Linguistic DNA - Concept Modelling Demonstrator

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
scripture_n	catholic_a	church_n	tradition_n	2,528	5	9.2068	5	false

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A66580	Infidelity vnmasked, or, The confutation of a booke published by Mr. William Chillingworth vnder this title, The religion of Protestants, a safe way to saluation [i.e. salvation]	Knott, Edward, 1582-1656.	1652 (1652)	Wing W2929; ESTC R304	877,503	994

objections out of scripture And therfor they cannot with certainty believe the sayd principle Your self say Pag 61. N. 23. If our Saviour had intended that all Controversyes in Religion should be by some visible judg finally determined who can doubt but in playne termes he would have expressed himself about this matter And may not we turne the same argument against you and say If our Saviour had intended that all poynts of Faith and religion should be evident in scripture without relation to any visible judg church or vnwrtiten Tradition who can doubt but in plaine termes he would have expressed himself in this matter And my retortion is stronger than your Argument can be because true Catholique Doctrine belieues not only scripture or the written word of God but tradition also or the word of God not written which all grant to haue bene before scripture and from which you confess we receiue scripture it self And so although nothing were sayd in scripture of a visibse judg to determine controversyes in Religion yet vniuersall tradition sense of all Christians and practise of Gods church in determining and defining matters of Faith were sufficient to assure vs therof But Protestants must either alledg evident scripture or nothing at all This I say not as if we wanted evident scripture for the necessity of a visible judg of controversyes but only to shew that we haue not that necessity of alledging scripture for this and every other particular poynt which Protestants haue 25. Secondly I proue our assertion thus we are to suppose that Allmighty God having ordayned Man to a supernaturall End cannot faile to provide on his part meanes sufficient for attaining therof Since then Faith is necessary for ariving to that End if it cannot be learned except by scripture alone no doubt but he would have obliged the Apostles to write as he obliged them to preach and Christians to heare the Gospell For if he left it to their freedom it is cleare that he did not esteeme writing to be necessary which yet must be most necessary if we can attaine Faith and salvation only by scripture But Protestants even for this cause that they are to belieue nothing which is not expressed in scripture cannot affirme that our Saviour gaue any such command to his Apostles seing it is evident no such thing is expressed in scripture Therfor they cannot avouch any such command But for preaching we read Marc 16. V. 15. Going into the whole world preach yee the Gospell to all creatures And in obedience to this command it is recorded V. 20. But they going forth preached every where And our Saviour living on earth sent his Apostles abroad with this injunction Matth 10.7 Euntes praedicate Goe preach The Apostle saith Rom 10.17 Faith is by hearing And V. 18. have they not heard And certes into all the earth hath the sound of them gone forth and vnto the ends of the whole earth the words of them where we heare of hearing and speaking but not of writing or reading of a sound conveyed to the eares of the whole world not of any booke or writing set before their eyes Thus we see that only two of the Apostles haue also made themselves Evangelists by writing the Gospell though all were Evangelists by preaching it Chill and his fellowes thinke they can demonstrate out of S. Luke more clearly than out of any other Evangelist that his Gospell contaynes all poynts necessary to salvation and yet He is so farr from producing any command he had to write which had bene the most cleare effectuall and necessary cause that could haue bene alledged that contrarily he shewes that it was done by free election saying Luc 1.1 3. because many haue gone about c. It seemed good also to me to write c. Neither doth any one of all the Canonicall writers alledg a command for writing S. Paule saith 1. Cor 9.16 If I evangelize it is no glory to me for necessity lyeth vpon me for woe is to me if I evangelize not But he sayes not woe to me if I write not and accordingly we see some of the canonicall writers differred writing a long tyme after our B. Sauiours Ascension and did not write but on severall incident occasions as Bellarmine de verbo Dei L. 4. C. 4. demonstrates out of Eusebius If then it was not judged necessary that scripture should be written but that the Church had other meanes to beget and conserue true Faith and religion as S. Paule 1. Cor 15.1 expressly saith I doe you to vnderstand the Gospell which I preached vnto you which also you received in the which also you stand And V. 11. So we preach and so you haue believed What can be more vnreasonable than to belieue it to be necessary that all things necessary be evidently contayned in scripture alone without dependance on tradition or the church Or who can believe that the Saints Paule Iames Iude Iohn in their Epistles written vpon severall occasions or to private persons intended to write a Catechisme or specify all necessary points of Faith Hence it is that Eusebius Histor Eccles L. 3. C. 24. affirmes that S. Iohn was sayd to haue preached the Gospell even almost to the end of his life without notice of any scripture and in generall that the Apostles were not sollicitous to write much And the same is observed by S. Chrysostome Hom 1. in Act. Apost If then Protestants cannot proue by evident scripture that all Canonicall writers receyved a command to write how will they proue that they were bound to publish their writings wherof as I sayd some were directed to private persons or that others were or are bound to publish them or to reade them being published And if they can shew no command for these things how can they maintayne that there is no meanes to know matters of Faith except by scripture 26. Thirdly you teach That all necessary poynts are evident in scripture though there be many points evident which are not necessary that we cannot precisely determine what points in particular be necessary that such a determination or distinction is needless For all necessary points being evident in scripture whosoever believes all evident points is sure to know all necessary points and more This is your chiefest ground in this matter But it is evidently refuted by willing you to reflect that by this meanes all must be obliged to know all the cleare or evident texts of scripture otherwise he cannot be sure that he knowes all necessary points since you giue him the assurance of knowing all necessary points only by this meanes of knowing all points that are evident Therfore if he be not sure that he knowes all evident points he cannot be sure that he knowes all such as are necessary Yea every one will be obliged to know every text or period of scripture and to examine whether it be evident or obscure least that if vpon examination it appeare to be

