly the first Introduction and probable Motive to the belief of the verity is the Authority of the Church but that it is the last Foundation whereon our belief hereof is rationally grounded that in the same place he plainly denies His words are Scripture teacheth us that saving Truth which God hath discovered unto the world by Revelation and it presumeth us taught otherwise that it self is Divine and Sacred The Question then being by what means we are taught this * Some answer so but he doth not some answer that to learn it we have no other way than Tradition As namely that so we believe because we from our Predecessors and they from theirs have so received But is this enough That which all mens experience teacheth them may not in any wise be denied and by experience we all know that (a) The first outward Motive not the last assurance whereon we rest the first outward Motive leading men to esteem of the Scripture is the Authority of God's Church For when we know (b) The whole Church that he speaks of seems to be that particular Church wherein a man is bred and brought up and the Authority of this he makes an Argument which presseth a man's modesty more than his reason And in saying It seems impudent to be of a contrary mind without cause he implies There may be a just cause to be of a contrary mind and that then it were no impudence to be so the whole Church of God hath that opinion of the Scripture we judge it at the first an impudent thing for any man bred and brought up in the Church to be of a contrary mind without cause Afterwards the more we bestow our labour upon reading or hearing the mysteries thereof (c) Therefore the Authority of the Church is not the pause whereon we rest we had need of more assurance and the intâ—insâ—cal Arguments afford â—t the more we find that the thing it self doth answer our received opinion concerning it so that the former inducement prevailing (d) Somewhat bâ—t not much until it be backed and inforced by farther reason it self therefore is not the farthest reason and the last resolution somewhat with us before doth now much more prevail when the very thing hath ministred farther reason If Infidels or Atheists chance at any time to call it in question this giveth us occasion to sift what reason there is whereby the testimony of the Church concerning Scripture and our own perswasion which Scripture it self hath setled may be proved a truth infallible (e) Observe I pray Our perswasion and the testimony of the Church concerning Scripture may be proved true Therefore neither or them was in his account the farthest proof In which case the ancient Fathers being often constrained to shew what warrant they had so much to relie upon the Scriptures endeavoured still to maintain the Authority of the Books of God by Arguments such as the unbelievers themselves must needs think reasonable if they judge thereof as they should Neither is it a thing impossible or greatly hard even by such kind of proofs so to manifest and clear that Point that no man living shall be able to deny it without denying some apparent Principle such as all men acknowledg to be true (f) Natural reason thâ—n built on principles common to all men is the last resolution unto which the Churches Authority is but the first inducement By this time I hope the Reader sees sufficient proof of what I said in my Reply to your Preface that M. Breerelie's great ostentation of exactness is no very certain Argument of his fidelity 31. But seeing the belief of Scripture is a necessary thing and cannot be proved by Scripture How can the Church of England teach as she doth Art 6. That all things necessary are contained in Scripture 32. I have answered this already And here again I say That all but cavillers will easily understand the meaning of the Article to be That all the Divine verities which Christ revealed to his Apostles and the Apostles taught the Churches are contained in Scripture That is all the material objects of our Faith whereof the Scripture is none but only the means of conveying them unto us which we believe not finally and for it self but for the matter contained in it So that if men did believe the Doctrine contained in Scripture it should no way hinder their salvation not to know whether there were any Scripture or no. Those barbarous Nations Irenaeus speaks of were in this case and yet no doubt but they might be saved The end that God aims at is the belief of the Gospel the Covenant between God and Man the Scripture he hath provided as a means for this end and this also we are to believe but not as the last Object of our Faith but as the Instrument of it When therefore we subscribe to the 6 Art you must understand that by Articles of Faith they mean the final and ultimate Objects of it and not the Means and instrumental Objects and then there will be no repugnance between what they say and that which Hooker and D. Covel and D. Whitaker and Luther here say 33. But Protestants agree not in assigning the Canon of Holy Scripture Luther and Illyricus reject the Epistle of S. James Kemnitius and other Lutherans the second of Peter the second and third of John The Epistle to the Hebrews the Epistle of James of Jude and the Apocalyps Therefore without the Authority of the Church no certainty can be had what Scripture is Canonical 34. So also the Ancient Fathers and not only Fathers but whole Churches differed about the certainty of the Authority of the very same Books and by their difference shewed they knew no necessity of conforming themselves herein to the judgement of your or any Church For had they done so they must have agreed all with that Church and consequently among themselves Now I pray tell me plainly Had they sufficient certainty what Scripture was Canonical or had they not If they had not it seems there is no great harm or danger in not having such a certainty whether some Books be Canonical or no as you require If they had Why may not Protestants notwithstanding their differences have sufficient certainty hereof as well as the Ancient Fathers and Churches notwithstanding theirs
35. You proceed And whereas the Protestants of England in the 6. Art have these words In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those Books of whose Authority was never any doubt in the Church you demand What they mean by them Whether that by the Churches consent they are assured what Scriptures be Canonical I answer for them Yes they are so And whereas you inferre from hence This is to make the Church Judge I have told you already That of this Controversie we make the Church the Judge but not the present Church much less the present Roman Church but the consent and testimony of the Ancient and Primitive Church Which though it be but an highly probable inducement and no demonstrative enforcement yet me-thinks you should not deny but may be a sufficient ground of Faith Whose Faith even of the Foundation of all your Faith your Churches Authority is built lastly and wholly upon Prudential Motives 36. But by this Rule the whole Book of Esther must quit the Canon because it was excluded by some in the Church by Melito Athanasius and Gregory Nazianzen Then for ought I know he that should think he had reason to exclude it now might be still in the Church as well as Melito Athanasius Nazianzen were And while you thus inveigh against Luther and charge him with Luciferian heresies for doing that which you in this very place confess that Saints in Heaven before him have done are you not partial and a Judge of evil thoughts 37. Luther's censures of Ecclesiastes Job and the Prophets though you make such tragedies with them I see none of them but is capable of a tolerable construction and far from having in them any fundamental Heresie He that condemns him for saying the Book of Ecclesiastes is not full That it hath many abrupt things condemns him for ought I can see for speaking truth And the rest of the censure is but a bold and blunt expression of the same thing The Book of Job may be a true History and yet as many true stories are and have been and Argument of a Fable to set before us an example of Patience And though the Books of the Prophets were not written by themselves but by their Disciples yet it does not follow that they were written casually Though I hope you will not damn all for Hereticks that say Some Books of Scripture were written casually Neither is there any reason they should the sooner be called in question for being written by their Disciples seeing being so written they had attestation from themselves Was the Prophesie of Jeremy the less Canonical for being written by Baruch Or because S. Peter the Master dictated the Gospel and S. Mark the Scholler writ it is it the more likely to be called in Question 38. But leaving Luther you return to our English Canon of Scripture And tell us That in the New Testament by the above-mentioned Rule of whose Authority was never doubt in the Church divers Books must be dis-canonized Not so For I may believe even those questioned Books to have been written by the Apostles and to be Canonical but I cannot in reason believe this of them so undoubtedly as of those Books which were never questioned At least I have no warrant to damn any man that shall doubt of them or deny them now having the example of Saints in Heaven either to justifie or excuse such their doubting or denial 39. You observe in the next place That our sixth Article specifying by name all the Books of the Old Testament shuffles over those of the New with this generality All the Books of the New Testament as they are commonly received we do receive and account them Canonical And in this you fancy to your self a mysterie of iniquity But if this be all the shuffling that the Church of England is guilty of I believe the Church as well as the King may give for her Motto Honi soit qui mal y pense For all the Bibles which since the composing of the Articles have been used and allowed by the Church of England do testifie and even proclaim to the World that by Commonly-received they meant received by the Church of Rome and other Churches before the Reformation I pray take the pains to look in them and there you shall find the Books which the Church of England counts Apocryphal marked out and severed from the rest with this Title in the beginning The Books called Apocrypha and with this close or seal in the end The end of the Apocrypha And having told you by name and in particular what Books only she esteems Apocryphal I hope you will not put her to the trouble of telling you that the rest are in her judgment Canonical 40. But if by Commonly-received She meant by the Church of Rome then by the same reason must she receive divers Books of the Old Testament which she rejects 41. Certainly a very good consequence The Church of England receives the Books of the New Testament which the Church of Rome receives Therefore she must receive the Books of the Old Testament which she receives As if you should say If you will do as we in one thing you must in all things If you will pray to God with us ye must pray to Saints with us If you hold with us when we have reason on our Side you must do so when we have no reason 42. The Discourse following is but a vain Declamation No man thinks that this Controversie is to be tried by Most Voices but by the Judgement and Testimony of the Ancient Fathers and Churches 43. But with what Coherence can we say in the former part of the Article That by Scripture we mean those Books that were never doubted of and in the latter say We receive all the Books of the New Testament as they are commonly received whereas of them many were doubted I answer When they say of whose Authority there was never any doubt in the Church They mean not those only of whose Authority there was simply no doubt at all by any man in the Church But such as were not at any time doubted of by the whole Church or by all Churches but had attestation though not universal yet at least sufficient to make considering men receive them for Canonical In which number they may well reckon those Epistles which were sometimes doubted of by some yet whose number and authority was not so great as to prevail against the contrary suffrages 44. But if to be commonly received passe for a good Rule to know the Canon of the New Testament by why not of the Old You conclude many times very well but still when you do so it is out of Principles which no man grant for who ever told you that to be commonly received is a good Rule to know the Canon of the New Testament by Have you been trained up in Schools of subtilty and cannot you see a great difference
the Holy Ghost be irresistible and you are not yet so moved to go about this work then I confess you are excused But then I would know Whether those Popes which so long deferred the calling of a Councel for the Reformation of your Church at length pretended to be effected by the Councel of Trent whether they may excuse themselves for that they were not moved by the Holy Ghost to do it I would know likewise as this motion is irresistible when it comes so whether it be so simply necessary to the moving of your Church to any such publique Action that it cannot possibly move without it That is Whether the Pope now could not if he would seat himself in Cathedra and fall to writing Expositions upon the Bible for the direction of Christians to the true sense of it If you say He cannot you will make your self ridiculous If he can then I would know Whether he should be infallibly directed in these Expositions or no If he should then what need he to stay for irresisible motion Why does he not go about this noble work presently If he should not How shall we know that the calling of the Councel of Trent was not upon his own voluntary motion or upon humane importunity and suggestion and not upon the motion of the Holy Ghost And consequently How shall we know whether he were assistant to it or no seeing He assists none but what He himself moves to And whether He did move the Pope to call this Councel is a secret thing which we cannot possibly know nor perhaps the Pope himself 96. If you say your meaning is only That the Church shall be infallibly guarded from giving any false sense of any Scripture and not infallibly assisted positively to give the true sense of all Scripture I put to you your own Question Why should we believe the Holy Ghost will stay there Or Why may we not as well think he will stay at the first thing that is in teaching the Church what Books be true Scripture For if the Holy Ghost's assistance be promised to all things profitable then will he be with them infallibly not only to guard them from all Errors but to guide them to all profitable truths such as the true senses of all Scripture would be Neither could he stay there but defend them irresistibly from all Vices Nor there neither but infuse into them irresistibly all Vertues for all these things would be much for the benefit of Christians If you say he cannot do this without taking away their freewill in living I say neither can he necessitate men to believe aright without taking away their free-will in believing and in professing their belief 97. To the place of S. Austin I answer That not the Authority of the present Church much less of a Part of it as the Roman Church is was that which alone moved S. Austin to believe the Gospel but the perpetual Tradition of the Church of all Ages Which you your self have taught us to be the only Principle by which the Scripture is proved and which it self needs no proof and to which you have referred this very Saying of Saint Austin Ego verò Evangelio non crederem nisi c. Chap. 2. § 14. And in the next place which you cite out of his Book De Util. Cred. c. 14. he shews That his motives to believe were Fame Celebrity Consent Antiquity And seeing this Tradition this Consent this Antiquity did as fully and powerfully move him not to believe Manichaeus as to believe the Gospel the Christian Tradition being as full against Manichaeus as it was for the Gospel therefore he did well to conclude upon these grounds that he had as much reason to dis-believe Manichaeus as to believe the Gospel Now if you can truly say that the same Fame Celebrity Consent Antiquity that the same Universal and Original Tradition lies against Luther and Calvin as did against Manichaeus you may do well to apply the Argument against them otherwise it will be to little purpose to substitute their names instead of Manichaeus unless you can shew the thing agrees to them as well as him 98. If you say that S. Austin speaks here of the authority of the present Church abstracted from consent with the Ancient and therefore you seeing you have the present Church on your side against Luther and Calvin as S. Austin against Manichaeus may urge the same words against them which S. Austin did against him 99. I answer First That it is a vain presumption of yours that the Catholique Church is of your side Secondly that if S. Austin speak here of that present Church which moved him to believe the Gospel without consideration of the Antiquity of it and its both Personal and Doctrinal succession from the Apostles his Argument will be like a Buskin that will serve any leg It will serve to keep an Arrian or a Grecian from being a Roman Catholique as well as a Catholique from being an Arrian or a Grecian In as much as the Arrians and Grecians did pretend to the title of Catholiques and The Church as much as the Papists now do If then you should have come to an ancient Goth or Vandal whom the Arrians converted to Christianity and should have moved him to your Religion might he not say the very same words to you as S. Austin to the Manichaeans I would not believe the Gospel unless the Authority of the Church did move me Them therefore whom I obeyed saying Believe the Gospel why should I not obey saying to me Do not believe the Homo-ousians Chuse what thou pleasest If thou shalt say Believe the Arrians they warn me not to give any credit to you If therefore I believe them I cannot believe thee If thou say Do not believe the Arrians thou shalt not do well to force me to the faith of the Homo-ousians because by the preaching of the Arrians I believed the Gospel it self If you say You did well to believe them commending the Gospel but you did not well to believe them discommending the Homo-ousians Dost thou think me so very foolish that without any reason at all I should believe what thou wilt and not believe what thou wilt not It were easie to put these words into the mouth of a Grecian Abyssine Georgian or any other of any Religion And I pray bethink your selves What you would say to such a one in such a case and imagine that we say the very same to you 100. Whereas you ask Whether Protestants do not perfectly resemble those men to whom S. Austin spake when they will have men to believe the Roman Church delivering Scripture but not to believe her condemning Luther I demand again Whether you be well in your wits to say that Protestants would have men believe the Roman Church delivering Scripture whereas they accuse her to deliver many Books for Scripture which are not so and do not bid men to receive any Book which
122. And how it can be any way advantagious to Civil government that men without warrant from God should usurp a Tyranny over other mens consciences and prescribe unto them without reason and sometime against reason what they shall believe you must shew us plainer if you desire we should believe For to say Verily I do not see but that it must be so is no good demonstration For whereas you say That a man may be a passionate and seditious creature from whence you would have us inferr that he may make use of his interpretation to satisfie his passion and raise sedition There were some colour in this consequence if we as you do make private men infallible Interpreters for others for then indeed they might lead Disciples after them and use them as instruments for their vile purposes But when we say they can only interpret for themselves what harme they can do by their passionate or seditious Interpretations but only endanger both their temporal and eternal happiness I cannot imagine For though we deny the Pope or Church of Rome to be an infallible Judge yet we do not deny but that there are Judges which may proceed with certainty enough against all seditious Persons such as draw men to disobedience either against Church or State as well as against Rebels and Traitors and Theeves and Murderers 123. Ad § 23. The next § in the beginning argues thus For many ages there was no Scripture in the world and for many more there was none in many places of the world yet men wanted not then and there some certain direction what to believe Therefore there was then an infallible Judge Just as if I should say York is not my way from Oxford to London therefore Bristol is Or a Dog is not a horse therefore he is a man As if God had no other waies of revealing himself to men but only by Scripture and an infallible Church * See Chrysost Hom. 1 in Mat. Isidor Pelus l. 3. ep 106. and also Basil in Ps 28. and then you shall confess that by o her means besides these God did communicate himself unto men and made them receive and understand his laws See also to the same purpose Heb. 1.1 S. Chrysostom and Isidorus Pelusiota conceived He might use other means And Saint Paul telleth us