our Sauiour to the Jewes Joan. 5.39 I answer first if they will haue their purpose they must add solas earch the Scriptures alone as Luther in the Text where it is sayd Rom. 3.28 We account a man to be justified by Faith without the works of the Law in favour of justification by Faith alone translats justified by Faith alone otherwise they are not to purpose For the question is only whether scripture alone contayne all things necessary to salvation 2. Indeed they cannot add solas nor can any vnderstand Search the Scriptures in that sense of taking Scriptures alone since our B Saviour in that Chapter of S. Iohn to proue that he was the Messias alledges the testimony of S. John Baptist and a greater testimony then John the very works which I doe miracles and also the voyce of his Father Matth. 3.17 Therfor our Sauiour beside Scriptures alledgeth other very powerfull meanes the voyce of John the voyce of works the voyce of his eternall Father 3. This Text speaks only of one Article of Faith to witt that Christ was the Messias and it is no good consequence the scriptures are cleare in one poynt of Faith rherfor they are cleare in all 4. Even for this one Poynt he doth not absolutely command them to search the scriptures as necessary of themselves but only ex hypothesi For vpon supposition that they did not beleeue for the other threefold testimonyes and that they believed scripture to be the word of God then it only remayned that they should search the scriptures and so our Sauiour sayth search the scriptures and expressly adds Joan. 5.39 For you thinke in them to haue life everlasting shewing that he speakes as it were ad hominem seing you Ã´ Jewes will not belieue the testimony of John of Miracles and of my Eternall Father at least search the scriptures in which you thinke to haue life everlasting and the same are they that giue testimony of me As we Carholikes may say to Heretikes who reject the Authority of Gods Church and Tradition and admitt only scripture since you will not belieue the voyce of the Church and yet belieue scriptures search the scriptures which giue testimony of the Church And yet it were strang if Protestants should from such our daily speech infer that we belieue no other Rule or Judg besides scriptnre alone and I hope Protestants will not deny but that the testimony of S. John our Sauiours Miracles and the voice of his Eternall Father were sufficient to oblige men to belieue that our Sauiour was the Messias though they had not searcht the scriptures as we see Infidels to be converted to the Faith of Christ by Miracles and other Arguments of Credibility without helpe of scripture which they beleeue not to be the word of God except by force of those Arguments and I suppose they will grant that our Saviours Miracles and those other Arguments which he vsed were more forcible than any can be brought by any Apostolicall man for the conversion of Gentils So that vpÃ²n the matter this Text search the scriptures pondered as it should be shews not only that scripture alone is not necessary but absolutely proves it is not so but may be supplyed by othermeanes as S. Irenaeus witnesseth of people that were converted to the Faith of Christ without knowledg of scripture 5. Protestants cannot proue that scrutamini search is the imperatiue mood S. Cyrill Lib. 3. in Joan Cap 4. holds that it is of the indicatiue and some learned Catholike Divines are of the same mynd yea Beza saith I agree with Cyrill who clearly waâ—nes vs that this is to be vnderstood rather by a verbe of the indicative and so our Saviour reprehends the Jewes who did search the scriptures and yet did not belieue in him of whom those scriptures spoke According to this Opinion or explication of this text our Saviour in this place neither commands nor forbids approves nor disallowes the reading of scripture but only signifyes what they did and supposing they did so blames them for not doing it with such a hart and disposition of soule as to find in them the true Messias At least seing this exposition cannot be evidently disproved it is evident that this text doth not evidently convince that the scripture alone contaynes evidently all things necessary to salvation yea rather since those men did read scripture and yet not belieue in Christ it is a signe that scripture alone is not so very cleare as to necessitate a mans vnderstanding to the true meaning therof without some dispositions on our behalf of which dispositions no man being absolutely and evidently certaine he cannot be certainly assured that he hath attayned the right sense by scripture alone without some other helpe as was the preaching and Miracles of our Saviour and the Testimony of s. John and of his Eternall Father and as to vs is the Authority and voyce of Gods Church But if we will follow the other opinion that our Saviour commanded those men to reade the scriptures it cannot be vnderstood as an absolute command seing they had other meanes more than sufficient and more effectuall than scripture to beget in their soules a belief that Christ was the Messias to witt Miracles voyce of his Father c but only as I sayd vpon supposition that they by their owne fault not making vse of those other meanes were obliged to make vse of this of scripture yet so as they might free themselves from that hypotheticall and voluntary necessity by applying themselves to those other meanes for neglect of which our Saviour reprehends them V. 38. His the Fathers word you haue not remayning in you because whom he hath sent him you beleeue not and yet they believed the scripture and this reprehension he prosecutes to the end of that Chapter The obligation then of searching scripture was voluntary and the command only to Jewes and Jewes so incredulous that they would neither belieue s. John nor our Saviour Christ nor the Eternall Father And if Protestants will imitate those Jewes and reject all Authority of a living Guide and rely only on scripture they for finding the true Church shal be obliged to search scriptures by a voluntary culpable necessity which they ought not to impose vpon others but contrarily they ought by all possible meanes to free themselves from it by submitting to Gods Church and her Preachers as so many Nations haue done before they knew scripture and in that case were obliged to attend to other Motives and Meanes and so thete is a far more vniversall and necessary command to Heare the Church than to search the scriptures 6. Our Saviour spoke only of the Old Testament And shall we out of his words infer that in the old Testament alone all Articles of Chrstian Faith are particularly and evidently contayned This Objection then proves too much and therfor indeed proves nothing 7. Scrutamini search signifyes diligence care endeavour labour

the Church and the things which she delivers as true you grant the Church to be indued with infallibility as I may say habitually otherwise we could not belieue her Traditions or that the things which she delivers are true though she were supposed to deliver them Now if once it be granted that the Church is infallible not only as a witness of what hath bene done but also of what ought to be done that is of Fact and Faith of Practise and Speculation we haue as much as we desire to wit that the Church cannot erre in her Traditions or in defining what hath bene delivered by the Apostles And in this Whitaker by rejecting S. Chrysostome whom he could not otherwise answer shewes more sincerity then you doe 204. Lastly Wheras you say there are no vniversall Traditions of the Church for matters of Doctrine we haue demonstrated aboue that there are many as for example those which concerne the Governours and Government of the church Forme and matter of Sacraments and other Points of which I spoke hertofore even out of Dr. Field and other Protestant learned Writers And indeed seing S. Chryfostome saith as we haue seene that the Apostles delivered many things without writing who will belieue without any convincing reason to the contrary that not one of those many should be transmitted to posterity considering how many things are not clearly expressed in Scripture even the chief heads of Christian Doctrine as Dr. Field confesses and I haue demonstrated that the very Articles of our Creed are not cleare without the Declaration of the church and it appeares in the experience we haue before our eyes in the contentions of Protestants concerning those principall Articles of the Creed 205. But now let vs returne to answer your assertion out of S. Austine which in effect is done to our hands by Dr. Field who Lib 4. Cap 20. summoneth divers Traditions not contayned in scripture as the chief heads of Christian Doctrine and distinct explication of many things somwhat obscurly contained in Scripture Yea Dr. Potter though he hold all Fundamentall Points of Faith to be contained in the Creed yet Pag 216. he puts this restriction that it must be taken in a Catholike sense that is as it was further opened and explained in some parts by occasion of emergent Heresyes in the other Catholique Creeds of Nice Constantinople Ephesus Chalcedon and Athanasius Now as Heresyes may still arise so still there will be necessity of a new opening or explanation and what would such explications availe vs in order to an Act of Faith if the whole church may erre And therfor when S. Austine is alledged to say that all necessary Points are manifest in scripture he cannot be vnderstood of scripture alone without explication or declaration of the church even for Fundamentall Points and consequently necessary to salvation contayned in the Creed This answer you might haue gathered out of S. Austines words if you had cited them aright as I haue done aboue Illa quae c Those things which are sett downe plainly in them Bookes of Holy Scripture whether they be precepts of good life or Rules of Faith are to be sought out with more industry and diligence of which every one fynds out the more by how much he is of a greater vnderstanding For in those things which are plainly sett downe in scripture all those things are found which contayne Faith and manners Do not these words signify that one must vse great diligence to seeke out the meaning of scripture and that some of greater ability even in things belonging to Faith fynd out more than others which argues that every one fynds not out all poynts of belief aÌ„d life for which therfor an autheÌ„ticall interpreter or Tradition is necessary If it had not bene for tradition how would so many of our moderne sectaries haue believed the Mystery of the B. Trinity and some other Articles of Faith But the truth is we are often obliged to tradition when we least think thereof 206. In the meane tyme I must not omitt to say that in this First answer with falshood you joyne impertinency to divert the Reader from the state of the Question in saying Whosoever refuses to follow the practise of the Church vnderstand of all places and ages though he be thought to resist our Saviour what is that to vs who cast of no practises of the Church but such as are evidently post-nate to the tyme of the Apostles and plainly contrary to the practise of former and purer tymes for our Question is not for the present Whether you deny any vniversall practise or Doctrine of Gods church but in generall whether the traditions of the church be not to be followed and believed whether they concerne Doctrine or practise and consequently whether scripture alone contayne all Objects of Faith and it seemes by this your answer that you do not deny the certainty of the churches vniversall traditions nor that he who refuseth to follow them may be thought to resist our Saviour which is as much as we desire 207. Your last answer That the church once held the necessity of the Eucharist for infants and that therfor the church may erre is a meer vntruth and it is strang that you should so intollerably often alledg this Point and yet never so much as once offer to proue it and to alledg it as the doctrine of S. Austine without bringing one single Text out of him to make it good wheras you cannot be ignorant that Catholique divines alledg all that can be sayd out of S. Austine concerning this subject and solidly demonstrate that the actuall receyving Christs Body and Bloud in the Eucharist was never held by that holy Father to be necessary for infants and you presume too much if you thinke vs obliged to belieue you against greater and better authority than yours can be only by your ego dico I say it 208. Pag. 151. N. 42. You Object against my Argument out of this place of S. Austine Epist 118. If the church through the whole world practise any of these things to dispute whether that ought to be so done is a most insolent madness That it is a fallacy A dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter because S. Austine speakes only of matters of order and decency and from hence I inferr if the whole Church practise any thing to dispute whether that ought to be done is insolent madness As if there were no difference between any thing and any of these things 209. Answer 1. I cited S. Austine These things not any thing 2. If S. Austine did not suppose that the Catholique church cannot erre he could not say that it were a most insoleÌ„t madness to dispute against that which she practises For one might doubt whether that which she practises did not containe some errour against Faith or deviation from manners or whether that which you call order and decency or circumstance may not