that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might be known by his works And that they had the Law written in their hearts Either of these waies might make some faithful men without either necessity of Scripture or Church 124. But D. Potter sayes you say In the Jewish Church there was a living Judge indowed with an absolute infallible direction in cases of moment as all points belonging to divine Faith are And where was that infallible direction in the Jewish Church when they should have received Christ for their Messias and refused him Or perhaps this was not a case of moment D. Potter indeed might say very well not that the high Priest was infallible for certainly he was not but that his determination was to be of necessity obeyed though for the justice of it there was no necessity that it should be believed Besides it is one thing to say that the living Judge in the Jewish Church had an infallible direction another that he was necessitated to follow this direction This is the priviledge which you challenge But it is that not this which the Doctor attributes to the Jews As a man may truely say the Wisemen had an in fallible direction to Christ without saying or thinking that they were constrained to follow it and could not do otherwise 125. But either the Church retains still her Infallibility or it was devested of it upon the receiving of Holy Scripture which is absurd An Argument me thinks like this Either you have horns or you have lost them but you never lost them therefore you have them still If you say you never had horns so say I for ought appears by your reasons the Church never had Infallibility 126. But some Scriptures were received in some places and not in others therefore if Scriptures were the Judge of Controversies some Churches had one Judge and some another And what great inconvenience is there in that that one part of England should have one Judge and another another especially seeing the Books of Scripture which were received by those that received fewest had as much of the Doctrin of Christianity in them as they all had which were received by any all the necessary parts of the Gospel being contained in every one of the four Gospels as I have proved So that they which had all the Books of the New Testament had nothing superfluous For it was not superfluous but profitable that the same thing should be said divers times and be testified by divers witnesses And they that had but one of the four Gospels wanted nothing necessary and therefore it is vainly inferred by you that with months and years as new Canonicall Scriptures grew to be published the Church altered her rule of Faith and judge of Controversies 127. Heresies you say would arise after the Apostles time and after the writâ—ng of Scriptures These cannot be discovered condemned and avoided unlesse the Church be infallible Therefore there must be a Church infallible But I pray tell me Why cannot Heresies be sufficiently discovered condemned and avoided by them which believe Scripture to be the rule of Faith If Scripture be sufficient to inform us what is the Faith it must of necessity be also sufficient to teach us what is Heresie seeing Heresie is nothing but a manifest deviation from and an opposition to the Faith That which is streight will plainly teach us what is crooked and one contrary cannot but manifest the other If any one should deny that there is a God that this God is omnipotent omniscient good just true mercifull a rewarder of them that seek him a punisher of them that obstinately offend him That Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Saviour of the World that it is He by obedience to whom men must look to be saved If any man should deny either his Birth or Passion or Resurrection or Ascension or Sitting at the right hand of God his having all power given him in Heaven and Earth That it is he whom God hath appointed to be Judg of the quick the dead That all men shall rise again at the last day That they which believe and repent shall be saved That they which do not believe or repent shall be damned If a man should hold that either the keeping of the Mosaical Law is necessary to Salvation or that good works are not necessary to Salvation In a word if any man should obstinatly contradict the truth of any thing plainly delivered in Scripture who does not see that every one which believes the Scripture hath a sufficient means to discover and condemn and avoid that Heresie without any need of an infallible guide
first you content not your selves with a moral certainty of the things you believe nor with such a degree of assurance of them as is sufficient to produce obedience to the condition of the new Covenant which is all that we require God's Spirit if he please may work more a certainty of adherence beyond a certainty of evidence But neither God doth nor man may require of us as our duty to give a greater assent to the conclusion than the premisses deserve to build an Infallible Faith upon Motives that are only highly credible and not infallible as it were a great and heavy building upon a foundation that hath not strength proportionable But though God require not of us such unreasonable things You do and tell men They cannot be saved unless they believe your Proposals with an infallible Faith To which end they must believe also your Propounder your Church to be simply Infallible Now how is it possible for them to give a rational assent to the Churches infallibility unless they have some infallible means to know that she is infallible Neither can they infallibly know the infallibility of this means but by some other and so on for ever unless they can dig so deep as to come at length to the Rock that is to settle all upon something evident of it self which is not so much as pretended But the last resolution of all is into Motives which indeed upon examination will scarce appear probable but are not so much as avouched to be any more than very credible For example if I ask you Why you do believe Transubstantiation What can you answer but because it is a Revelation of the Prime Verity I demand again How can you assure your self or me of that being ready to embrace it if it may appear to be so And what can you say but that you know it to be so because the Church says so which is infallible If I ask What mean you by your Church You can tell me nothing but the company of Christians which adhere to the Pope I demand then further Why should I believe this company to be the infallible Propounder of Divine Revelation And then you tell me that there are many Motives to induce a man to this belief But are these Motives lastly infallible No say you but very credible Well let them pass for such because now we have not leisure to examine them Yet methinks seeing the Motives to believe the Churches infallibility are only very credible it should also be but as credible that your Church is Infallible and as credible and no more perhaps somewhat less that her proposals particularly Transubstantiation are Divine Revelations And me-thinks you should require only a Moral and modest assent to them and not a Divine as you call it and infallible Faith But then of these Motives to the Churches Infallibility I hope you will give us leave to consider and judge whether they be indeed Motives and sufficient or whether they be not Motives at all or not sufficient or whether these Motives or inducements to your Church be not impeached and opposed with Compulsives and enforcements from it or lastly Whether these Motives which You use be not indeed only Motives to Christianity and not to Popery give me leave for distinction-sake to call your Religion so If we may not judge of these things How can my judgment be moved with that which comes not within its cognizance If I may then at least I am to be a Judg of all these Controversies 1. Whether every one of these Motives be indeed a Motive to any Church 2. If to some whether to Your 3. If to Yours whether sufficient or insufficient 4. Whether other Societies have not as many and as great Motives to draw me to them 5. Whether I have not greater reason to believe you do err than that you cannot And now Sir I pray let me trouble You with a few more Questions Am I a sufficient Judge of these Controversies or no If of these why shall I stay here why not of others Why not of all Nay doth not the true examining of these few contain and lay upon me the examination of all What other Motives to your Church have you but your Notes of it Bellarmine gives some 14. or 15. And one of these fifteen contains in it the examination of all Controversies and not only so but of all uncontroverted Doctrines For how shall I or can I know the Church of Rome's conformity with the Ancient Church unless I know first what the Ancient Church did hold and then what the Church of Rome doth hold and lastly whether they be conformable or if in my judgment they seem not conformable I am then to think the Church of Rome not to be the Church for want of the Note which she pretends is proper and perpetual to it So that for ought I can see Judges we are and must be of all sides every one for himself and God for us all 155. Ad § 26. I answer This Assertion that Scripture alone is Judge of all Controversies in Faith if it be taken properly is neither a Fundamental nor Unfundamental point of Faith nor no point of Faith at all but a plain falshood It is not a Judge of Controversies but a Rule to judge them by and that not an absolutely perfect Rule but as perfect as a written Rule can be which must always need something else which is either evidently true or evidently credible to give attestation to it and that in this case is Universal Tradition So that Universal Tradition is the Rule to judge all Controversies by But then because nothing besides Scripture comes to us with as full a stream of Tradition as Scripture Scripture alone and no unwritten Doctrin nor no Infallibility of any Church having attestation from Tradition truly Universal for this reason we conceive as the Apostles persons while they were living were the only Judges of Controversies so their Writings now they are dead are the only Rule for us to judge them by There being nothing unwritten which can go in upon half so fair cards for the Title of Apostolike Tradition as these things which by the confession of both Sides are not so I mean the Doctrine of the Millenaries and of the necessity of the Eucharist for Infants 156. Yet when we say The Scripture is the only Rule to judge all Controversies by me-thinks you should easily conceive that we would be understood of all those that are possible to be judged by Scripture and of those that arise among such as believe the Scripture For if I had a Controversie with an Atheist whether there were a God or no I would not say that the Scripture were a Rule to judge this by seeing that doubting whether there be a God or no he must needs doubt whether the Scripture be the Word of God or if he does not he grants the Question and is not the man we speak of