in this whole chapter it is easy to answer a kind of Objection which you make Pag 134. N. 13. against those words of Charity Maintayned Part. 1. Ch. 3. N. 19. I deliver a catalogue wherin are comprised all Points y vs taught to be necessary to salvation in these words We are obliged vnder paine of damnation to belieue whatsoever the Catholique visible church of Christ proposeth as revealed by God Against this you say that in reason Charity Maintayned might thinke it enough for Protestants also to say in generall that it is sufficient for any mans salvation to believe that the scripture is true and contaynes all things necessary for salvatioÌ„ and to doe his best endeavour to find and belieue the true sense of it without delivering any particular catalogue of the fundamentalls of Faith 211. This Objection I say is easily answered out of the grounds we haue layed and proved For First we deny that scripture containes all things necessary for salvation and so one might belieue all the contents therof and yet want the belief of some necessary Points But whosoever believes scripture with the Traditions and Definitions of Gods Church is sure to belieue all and so hath a sufficient catalogue of all 2. Whosoever believes the church hath an evident and certaine Meanes to know the true Meaning of scripture in all necessary Points Not so they who belieue only scripture which needs an infallible Interpreter 3. We are sure that the church which is assisted by the holy Ghost will not faile to propose in all occasions every particular Object of Faith as necessity shall require Which as I haue often sayd scripture cannot doe taken alone And therfor our chiefest care must be to belieue the true church which we know will propose in due tyme all necessary Points of Faith whether or no we know what Points in particular are fundamentall and so this belief of the church brings with it the explicite belief of all necessary Objects as need shall be But you cannot tell whether you belieue all fundamentall Points vnless first you know what Points in particular be such and therfor Protestants hitherto haue endeavoured to assigne a particular Catalogue of them and after all you come to tell vs that it is impossible to make any such Catalogue 212. But enough of this Objection and whole Question wherin much more might haue beene sayd out of scripture Fathers and Reason which may be seene at large in Catholique VVriters My purpose was to answer Mr. Chillingworths Arguments and yet some will thinke I haue beene to long to whose judgment I would subscribe as soone as any other if I had not found that perpetually he gives so many advantages as I must either haue bene long or wholy dissembled them and by occasion given by him some things not vnprofitable in themselves haue bene declared 213. And even now I must not omitt to add a new Argument to all my former and it is this that although it were granted that scripture alone did containe evidently and expresly all particular Truths that we are bound to belieue yet this were not enough for Protestants if they will belieue this mans doctrine which is such as overthrowes the authority of scripture it self and therfor they must either renounce his Assertions or els be content to alter their pretended most common ground that scripture alone contaynes evidently and in particular all Points of Faith and so returne to belieue the authority and infallibility of Gods Church 214. The Reader I confess may well expect now that having proved Christian Faith to be infallibly true and that this infallibility cannot be setled vpon scripture alone I should according to good order declare what is that on which it must be grounded yet for perfiting this Question about the sufficiency of scripture alone I must of necessity shew out of this mans particular Tenets that if his doctrine were true scripture cannot be any Rule at all and much less a perfect Rule for matters of Faith This I will endeavour to peforme in the next Chapter CHAP III. A CONFVTATION OF MR. CHILLINGVVORTHS ERROVRS AGAINST HOLY SCRIPTVRE IT is a singular Providence of God to permit you who pretend that Scripture is a totall and not only a partiall Rule of Faith as you speake Pag 55. N. 8. to publish so gross errours against the Authority therof that if they were true it could not be so much as any Rule at all much less a totall and perfect Rule of Faith 2. First then you teach and endeavour to proue that Scripture is none of the materiall Objects of Faith but only the meanes of conveying them vnto vs as you expressly say Pag 65. N. 32. And yet in this you are still like yourself so confused that you may be alledged for both parts of contradictory Assertions For in the same place you deliver these words All the divine verityes which Christ revealed to his Apostles and the Apostles taught the Churches are contayned in Scripture That is all the materiall Objects of our Faith wherof the Scripture is none but only the meanes of conveying them vnto vs Which we belieue not finally and for it self but for the matter contained in it So that if men did belieue the doctrine contayned in Scripture it should no way hinder their salvation not to know whether there were any Scripture or no. Those barbarous nations Irenaeus speakes of were in this case and yet no doubt but they might be saved The end that God aymes at is the belief of the Gospell the Covenant between God and man the Scripture he hath provided as a meanes for this end and this also we are to belieue but not as the last Object of our Faith but as the instrument of it When therfor we subscribe to the 6. Article of the 39. of the English Protestant Church you must vnderstand that by Articles of Faith they meane the finall and vltimate Objects of it and not the meanes and instrumentall Objects 3. what confusion and obscurity is here First scripture is none of the materiall objects of our Faith but only the meanes of the conveying them to vs. Which words put an antithesis between the materiall objects of our Faith and the meanes of conveying them to vs that is scripture Then which Scripture we belieue not finally and for it self but for the matter contayned in it or as you say afterward this Scripture also we are to belieue but not as the last object of our Faith but as the instrument of it Which words seeme to signify that we are to belieue scripture though not finally and for it self and consequently that it is a materiall object of our Faith For what is a materiall object of Faith except that which is believed by Faith And then how is scripture none of the materiall objects of Faith if it be one that is believed though not for it self If a thing cannot be sayd to be a materiall object of Faith