brought for the universal infallibility of the Apostles or Scriptures So he may and so he must lest otherwise he receive this answer of his own from himself How many Truths lie unrevealed in the infinite Treasury of God's wisdom wherewith the Church is not acquainted And therefore to verifie such general sayings they must be understood of Truths absolutely necessary to Salvation Are not these fearful consequences And yet D. Potter will never be able to avoid them till he come to acknowledge the infallibility of the Church in all Points by her proposed as divine Truths and thus it is universally true that she is lead into all Truth in regard that our Saviour never permits her to define or teach any falshood 14. All that with any colour may be replyed to this Argument is That if once we call any one Book or parcel of Scripture in question although for the matter it contain no Fundamental error yet it is of great importance and Fundamental by reason of the consequence because if once we doubt of one Book received for Canonical the whole Canon is made doubtful and uncertain and therefore the infallibility of Scripture must be universal and not confined within compass of Points Fundamental 15. I answer For the thing it self it is very true that if I doubt of any one parcel of Scripture received for such I may doubt of all and thence by the same parity I infer that if we did doubt of the Churches infallibility in some Points we could nor believe her in any one and consequently not in propounding Canonical Books or any other Points Fundamental or not Fundamental which thing being most absurd and withal most impious we must take away the ground thereof and believe that she cannot err in any Point great or small and so this reply doth much more strengthen what we intend to prove Yet I add that Protestants cannot make use of this reply with any good coherence to this their distinction and some other Doctrines which they defend For if D. Potter can tell what Points in particular be Fundamental as in his 7. Sect. he pretendeth then he might be sure that whensoever he meets with such Points in Scripture in them it is infallibly true although it may err in others and not only true but clear because Protestants teach that in matters necessary to Salvation the Scripture is so clear that all such necessary Truths are either manifestly contained therein or may be clearly deduced from it Which Doctrines being put together to wit That Scriptures cannot err in Points Fundamental that they clearly contain all such Points and that they can tell what Points in particular be such I mean Fundamental it is manifest that it is sufficient for Salvation that Scripture be infallible only in Points Fundamental For supposing these Doctrines of theirs to be true they may be sure to find in Scripture all Points necessary to Salvation although it were fallible in other Points of less moment Neither will they be able to avoid this impiety against holy Scripture till they renounce their other Doctrines and in particular till they believe that Christ's promises to his Church are not limited to Points Fundamental 16 Besides from the fallibility of Christ's Catholique Church in some Points it followeth that no true Protestant learned or unlearned doth or can with assurance believe the universal Church in any one Point of Doctrine Not in Points of lesser moment which they call not-Fundamental because they believe that in such Points she may err Not in Fundamental because they must know what Points be Fundamental before they go to learn of her lest otherwise they be rather deluded than instructed in regard that her certain and infallible direction extends only to Points Fundamental Now if before they address themselves to the Church they must know what Points are Fundamental they learn not of her but will be as sit to teach as to be taught by her How then are all Christians so often so seriously upon so dreadful menaces by Fathers Scriptures and our blessed Saviour himself counselled and commanded to seek to hear to obey the Church S. Austin was of a very disterent mind from Protestants If saith he the (s) Epist 118. Church through the whole world practise any of these things to dispute whether that ought to be so done is a most insolent madness And in another place he saith That which (t) Lib. 4. de Bapt. cap. 24. the whole Church holds and is not ordained by Councels but hath always been kept is most rightly believed to be delivered by Apostolical Authority The sâ—me holy Father teacheth that the custom of baptizing children cannot be proved by Scripture alone and yet that it is to be believed as derived from the Apostles The custom of our Mother the (u) Lib. 10. de Geaâ—si ad liter cap. 23. Church saith he in baptizing Infants is in no wise to be contemned nor to be accounted superfluous nor is it at all to be believed unless it were an Apostolical Tradition And elsewhere Christ (w) Serm. 14. de verbis Apost cap. 18. is of profit to Children baptized Is he therefore of profit to persons not believing But God forbid that I should say Infants do not believe I have already said he believes in another who sinned in another It is said he believes and it is of force and he is reckoned among the faithful that are baptized This the authority of our Mother the Church hath against this strength against this invincible wall whosoever rusheth shall be crushed in pieces To this argument the Protestants in the Conference at Ratisbon gave this round Answer Nos ab Augustino (x) See protocol Monach. edit 2. p 367. hac in parte liberè dissentimus In this we plainly disagree from Augustin Now if this Doctrine of baptizing Infants be not Fundamental in D. Potter's sense then according to S. Augustine the infallibility of the Church extends to Points not Fundamental But if on the other side it be a Fundamental Point then according to the same holy Doctor we must relie on the authority of the Church for some Fundamental Point not contained in Scripture but delivered by Tradition The like argument I frame out of the same Father about the not re-baptizing of those who were baptized by Heretiques whereof he excellently to our present purpose speaketh in this manner We follow (y) Lib. 1. cont Crescon cap. 32. 34. indeed in this matter even the most certain authority of Canonical Scriptures But how consider his words Although verily there be brought no example for this Point out of the Canonical Scriptures yet even in this Point the truth of the same Scriptures is held by us while we do that which the authority of Scriptures doth recommend that so because the holy Scripture cannot deceive us whosoever is afraid to be deceived by the obscurity of this question must have recourse to the same
the means by Protestants appointed I have told you before that all this is vain and hypocritical if as your manner and your doctrin is you give not your selves liberty of judgment in the use of these means if you make not your selves Judges of but only Advocates for the Doctrin of your Church refusing to see what these means shew you if it any way make against the Doctrin of your Church though it be as clear as the light at noon Remove Prejudice eaven the Ballance and hold it eaven make it indifferent to you which way you go to heaven so you go the true which Religion be true so you be of it then use the means and pray for Gods assistance and as sure as God is true you shall be lead into all necessary Truth 87. Whereas you say you neither do nor have any possible means to agree as long as you are left to your selves The first is very true That while you differ you do not agree But for the second That you have no possible means of agreement as long as you are left to your selves i. e. to your own reasons and judgment this sure is very false neither do you offer any proof of it unless you intended this that you do not agree for a proof that you cannot which sure is no good consequence not halfe so good as this which I oppose against it D. Potter and I by the use of these means by you mentioned do agree concerning the sense of these places therefore there is a possible means of agreement and therefore you also if you would use the same means with the same minds might agree so far as it is necessary and it is not necessary that you should agree farther Or if there be no possible means to agree about the sense of these Texts whilst we are left to our selves then sure it is impossible that we should agree in your sense of them which was That the Church is universally infallible For if it were possible for us to agree in this sense of them then it were possible for us to agree And why then said you of the self same Texts but in the page next before These words seem clearly enough to prove that the Church is Universally infallible A strange forgetfulness that the same man almost in the same breath should say of the same words They seem cleerly enough to prove such a Conclusion true and yet that three indifferent men all presum'd to be lovers of Truth and industrious searchers of it should have no possible means while they follow their own reason to agree in the Truth of this Conclusion 88. Whereas you say that It were great impiety to imagine that God the lover of Souls hath left no certain infallible means to decide both this and all o'her differences arising about the interpretation of Scripture or upon any other occasion I desire you to take heed you commit not an impiety in making more impieties than Gods Commandements make Certainly God is no way oblig'd either by his Promise or his Love to give us all things that we may imagine would be convenient for us as formerly I have proved at large It is sufficient that he denyes us nothing necessary to Salvation Deus non deficit in necessariis nee redundat in superfluis So D. Stapleton But that the ending of all Controversies or having a certain means of ending them is necessary to Salvation that you have often said and suppos'd but never proved though it be the main pillar of your whole discourse So little care you take how slight your Foundations are so your Building make a fair shew And as little care how you commit those faults your self which you condemn in others For you here charge them with great impiety who imagine that God the lover of Souls hath left no infallible means to determine all differences arising