contradictions and falshoods then are found in those Bookes of Scripture which both Catholikes and Protestants admit Now say I in this case what shall Reason doe being left to itself without any Authority beside itself The Motives and humane Testimonyes of your tradition produced in favour of Christianity are only probable as you affirme Arguments to the contrary seeme convincing and such as haue bene held for Principles among the best Philosophers as I shewed vpon another occasion and therfor Christian Religion is accounted foolishness to the Gentils and we treate of the tyme before one is a Christian who theÌ„ will oblige such a Man being in possession of his Liberty to accept vnder paine of damnation an obligation positively to belieue and to liue according to the Rules of Christian Faith only vpon fallible inducements in opposition to so great seeming evidence to the contrary 76. Neither can you in your grounds say that Miracles wrought in confirmation of Christian Religion ought to be prevalent against all seeming evidence of reason For you teach that true Miracles may be wrought to delude men for avoyding of which delusion it may seeme wisdome and safest to sticke close to the Principles of Reason wherby though he may chance to be deceyved yet he cannot be accounted rash imprudent or inexcusable 2. you must suppose that Miracles and all other Motives end in probability alone for if they surpass probability you grant Christian Faith to be infallible and then the difficulty still remaynes how one can be obliged to imbrace meere probabilityes and such as you confess are not able to rayse our mynd to a higher and more firme assent than they themselves are against and as I may say in despight of seeming evidence of Reason opposed only by such probabilityes 3. This Answer is not pertinent to our present Question which is not to treate how farr one may be obliged by Miracles either evident by sense to those who see them wrought or asserted and delivered by an authority believed to be infallible as we Catholikes belieue Gods church to be but we speak of Miracles wrought in great distance of tyme and place from vs commended and believed only by your fallible tradition which therfor leaves this doubt whether one can be obliged to preferr fallible humane tradition confessedly insufficient to cause a certaine assent before seeming evidence and certainty of naturall Reason And it seemes easy to demonstrate that Protestants if they will be constant to their owne assertions and proceedings must yield to that seeming evidence of Reason For it cannot be denyed without great obstinacy and impudency that in all ages there haue bene wrought frequent great and evident Miracles by the professours of the Catholique Religion recorded by men eminent for learning wisdome and Sanctity who would be credited in whatsoever case or cause of highest concernment and testifyed not by one or a few or many single persons but by whole Communityes Cittyes and Countryes by meanes of which Miracles Infidels haue beene and are at this day converted from the worship of Idols to know the true God and whom he hath sent Jesus Christ and yet notwithstanding all these Miracles which are able to convert Pagans Protestants will not conceiue themselves obliged to belieue that such Miracles were wrought or that those Articles of our Faith in confirmation wherof they were wrought are true And why Because they seeme contrary to naturall Reason as the Reall Presence Transubstantiation c Seing theÌ„ they reject Catholique Doctrines confirmed by Miracles in regard of that seeming contrariety to Reason how can they pretend Reason to receaue Scripture and the contents therof for example the Misteryes of the B. Trinity the Incarnation of the Son of God the Creation of all things out of nothing the Resurrection of the Dead and other such Articles which they make shew to belieue and are no less yea much more seeming contrary to reason then those doctrines of Catholikes which they reject Wherfor our finall Conclusion must be that to deny an infallible Authority both to propose Scripture and deliver infallible Traditions is to vndermine and ouerthrow Christian Religion 77. 7. Since Scripture may be corrupted as some haue bene lost and in particular Protestants affirme even the Vulgate Translation which anciently was vsed in the Church to be corrupted as also the Greek and Hebrew your Tradition cannot secure vs what in particular is or is not corruted because it delivers only as it were in gross such or such Bookes but cannot with certainty informe vs of all corruptions additions varietyes and alterations as occasion shall require Thus some both Catholikes and Protestanis teach that Additions haue been made even to Pentateuch others assirme the same of the Bookes of Josue Kings and Hieremy and the like Additions might and perhaps haue been made to other Bookes at least we cannot be sure of the contrary if we consult only your fallible Tradition neither can we know by it that such Additions proceeded from the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost And as Protestants are wont to say that a very great number of Catholique Doctrines which they vntruly call errours crept in by little and little as you also say Pag 91. N. 101. so what certainty can they haue that corruptions in Scriptures yea whole Apocriphall Bookes may not in tyme haue gained the repute of being Canonicall As for corruptions in Scripture you speak dangerously in saying Pag 141. N. 27. As for the infallibility of the Church it is so farr from being a proof of the Scriptures incorruption that no proof can be pretended for it but incorrupted places of Scripture which yet are as subject to corruption as any other and more likly to haue bene corrupted if it had bene possible then any other and made to speake as they do for the advantage of those meÌ„ whose ambitioÌ„ it hath bene a long tyme to bring all vnder their authority And afterward I would aske how shall I be assured that the Scriptures are incorrupted in these plaâ—es which arealledged to proue the infallibility of the Church seing it is possible and not altogeather improbable that these men which desire to be thought infallible wheÌ„ they had the government of all things in their owne hands may haue altered them for their purpose Do not these words giue scope for the enemyes of Christian Religion to object that we cannot be certaine of any Text of Scripture whether or no it be incorrupted For as you say it is not altogeather improbable that we haue altered some places for our purpose of proving the infallibility of the Church so you may say we haue done the same in other places to prove other Points of our belief and the like may be sayd of all others who teach different Doctrines that they will incline to corrupt Scripture in favour of their severall Sects Neither can we haue any certainty whether this which may be done hath not bene practised and