about the interpretation of Scripture or upon any other occasion And yet afterwards being demanded by D. Potter Why the Questions between the Jesuits and Dominicans remain undetermined You return him this cross Interrogatory Who hath assured you that the Point wherein these learned men differ is a revealed Truth or capable of definition or is not rather by plain Scripture indeterminable or by any Rule of Faith So then when you say It were great impiety to imagine that God hath not left infallible means to decide all differences I may answer It seems you do not believe your self For in this Controversie which is of as high consequence as any can be you seem to be doubtful whether there be any means to determine it On the other side when you ask D. Potter Who assured him that there is any means to determine this Controversie I answer for him that you have in calling it a great impiety to imagine that there is not some infallible means to decide this and all other differences arising about the Interpretation of Scripture or upon any other occasion For what trick you can devise to shew that this difference between the Dominicans and Jesuits which includes a difference about the sense of many texts of Scripture and many other matters of moment was not included under this and all other differences I cannot imagine Yet if you can find out any thus much at least we shall gain by it that general speeches are not always to be understood generally but sometimes with exceptions and limitations 89. But if there be any infallible means to decide all differences I beseech you name them You say it is to consult and hear Gods Visible Church with submissive acknowledgment of her Infallibility But suppose the difference be as here it is whether your Church be infallible what shall decide that If you would say as you should do Scripture and Reason then you foresee that you should be forced to grant that these are fit means to decide this Controversie and therefore may be as fit to decide others Therefore to avoid this you run into a most ridiculous absurdity and tell us that this difference also Whether the Church be infallible as well as others must be agreed by a submissive acknowledgment of the Churches Infallibility As if you should have said My Bretheren I perceive there is a great Contention amongst you whether the Roman Church be infallible If you will follow my advice I will shew you a ready means to end it you must first agree that the Roman Church is infallible and then your contention whether the Roman Church be infallible will quickly be at an end Verily a most excellent advice and most compendious way of ending all Controversies even without troubling the Church to determine them For why may not you say in all other differences as you have done in this Agree that the Pope is supream head of the Church That the substance of the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament is turned into the Body and Blood of Christ That the Communion is to be given to
pretended proof out of the Acts that the Apostles revealed to the Church the whole counsel of God keeping (d) Act. 20 27. back nothing with your gloss needful for our Salvation is no proof unless you still beg the question and coâ—suppose that whatsoever the Apostles revealed to the Church is contained in the Creed And I wonder you do not reflect that those words were by S. Paul particularly directed to Pastors and Governors of the Church as is clear by the other words He called the Ancients of the Church And afterward Take heed to your selves and to the whole stock wherein the holy Ghost hath placed you Bishops to rule the Church And your self say that more knowledge is (e) Pag. 244. necessary in Bishops and Priests to whom is committed the government of the Church and the care of souls than in vulgar Laicks Do you think that the Apostles taught Christians nothing but their Creed Said they nothing of the Sacraments Commandements Duties of Hope Charity c. 25. Upon the same affected ambiguity is grounded your other Objection To say the whole faith of those times (f) Pag. 225 223. is not contained in the Apostles Creed is all one as if a man should say This is not the Apostles Creed but a part of it For the Faith of the Apostles is not all one with that which we commonly call their Creed Did not I pray you S Mathew and S John believe their writings to be Canonical Scripture and yet their writings are not mentioned in the Creed It is therefore more than clear that the Faith of the Apostles is of larger extent than the Apostles Creed 26 To your demand Why amongst many things of equal necessity to be believed the Apostles should (g) Pag. 223. so distinctly set down some and be altogether silent of others I answer That you must answer your own demand For in the Creed there be divers Points in their nature not fundamental or necessary to be explicitely and distinctly believed as above we shewed Why are these Points which are not fundamental expressed rather than other of the same quality Why our Saviours descent to Hell and Burial expressed and not his Circumcision his Manifestation to the three Kings working of Miracles c. Why did they not express Scriptures Sacraments and all Fundamental Points of Faith tending to practice as well as those which rest in belief Their intention was particularly to deliver such Articles as were fittest for those times concerning the Deity Trinity and Messias as heretofore I have declared leaving many things to be taught by the Catholique Church which in the Creed we all profess to believe Neither doth it follow as you infer That as well nay better they might have given no Article but that of the Church and sent us to the Church for all the rest For in setting down others besides that and not all they make us believe we have all when (h) Pag. 223. we have not all For by this kind of arguing what may not be deduced One might quite contrary to your inference say If the Apostles Creed contain all Points necessary to Salvation what need we any Church to teach us and consequently what need of the Article concerning the Church What need we the Creeds of Nice Constantinople c. Superfluous are you Catechisms wherein besides the Articles of the Creed you adde divers others particulars These would be poor consequences and so is yours But shall I tell you newes For so you are pleased to esteem it We grant your inference thus far That our Saviour Christ referred us to his Church by her to be taught and by her alone For she was before the Creed and Scripture And she to discharge this imposed office of instructing us hath delivered us the Creed but not it alone as if nothing else were to be believed We have besides it holy Scripture we have unwritten Divine Apostolical Ecclesiastical Traditions It were a childish Argument The Creed contains not all things which are necessary to be believed Ergo it is not profitable Or The Church alone is sufficient to teach us by some convenient means Ergo she must teach us without all means without Creeds without Councils without Scripture c. If the Apostles had expressed no Article but that of the Catholique Church she must have taught us the other Articles in particular by Creeds or other means as in fact we have even the Apostles Creed from the Tradition of the Church It you will believe you have all in the Creed when you have not all it is not the Apostles or the Church that makes you so believe but it is your own error whereby you will needs believe that the Creed must contain all For neither the Apostles nor the Church nor the Creed it self tell you any such matter and what necessity is there that one means of instruction must involve whatsoever is contained in all the rest We are not to recite the Creed with anticipated perswasions that it must contain what we imagine it ought for better maintaining some opinions of our own but we ought to say and believe that it contains what we find in it of which one Article is to believe the Catholique Church surely to be taught by her which presupposeth that we need other instruction beside the Creed and in particular we may learn of her what Points be contained in the Creed what otherwise and so we shall not be deceived by beliving we have all in the Creed when we have not all and you may in the same manner say As well nay better the Apostles might have given us no Articles at all as have left out Articles tending to practice For in setting down one sort of Articles and not the other they make us believe we have all when we have not all 27. To our Argument that Baptism is not contained in the Creed D. Potter besides his answer that Sacraments belong rather to practice than faith which I have already confuted and which indeed maketh against himself and serveth only to shew that the Apostles intended not to comprize all Points in the Creed which we are bond to believe adds that the Creed of (i) Pag. 237. Nice expressed Baptism by name confess one Baptism for the remission of sins Which answer is directly against himself and manifestly proves that Baptism is an Article of Faith and yet is not contained in the Apostles Creed neither explicitly nor by any necessary consequence from other Articles expressed therein If to make it an Article of Faith be sufficient that it is contained in the Nicene Council he will find that Protestants maintain many errors against faith as being repugnant to definitions of general Councils as in particular that the very Council of Nice which saith M. Whitgift (k) In his defence pag. 330. is of all wise and learned men reverenced esteemed and embraced next unto the Scriptures themselves decreed that to those