haue it a necessary introduction to Faith I do not see how you can say this seing you profess to disallow S. Austines saying as we haue seene a little before That Whatsoever was practised or held by the vniversall Church of his tyme must needs haue come from the Apostles and how can that be a necessary introduction to Faith which either contaynes a falshood or is confessedly subject to errour as de facto you Protestants proclaime that the whole Church before Luther was fallen into grosse and as you speake damnable errours and you also say Pag 148. N. 36. An Authority subject to errour can be no firme or stable foundation of my belief in any thing and if it were in any thing then this Authority being one and the same in all proposalls I should haue the same reason to belieue all that I haue to belieue one and therfore must either doe vnreasonably in believing any one thing vpon the sole warrant of this Authority or vnreasonably in not believing all things equally warranted by it And therfor you expressly conclude in these words we belieue Canonicall Books not vpon the Authority of the present Church but vpon vniversall TraditioÌ„ But then how is that true which we haue heard you say The Church is though not aÌ„ certaine Foundation and proofe of my Faith yet a necessary introduction to it For seing Scripture is the certaine foundation and proofe of your Faith and that you belieue the Scripture not for the private spirit or other criteria as some Protestants doe nor vpon the Authority of the present Church but vpon vniversall Tradition it followes evidently that Vniversall Tradition of the Church is the certain Foundation and proofe of your Faith And this you cannot deny if you remember your owne Doctrine That men may belieue and be saved without Scripture but not without the Church according to your owne saying I must learne of the Church or of some part of the Church or I cannot know any thing Fundamentall or not Fundamentall and in particular that the Scripture is the Word of God Therfor say I the Church is a more necessary not only introduction to Faith but also Foundation and proofe of it then Scripture can be but if you will persist in this your Assertion that the Church as you take it for a fallible aggregation of men is not the Foundation of Faith and that Scripture both in truth and according to your owne Principles must be receyved from the Church what remaynes but that the Church must be infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost in all matters belonging to Religion 91. Lastly to ptoue how easily men may be deceyved vnless they rely vpon some infallible Authority may appeare by what happened to myself who some yeares agoe falling vpon a wicked Book vnder a false name of Dominicus Lopez Societatis Jesu about the Authority of Scripture and as printed in a Catholique cittie it came to my minde that in tyme the Book might come to be accepted for such as the title professes My thoughts proved Propheticall For since that tyme a Catholique learned Writer cites it for such though vpon better information he declares afterward in the same Work that the Book was written by an Heretique and printed among Heretiques 92. And here I will end this Chapter having proved divers wayes that according to severall Doctrines of yours Scripture cannot be any Rule of Faith and much less a perfect one although we should falsely suppose that it did contayne evidently and in particular all Points necessary to be believed Wherfor it remaynes that seing Scripture alone cannot be a sufficient and totall Rule of Faith we declare what that Meanes is Which we will endeavour to performe in the next Chapter CHAPTER IV. A LIUING INFALLIBLE IVDG IS NECESSARY FOR DECIDING CONTROVERSYES IN MATTERS OF FAITH THE Premises set downe in the precedent Chapters did Virtually and implicitely containe and leaue it easy for Vs to infer explicitely and expressly as a conclusion the Title of this Chapter For since Christian Faith is the Gift of God and infallible since Scripture alone doth not evidently containe all necessary Points of Faith since your particular way of receiving Scripture as the word of God cannot be sufficient to erect an Act of infallible Faith no nor can be any Rule of Faith and much less a perfect Rule it followes necessarily that there must alwayes be extant a Living Uisible Judg which can be no other but the Church of God against which our B. Saviour promised that the gates of Hell should not prevaile This Deduction is so cleare that you are forced to acknowledg it Pag 326. N. 4. Where you affirme That Catholikes would faine haue the Doctrine of the infallibility of Christian Faith true that there might be necessity of our Churches infallibility Seing then both Catholikes and Protestants and al Christians firmely belieue Christian Faith to be infallible and that this cannot be defended without believing the infallibility of the church it followes that we must either acknowledg in Her such an infallibility or tell Christians that for ought they know all that they belieue of God of Christ of Scripture of the Resurrection of the Dead of Heaven of Hell of all the Articles of Christian Religion may proue no better than a dreame or an imposture or fiction Blessed be the infinite Wisdome and Goodness of God who destroyes the Wisdom of the Wise and the prudence of the prudent 1. Cor. 1.19 This Man was picked out among all the men in England to impugne the Roman Church his Book was approved by three chiefest men of an University and was excessively cryed vp by his friends neither did any Writer ever shew greater malice against the Roman Church than hee But with what success No other but this That Protestants must either deny with this man all Certainty of Scripture and Christianity or els acknowledg not the Scripture but the Church to be Judg of Controversyes in matters coÌ„cerning religioÌ„ that is they must either renouÌ„ce Christianity by denying the infallibility of Christian Faith or abandon Protestancy by condeÌ„ning their capitall doctrine of the fallibility of the Church and sufficiency of Scripture alone and so must returne to belieue and obey the Decrees and Definitions of Generall Councells and with them condemne the Heresyes which now themselves maintayne This then may be my first Argument to proue the infallibility of Gods Church and indeed this alone might suffice with Christians yet 2. 2. This Truth of the necessity of an infallible Judg appeares also by what hath bene sayd about Translations Additions Detractions Corruptions and loss of some Scriptures which would leaue vs in doubt and perplexity vnless we believed an infallible Authority able to supply all such defects and provide for all events 3. 3. Out of Charity Maintayned Part 1. Pag 64. N. 19. There must be some Judg fit for all sorts of Persons learned and vnlearned which the ignorant may