of the Catholique Church Now having perused Breely I cannot find any one Protestant confessing any one Father to have concurred in opinion with you in this point And the Reader hath reason to suspect that you also out of all the Fathers could not find any one authority pertinent to this purpose for otherwise you were much to blame citing so few to make choice of such as are impertinent For let the understanding Reader peruse the 55. Epist of S. Cyprian with any ordinary attention out of which you take your first place and I am confident he shall find that he means nothing else by the words quoted by you But that in one particular Church at one time there ought to be but one Bishop and that he should be obeyed in all things lawful The non-performance whereof was one of the most ordinary causes of Heresies against the Faith and Schism from the Communion of the Church Universal He shall find secondly and that by many convincing Arguments that though he write to Cornelius Bishop of Rome yet he speaks not of him but of himself then Bishop of Carthage against whom a faction of Schismatiques had then set up another And therefore here your ingenuity is to be commended above many of your side For whereas they ordinarily abuse this place to prove that in the whole Church there ought to be but one Priest one Judge you seem somwhat diffident hereof and thereupon say That these words plainly condemn Luther whether he will understand them as spoken of the Universal or of every Particular Church But whether they condemn Luther is another question The question here is Whether they plainly prove the Pope's Supremacy over all other Bishops which certainly they are as far from proving as from proving the Supremacy of any other Bishop seeing it is evident they were intended not of one Bishop over the whole Catholique Church but of one Bishop in one particular Church 99. And no less impertinent is your saying out of Optatus if it be well lookt into though at the first sight it may seem otherwise because Optatus his scene happened to be Rome whereas S. Cyprians was Carthage The truth is the Donatists had set up at Rome a Bishop of their faction not with intent to make him Bishop of the whole Church but of that Church in particular Now Optatus going upon S. Cyprians above-mentioned ground of one Bishop in one Church proves them Schismatiques for so doing and he proves it by this Argument S. Peter was first Bishop of Rome neither did the Apostles attribute to themselves each one his particular Chair understand in that City for in other places others I hope had Chairs besides S. Peter and therefore he is a Schismatique who against that one single Chair erects another understand as before in that place making another Bishop of that Diocess besides him who was lawfully elected to it 100. But yet by the way he styles S. Peter head of the Apostles and says that from thence he was called Cephas Ans Perhaps he was abused into this opinion by thinking Cephas derived from the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a head whereas it is a Syriack word and signifies a stone Besides S. Peter might be head of the Apostles that is first in order and honour among them and not have Supreme Authority over them And indeed that S. Peter should have Authority over all the Apostles and yet exercise no one act of Authority over any one of them and that they should shew to him no sign of subjection me-thinks is as strange as that a King of England for twenty five years together should do no Act of Regality nor receive any one acknowledgement of it As strange methinks it is that you so many ages after should know this so certainly as you pretend to do and that the Apostles after that those words were spoken in their hearing by vertue whereof S. Peter is pretended to have been made their head should still be so ignorant of it as to question which of them should be the greatest yet more strange that our Saviour should not bring them out of their error by telling them S. Peter was the man but rather confirm it by saying the Kings of the Gentiles exercise authority over them but it should not be so among them No less a wonder was it that S. Paul should so far forget S. Peter and himself as that first mentioning of him often he should do it without any title of Honour Secondly speaking of the several degrees of men in the Church he should not give S. Peter the highest but place him in equipage with the rest of the Apostles and say God hath appointed not first Peter then the rest of the Apostles but first Apostles secondly Prophets Certainly if the Apostles were all first to me it is very probable that no one of them was before the rest For by First all men understand either that which is before all or that before which is nothing Now in the former sense the Apostles could not be all first for then every one of them must have been before every one of the rest And therefore they must be First in the other sense And therefore No man and therefore Not S. Peter must be before any of them Thirdly and Lastly that speaking of himself in particular and perhaps comparing himself with S. Peter in particular rather than any other he should say in plain terms I am in nothing inferior to the very chiefest Apostles But besides all this Though we should grant against all these probabilities and many more that Optatus meant that S. Peter was head of the Apostles not in our but in your sense and that S. Peter indeed was so yet still you are very farr from shewing that in the judgement of Optatus the Bishop of Rome was to be at all much less by divine right successor to S. Peter in this his Headship and Authority For what incongruity is there if we say that he might succeed S. Peter in that part of his care the government of that particular Church as sure he did even while S Peter was living and yet that neither he nor any man was to succeed him in his Apostleship nor in his government of the Church Universal Especially seeing S. Peter and the rest of the Apostles by laying the foundations of the Church were to be the Foundations of it and accordingly are so called in Scripture And therefore as in a Building it is incongruous that Foundations should succeed Foundations So it may be in the Church that any other Apostles should succeed the first 101. Ad § 37. The next Paragraph I might well pass over as having no Argument in it For there is nothing in it but two sayings of S. Austin which I have great reason to esteem no Argument untill you will promise me to grant whatsoever I shall prove by two sayings of S. Austin But moreover the second of these sentences
by fraud and held by violence 108. These are the Falshoods which in this Answer offer themselves to any attentive Reader and that which remains is meer impertinence As first that a pretence of conscience will not serve to justifie Separation from being Schismatical Which is true but little to the purpose seeing it was not an erroneous perswasion much less an Hypocritical pretence but a true and well grounded conviction of conscience which D. Potter alleaged to justifie Protestants from being Schismatical And therefore though seditious men in Church and State may pretend conscience for a cloak of their rebellion yet this I hope hinders not but that an honest man ought to obey his rightly informed conscience rather than the unjust commands of his tyrannous Superiours Otherwise With what colour can you defend either your own refusing the oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy or the ancient Martyrs and Apostles and Prophets who oftentimes disobeyed the commands of men in authority and for their disobedience made no other but this Apology We must obey God rather than men It is therefore most apparent that this answer must be meerly impertinent seeing it will serve against the Martyrs and Apostles and Prophets and even against your selves as well as against Protestants To as little purpose is your rule out of Lyrinensis against them that followed Luther seeing they pretend and are ready to justifie that they forsook not with the Doctors the faith but only the corruption of the Church As vain altogether is that which followes That in cases of uncertainty we are not to leave our Superiour or cast off his obedience nor publiquely oppose his decrees From whence it will follow very evidently that seeing it is not a matter of faith but disputed question amongst you Whether the Oath of Allegeance be lawful that either you acknowledge not the King your Superior or do against conscience in opposing his and the Kingdoms decree requiring the taking of this Oath This good use I say may very fairly be made of it and is by men of your religion But then it is so far from being a confutation that it is rather a confirmation of D. Potter's assertion For he that useth these words Doth he not plainly import and such was the case of Protestants that we are to leave our Superiours to cast off obedience to them and publiquely to oppose their Decrees when we are certain as Protestants were that what they command God doth countermand Lastly S. Cyprians example is against Protestants impertinently and even ridiculously alleadged For what if S. Cyprian holding his opinion true but not necessary condemned no man much less any Church for holding the contrary Yet me thinks this should lay no obligation upon Luther to do so likwise seeing he held his own opinions not only true but also necessary and the doctrin of the Roman Church not only false but damnable And therefore seeing the condition and state of the parties censured by S. Cyprian and Luther was so different no marvel though their censures also were different according to the supposed merit of the parties delinquent For as for your obtruding again upon us That we believe the points of difference not Fundamental or necessary you have been often told that it is a Calumny We hold your errors as damnable in themselves as you do ours only by accident through invincible ignorance we hope they are not unpardonable and you also profess to think the same of ours 109. Ad § 42. The former part of this discourse grounded on D. Potter's words p. 105. I have already in passing examined and confuted I add in this place 1. That though the Doctor say It is not fit for any private man to oppose his judgement to the publique that is his own judgement and bare authority yet he denies not but occasions may happen wherein it may be warrantable to oppose his reason or the authority of Scripture against it and is not then to be esteem'd to oppose his own judggment to the publique but the judgement of God to the judgement of men Which his following words seem to import He may offer his opinion to be considered of so he do it with evidence or great probability of Scripture or Reason Secondly I am to tell you that you have no ground from him to enterline his words with that Interrogatory his own conceits and yet grounded upon evidence of Scripture For these things are in his words opposed and not confounded and the latter not intended for a repetition as you mistake it but for an Antithesis of the former He may offer saith he his opinion to be considered of so he do it with evidence of Scripture But if he will factiously advance his own conceits that is say I clean contrary to your gloss Such as have not evident nor very probable ground in Scripture for these conceits are properly his own he may justly be branded c. Now that this of the two is the better gloss it is proved by your own interrogation For that imputes absurdity to D. Potter for calling them a mans own conceits which were grounded upon evidence of Scripture And therefore you have shewed little candour or equity in fastening upon them this absurd construction They not only bearing but even requiring another more fair and more sensible Every man ought to be presum'd to speak sense rather than non-sense coherently rather than contradictiously if his words be fairly capable of a better construction For M. Hooker if writing against Puritans he had said something unawares that might give advantage to Papists it were not inexcusable seeing it is a matter of such extream difficulty to hold such a temper in opposing one extream opinion as not to seem to favour the other Yet if his words be rightly consider'd there is nothing in them that will do you any service For though he saies that men are bound to do whatsoever the sentence of finall Decision shall determin as it is plain me are bound to yield such an obedience to all Courts of civil judicature yet he saies not they are bound to think that determination lawful and that sentence just Nay it is plain he saies that they must do according to the Judge's sentence though in their private opinion it seem unjust As if I be cast wrongfully in a suit at law and sentenced to pay an hundred pound I am bound to pay the mony yet I know no law of God or man that binds me in conscience to acquit the Judge of error in his sentence The question therefore being only what men ought to think it is vain for you to tell us what M. Hooker saies at all For M. Hooker though an excellant man was but a man And much more vain to tell us out of him what men ought to do for point of external obedience When in the very same place he supposeth and alloweth that in their private opinion they may think This sentence to which they