Maintayned it followes that they remaine still in force and proue this most necessary Truth Scripture alone is not a sufficient Rule of Faith but Tradition and a living Judg are necessary to determine Matters belonging to Faith and Religion And whosoever will take an other way will haue reason and God grant it proue not too late to tremble at those words of Uincent Lirinens contra Heres Cap 23. concerning Origen Dum parvi pendit antiquam Christianae Religionis simplicitatem dum Ecclesiasticas Traditiones Veterum magisteria contemnens quaedam Scripturarum capitula novo more interpretatur meruit vt de se quoque Ecclesiae Dei diceretur Si surrexerit in medio tui Propheta Et paulÃ² post Non audies inquit verba Prophetae illius While he despises the ancient simplicity of Christian Religion while contemning Ecclesiasticall Traditions and magistery of the Ancient he interprets some places of Scripture in a new manner he deserved that it should be also sayd to the Church of him If there shall rise in middes of thee a Prophet And a litle after thou shalt not heare the words of that Prophet God grant that every one heare this wholsome advise The neglect therof alone hath beene cause of Schismes and heresyes in ancient Tymes and never more than in these lamentable dayes of ours 101. But because you do without end object that we cannot proue the infallibility of the Church without running round in a Circle proving the Church by Scripture and Scripture by the Church which is in effect to proue the Church by the Church and the Scripture by Scripture I will in the next Chapter endeavour to confute and shew the vanity of this so often repeated Objection CHAP V. IN WHAT MANNER AND ORDER WE PROVE THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHVRCH 1. I Say in what manner and order For we having already proved the Infallibility of the Church inremaines only now to declare how we can do it without falling into a Circle proving the Scripture by the Church and the Church by the Scripture which you object without end though if you be a man of any solid learning it is impossible you could be ignorant of the Answer which Catholike Writers giue to this common objectioÌ„ We grant that with different sorts of persons we must proceed in a different way If one belieue not the Church or Notes proprietyes and prerogatives belonging to Her and yet belieue Scripture to be the Word of God to such a man the Church may be proved by Scripture as contrarily to him who believes the Infallibility of the Church it may be demonstrated in vertue of Her Authority what Scripture is Canonicall and what is the true sense therof by informing him what Canon the Church receyves and what Interpretation she gives Thus in regard Protestants deny the Infallibility of the Church but pretend to belieue Scripture to be the Word of God to them we proue by Scripture the perpetuall Existence Vnity Authority Sanctity Propagation efficacy Infallibility and other Propertyes of the Church But speaking per se and ex natura rei the Church is proved independently of Scripture which we receyue from the Church as you grant which was in Being before the Scripture as all must yield and yet at that tyme there wanted not meanes to find the Church For none could haue believed the Scripture to be Infallible vnless first they believed the Writers to be infallible and many were converted to the true Church before they could belieue the Scripture as not extant at that tyme. So that all must grant that there be Meanes and Arguments wherby some men may gaine such credit as others may and ought vnder payne of damnation to belieue that they are Persons to be accepted as Messengers of God and Teachers of Divine Doctrine 2. Thus Moyses the Prophets our Saviour Christ the Apostles all Apostolicall men by whom God hath converted Nations to the true Faith and knowledg of Him did proue themselves true Preachers by many effectuall and most certaine inducements independently of the Old or New Testament yea S. Irenaeus relates as you expressly grant that some Nations were made Christians without any knowledg of the Scripture As therfore our Lord and Saviour Christ his Aposties and all they who afterward converted the world to Christian Religion proved themselves to be sent by God being verifyed of them He that heareth you heareth me and he that despiseth you despiseth me and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me by Miracles Sanctity of life Efficacy of Doctrine admirable repentance of sinners Chang of manners Conversion of all sorts of Persons of all Countryes through the whole world and this to a Faith Profession and Religion that proposes many Points as necessary to be believed aboue and seemingly contrary to humane Reason and against mens naturall inclinations togeather with the consideration of the constancy of Martyrs Abnegation of Confessours Purity of Uirgins Fortitude even of the youngest Age and weaker sexe and other admirable conspicuous Notes and strong inforcements to gaine an absolute and vndoubted assent to whatsoever they should propose in Matters concerning Faith and Religion So the Church of God by the like still continued Arguments and Notes of many great and manifest Miracles Sanctity Sufferings Uictory over all sorts of enemyes Conversion of Infidels all which Notes are dayly more and more conspicuous and convincing and shall be encreasing the longer the world shall last and it seemes God in his wisdome and Goodness hath blessed vs very particularly since the appearing of Luther and other moderne Heretikes for the greater confusion of them and glory of his Church and the same I say of the name Catholique which is continually more verifyed by accession of new Countreyes as also that of succession of Bishops from the Apostles particularly in the Sea of Rome Vnity Stability Perpetuity The Church I say by these and the like evident Arguments proves that she deserves credit as the first Doctours and Preachers did and consequently that her Doctrine and Definitions in Matters concerning Faith are certainly true And we may with all truth avouch that whosoever either denyes these Notes of Miracles and the rest to be found in the Catholique Roman Church or despises them as insufficient opens an inevitable way for Jewes Turks Gentils and all enemyes of Christian Religion to deny the truth therof which to them must be proved by such Arguments as are evidently found in the Roman Church and in no other Congregation Moreover as the Apostles and Apostolicall men were not believed to be Infallible because they wrote Scripture but contrarily their Writings or Scriptures are believed to be infallibly true because the Writers were preendued with Infallibility which Infallibility was proved by Miracles and other Arguments so the Church is believed infallible in force of the same Arguments abstracting from any proofe drawen from Scripture wherby we are uery sure not to run in a