directions than he has thought fit 42. I beseech you therefore my beloved Brethren by all means make use of any advantages which may serve to render you more earnest more eager and resolute in your obedience to those holy and perfect Commandements which he hath enjoyn'd you If you cannot find your selves arriv'd as yet to that height of perfection as that Love and Charity cannot wrest from you sufficient carefulness to obey him Let fear have its operation with you fear and horrour of that terrible issue which shall attend the wilful and habitual transgressours of his Laws And you need not suspect this course as unwarrantable for you shall have St. Paul for your example even that Paul for whose miraculous conversion Christ was pleas'd himself in Person to descend from his Throne of Majesty that Paul who laboured in the Gospe more than all the rest of the Apostles that Paul whose joy and hearts comfort it was to be afflicted for the Name of Christ Lastly that Paul who for a time was ravish'd from the Earth to the third Heaven after a most inexpressable manner and there heard things that cannot be uttered This Paul I say shall be your example who after all these things found it yet a convenient motive and received great encouragement and eagerness to proceed in his most blessed conversation even from this fear Lest whilest he preached to others himself should become a cast-away 43. And when Fear has done its part let Hope come in Hope of that happy Communion which you shall once again have with those friends which may be purchased in this life at so easie a rate Hope of that eternal weight and burden of joy and glory which is reserved in Heaven for you if you hold fast the rejoycing of the Hope stedfast unto the end Heb. 3.6 Let a comfortable meditation of these things encourage and hearten you to proceed from one degree of holiness to another till we all come in the unity of the Faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God to a perfect Man to the measure of the fulness of the stature of Christ And for an example in this take that whole cloud of witnesses mustered together in Heb. 11. Or if they will not serve the turn take an Example above all examples an Example beyond all imaginable exceptions even our blessed Saviour Jesus Christ himself concerning whom the Author of the same Epistle it was St. Paul sure saith Chap. 12. That for the joy which was set before him despised the shame and endured the Cross c. 44. God knows we have need of all manner of encouragements and all little enough for us so sluggish and immoveable so perverse and obstinate are we Therefore for Gods sake upon any terms continue in the service of Christ make use of all manner of advantages and though ye find hope or fear predominate in you these servile affections as they are commonly call'd yet for all that faint not dispair not but rather give thanks to Almighty God and God who sees such good effect of his Promises and Threatnings in you of which all the Scripture is full from one end to the other will in his good time fill your hearts full of his Love even that perfect love which casteth out fear and of that perfect Love which shall have no need of Hope He will perfect that his good work in you unto the end 45. To conclude all Whether ye shall perform this Commandement of Christ or whether ye shall not perform it It cannot be avoided Everlasting habitations shall be your reward Only the difference is Whether ye will have them of your Enemies providing whether ye will be beholding to the Devil and his Angels your ancient mortal Enemies to prepare everlasting dwellings for you And who can dwell in everlasting fire saith the Prophet Who can dwell in continual burnings Or whether ye will expect them from the assistance of those just persons whom you have by your good works eternally oblig'd to you even those blessed and glorious Habitations which God the Father Almighty hath from the beginning of the world provided and furnish'd for you which God the Son by his meritorious Death and Passion hath purchased for you and for the admission whereunto God the Holy Ghost hath sanctified and adorn'd you that in thankfulness and gratitude you your selves may become everlasting Habitations pure and undefiled Temples for him to dwell in for ever and ever Now unto these glorious and everlasting habitations God of his infinite mercy bring us even for Jesus Christ his sake To whom with the Father c. The Seventh Sermon LUKE XIX 8. And if I have defrauded any man by forged cavillation I restore unto him four fold THe Son of man saith our Saviour of Himself in the end of this story is come to seek and to save that which was lost Vers 10. And how careful and solicitous he was in the discharge of this employment and business about which his Father sent him this story of Zacchaeus out of which my Text is taken will evidently and lively discover For here we have a Man that among ten thousand one would think were the most unlikely to become a Disciple of Christs so indispos'd he was for such a change so unqualified in all respects For first he was Rich as the third verse tells us and if that were all his fault yet in our Saviour's judgement which was never uncharitable being so clogg'd and burdened with these impedimenta as even the Heathens could call Riches it would be as hard for him to press through and enter in at the streight gate without uneasing and freeing himself from them as for a Camel to go through the eye of a Needle 2. But secondly these his Riches as it would seem were scarce well and honestly gotten For his trade and course of life was a dangerous trade obnoxious to great almost irresistible temptations A great measure of grace would be requisite to preserve a man incorrupt and undefiled in that course and so ill a name he had gotten himself that all that afterwards saw Christs familiarity with him were much offended and scandaliz'd at it for we read in the 7. verse Vers 7. that when they all saw it they murmured saying that he was gone in to lodge with a sinful man with one famous and notorious for a great oppressour 3. Yet notwithstanding all this such was the unspeakable mercy and goodness of Christ that even of this Stone so scorned and rejected of all the people he raised a son unto Abraham as we find in the 9. verse Vers 9. And to bring this to pass he took occasion even from a vain curiosity of this Zacchaeus an humour of his it may be such a one as afterward possessed Herod though God knows he had not the same success namely to see some strange work performed by Christ of whom he had heard so much talk This opportunity
and come short of the glory of God Thus much for the Law of Works 29. The state of mankind without Christ being so deplored so out of al hope as I told you Almighty God out of his infinite mercy and goodness by his unspeakable wisdom found out an attonement accepting of the voluntary exinanition and humiliation of his dearly beloved Son who submitted himself to be made flesh to all our natural infirmities sin only excepted and at last to dye that ignominious accursed death of the Cross for the Redemption of mankind Who in his death made a Covenant with his Father that those and only those who would be willing to submit themselves to the obedience of a new Law which he would prescribe unto mankind should for the merits of his obedience and death be justified in the sight of God have their sins forgiven them and be made heirs of everlasting glory Now that Christ's death was in order of Nature before the giving of the Gospel is I think evident by those words of St. Paul Heb. 9.16 17. where comparing the old Covenant of the Jews with that of Christ he saith Where a Testament is Heb. 9.16.16 there must of necessity be the death of the Testatour for a Testament is of force after men are dead otherwisâ— it is of no strength at all while the Testatour liveth whereupon neither the first Covenant was dedicated without bloud It was necessary therefore saith he ver 23. that the patterns of things in heaven should be purified with these i. e. with the bloud of Beasts but the heavenly things themselves with better things than those namely with the bloud of Christ 30. Which Covenant of Christ call'd in Scripture the New-Covenant the Covenant of Grace the grace of God the Law of Faith according to the nature of all Covenants being made between two parties at the least requires conditions on both sides to be perform'd and being a Covenant of Promise the conditions on man's part must necessarily go before otherwise they are no conditions at all Now man's duty is comprehended by St. Paul in this word Faith and God's promise in the word Justification And thus farr we have proceeded upon sure grounds for we have plain express words of Scripture for that which hath been said But the main difficulty remains behind and that is the true sense and meaning of these two words Faith and Justification and what respect and dependance they have one of the other Which difficulty by Gods assistance and with your Christian charitable patience I will now endeavour to dissolve 31. For the first therefore which is Faith we may consider it in several respects to wit first as referring us to and denoting the principal object of Evangelical Faith which is Christ Now if Faith be meant in this sense as by many good Writers of our Reformed Churches it is understood then the meaning of that so often repeated saying of St. Paul We are justified by Faith without the works of the Law must be We are justifi'd only for the obedience of Christ and not for our righteousness of the Law which is certainly a most Catholick Orthodox sense and not to be deny'd by any Christian though I doubt it does not express all that St. Paul intended in that Proposition Secondly Faith signifies the Act or exercise or duty of Faith as it comprehends all Evangelical Obedience call'd by St. Paul The Obedience of Faith Rom. 16.26 Rom. 16.26 4.13 9.13 10.6 The Righteousness of Faith Rom. 4 13. 9.13 10.6 And it is an inherent grace or vertue wrought in us by the powerful operation of God's Spirit Or thirdly Rom. 10.9 it may be taken for the Doctrin of Faith call'd also by him the Word of Faith Act. 20.32 Gal. 3.2 Rom. 3.27 Rom. 10.8 and the Word of Gods Grace Act. 20.32 and the hearing of Faith Gal. 3.2 In which sense as if he meant the Word St. Paul may seem to resolve us Rom. 3.27 where he saith that boasting is excluded by the Law of Faith which words are extant in the very heat of the controversie of Justification Now these senses of Faith if they be apply'd to that conclusion of St. Paul We are justified by Faith come all to one pass for in effect it is all one to say We are justifi'd by our Obedience or Righteousness of Faith and to say We are justifi'd by the Gospel which prescribes that Obedience As on the contrary to say We are justifi'd by the Law or by works prescribed by the Law is all one There is a fourth acception of Faith taken for the single Habit or Grace of Faith and apply'd to this proposition only of all Christians that I have heard of by the Belgick Remonstrants which being a new invented fancy and therefore unwarrantable yet I shall hereafter have occasion it may be to say something of it 31. St. Paul's Proposition I am perswaded excludes none of these senses it is capeble of them all But before I shew you how they may consist together I will in the first place declare of what nature that righteousness is which God by vertue of his New Covenant requires at our hands before he will make good his promise unto us First then God requires at our hands a sincere Obedience unto the substance of all Moral duties of the Old Covenant and that by the Gospel And this obedience is so necessary that it is impossible any man should be saved without it The pressing of this Doctrine takes up by much the greatest part of the Evangelical Writings Now that these Duties are not enforc'd upon us as conditions of the Old Covenant of Works is evident because by Christ we are freed from the Obligation of the Old Covenant God forbids that we should have a thought of expecting the hope of righteousness upon those terms For that Covenant will not admit of any imperfection in our works and then in what a miserable case are we There is no hope for us unless some course be taken that not only our imperfections but our sins and those of a high nature be pass'd by and overlook'd by Almighty God as if He had lost his eyes to see them or his memory to remember them 32. The substance then of the Moral Law is enjoyn'd us by the New-Covenant but with what difference I shall shew you presently And hereupon it is that our Saviour saith to the Pharisees who were willing to make any mis-construction of his Doctrine Think you that I am come to destroy the Law I by all means say we God forbid else for unless the old Law be destroy'd we are undone as long as that is alive we are dead If the Law of Works have its natural force still woe be to us Therefore that must not be Christ's meaning His intent is as if he should say Think you that I am come to destroy the righteousness of the Law to dis-oblige men from
to the Corinthians And say There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man For certainly we will not imagine that the Church or City of Corinth had any such extraordinary Immunity or Charter granted them whereby they should be exempted from the danger of Temptations above all the Christian world besides Therefore let your memories recollect and examin the time past of your lives and tell me Did there ever any Temptation take hold of you or assault you so powerful and irresistable that there was no way left for you but to be overcome by it Take Temptation now in what sense you please either for a misfortune and Affliction or else for a Suggestion to sin Was there ever any calamity any loss any pain any sickness so violent and impetuous but that still you might perceive your selves notwithstanding though perhaps in your outward man unequally match't by it yet in your spirits and minds strong enough to conquer the malice thereof and to convert it into wholesome Physick Again Was there ever any sinful Temptation so strongly urg'd upon you but that you might by the assistance of that Grace which God had already given you or at the least for the asking would have super-added you might easily have dull'd and diverted the force thereof Did not your Consciences even after you were overcome by such a Temptation tell you that it was meer voluntary cowardize in you to suffer your selves to be overcome by it that you willingly surrendred and betray'd those forces which already God had given you 4. Now though I am perswaded this be so evidently true that there is scarce any one here but his Conscience will assure him as much Yet for all this we must not begin hereupon to fancy in our minds any extraordinary worth or dignity in our selves as though by our own power or holiness we could work such wonders No alas nothing less For take away the assistance and guard of our Auxiliary Forces God's free and undeserved Graces within us and his Divine assistance together with the Guard of his blessed Angels without us and there is no Temptation so weak and despicable which we should not suddenly yield unto Nay we should need no outward Tempters to help us to sin our own wicked hearts would save the Devil that labour For nothing is there so vile and abominable whereunto without God's restraining Grace we should not readily and impetuously hasten unto 5. Therefore let us neither defraud God nor our selves of their dues But as we have spoken of the time past so likewise of that which follows If hereafter we shall overcome any temptation as certainly by Gods help if we have but a mind to it we may Let us bless Almighty God for assisting us so farr let us give the glory and Trophies of the conquest to him But on the contrary side if we shall neglect to make use and advantage of those many helps against sin which Almighty God is ready to supply unto us If notwithstanding those many Promises of assistance so frequently set down in Holy Scripture If notwithstanding those many secret whisperings and inspirations of his Holy Spirit in our souls If notwithstanding God's Voyce which as every day's experience can witness unto us continually calls upon us saying This is the right way walk in it and ye shall find rest to your souls we will yet continue to extinguish those good motions to deafen and drown God's voyce and be ready to hearken unto and obey our own filthy lusts and vile affections Let us lay the fault where it is due even upon our own deceitful wicked Hearts or otherwise the time will come when in Hell we shall be evidently convinc'd thereof when the worm of Conscience which never dyeth shall continually torment and gnaw us Let God be true and faithful in his Promises and every man a Lyar. For as hitherto God has been so merciful to you to preserve you that no temptation should take you but such as is common to man so likewise for the time following though perhaps greater tryals may befal you than hitherto you have had experience of yet of this you may be confident that howsoever they may seem grievous yet the same God continues faithful and righteous to fulfil his Promises He will never suffer you to be tempted above that you are able 6. Temptation is 〈◊〉 thing of its own Nature indifferent and is rendred good or evil from the end and intention of the Tempter especially It is nothing else but making a tryal or experiment If good and assay whether that good which seems to be in a subject be true and firmly grounded or no So God may be said to tempt as he did Abraham c. And this he performs not to satisfie his curiosity but meerly out of a good inclination to the party both thereby to confirm his graces in him and to reward them with a greater measure of Glory If evil Temptation is an assay whether that good which seems to be in a man may not by some means or other be extinguish'd and so the person destroyed so the Devil is most properly called the Tempter And of this nature are the Temptations of my Text Now these we find in Holy Scripture to be twofold For either they are apt to draw us from good by way of Discouragement so all manner of afflictions misfortunes persecutions c. are called Temptations because by these a man is inclinable to be frighted from or at last discountenanced in a holy conversation Or else they allure us by way of invitation or sollicitation to evil so wicked pleasing suggestions are said to be Temptations because these are fit to palliate the unloveliness and deformity of sin and thereby to make it desirable unto us It would be but loss of time to heap together Examples of holy Scripture to make good this distinction since it is an Argument which you daily meet withal discours'd of in Sermons 7. But I confess I find it something difficult to determin whether of these two senses with exclusion of the other be intended by St. Paul in my Text whether when he says God will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able his meaning should be God by his Wisdom and Providence will so contrive businesses for you that though you are not likely to live in a contiual uninterrupted course of happiness and security but that sometimes you shall dash your foot against a stone you shall be disquieted and molested with afflictions of several natures notwithstanding this you may be confident of that let what misfortue will come how grievous and even insupportable soever it may seem unto you it shall never be so violent and out-ragious but that God will provide a way for you to escape from it there will be a dore left open for you to avoid the furiousness and impetuousness of it either God will arm you with Patience to bear it