you would spend tyme in such toyes The maine Question being whether the Church or Scripture be Judge or Rule of Controversyes in Faith Charity Maintayned N. 19. proves that the Scripture cannot be such a Judge because it is not intelligible to all that is to vnlearned persons as the Church is and therfore inferrs that not the Scripture but the Church must be Judge And is not that a good consequence Besides you say that Charity Maintayned in the beginning of his N. 19. which you impugne vndertooke only to proue that Scripture is not a Judge Therfore you grant that he proved all that he vndertooke in that place though he added by way of supererogation that the Church must be that Judge which was the chiefe thing he intended to proue in this Chapter and which followes evidently of the Scriptures not being Judge it being supposed that either the Scripture or Church must be A grievous Crime in Charity Maintayned to proue a pertinent and most important Truth 31. The words of the Apostle Rom 14.5 Let every one abound in his owne sense are prophanely applyed by you as if every one might follow his owne sense for the interpretation of Scripture which delivers Divine Revelations and you confess that to disbelieue objects so revealed is damnable in it selfe S. Paul speakes of things indifferent and which at that tyme were neither commanded not absolutly forbidden to the Jewes in the Old Law which then was mortua but not mortifera dead but not deadly 32. Your N. 104. till the N. 106. inclusiuÃ¨ haue beene answered at large You suppose N. 108. and N. 113. that to find out the true Church every one must be able to examine the succession of visible Professours of the same doctrine through all Ages or els to examine the Church by the conformity of her doctrine with the doctrine of the first Age as you speak N. 108. Both which we deny and affirme that the Catholique Church of every Age carryes along with her so many conspicuous Notes of the true Church and all her enemies appeare with so many Markes of Errour that no man who seriously thinkes of his Eternall Happyness can chuse but clearly see the difference and behold a way so cleare ita vt stulti non errent per eam This answer is solid and evident for vs. But you who teach that we receaue Scripture from the vniversall Tradition of the Churches of all Ages and not for the Testimony of the present Church how will you enable all men to examine whether the Scripture and much more whether every Booke and parcell of Scripture hath bene delivered by all Churches even till you arriue to the Primitiue Church and by it include the Apostles Wherin we may vse these your owne words N. 108. This tryall of necessity requires a great sufficiency of knowledge of the monuments of Christian Antiquity which no vnlearned can haue because he that hath it cannot be vnlearned You say also How shall he an vnlearned man possibly be able to know whether the Church of Rome hath had a perpetuall Succession of visible Professors which held always the same doctrine which they now hold without holding any thing to the contrary vnless he hath first examined what was the doctrine of the Church in the first Age what in the second and so forth And whether this be not a more difficult worke than to stay at the first Age and to examine the Church by the conformity of Her Doctrine with the Doctrine of the first Age every man of ordinary vnderstanding may Iudge But I would know how one can examine the Church by the conformity of her Doctrine with the Doctrine of the first Age except by the monuments and Tradition of all the Ages which intervene betwixt the first Age and his which no vnlearned can doe because he that can doe it cannot be vnlearned And so it seemes you will haue vnlearned men despaire of all meanes to find the true Faith Church and salvation Will you haue them passe as it were persaltum immediately from this present Age to the first or Primitiue Age of the Church without the helpe of writings or other meanes of the middle Ages What remedy therfore can there be to overcome these difficultyes except an infallible beliefe that the Vniversall Church of every Age cannot erre And that otherwise all will be brought to vncertaintyes euery man of ordinary vnderstanding may Judge 32. For Answer to your N. 110. till the 122. inclusiuÃ¨ I say No man indued with reason will deny the vse of Reason even in matters belonging to Faith But we deny that Reason is not to yield to Authority when assisted by Gods Grace it hath once shewed vs some infallible Guide and Authority to which all must submitt and so as it were cease to be different particular men and be in a manner one vnderstanding guided by one visible infallible Judge for want wherof Protestants remaine irreconciliably divided into as many opinions as they are men of different vnderstanding and will yea one man is divided from himself as he alters his Opinions Reason then may dispose or manuduct vs to Faith but the Object into which Faith is resolved is the Divine Revelation at which Reason did point and to which it must submitt Otherwise Faith were but Opinion which even Dr Potter affirmes to be a good consequence And it should not be the Gift of God but the Act of it should be produced by the force of nature and the Habit be an acquired and not infused Habit which is evidently against Scripture as I proved in the Introduction I wonder how you dare alledge Scripture as you do as if the places which you alledg N. 116. for trying of Spirits did signify that we are to try them by humane Reason and not by the Doctrine of the Church and Holy Scripture interpreted by Her But in this you shew yourselfe to haue drunke the very quintessence of Socinianisme 33. Charity Maintayned had Reason to say N. 29. What good states men would they be who should ideate or fancy such a Commonwealth as these men haue framed to themselves a Church And N. 22. What confusion to the Church what danger to the Commonwealth this denyall of the Authority of the Church may bring I leaue to the consideration of any judicious indifferent man For if it be free for every one to thinke as he pleases who will hinder him from vttering his thoughts in matters which he conceives belong to Faith and to conforme his practise to his thoughts and words And by that meanes sowe discord in the Church and sedition in the Commonwealth And therfore what you say N. 122. that men only interpret for themselves is not alwaies true but their selfe interpretation may indeed redound to the hurt of other both Private aÌ„d Publicke Persons and Communityes if their thoughts chance to pitch vpon some object which may be cause of mischiefe 34. Howsoever N. 118.

in those Objects in which they may chance inculpably to disagree You define the Religion of Protestants to be the Bible and that all who belieue all plaine Texts therof are true Protestants and do agree in matters of Faith and therfore must agree among themselves in such Points Now I aske whether you will define matters of Faith to be those wherin Protestants agree If you say yes then I take your owne words and say this is ridiculous and as if we should say Protestants agree in those things wherin they agree If you answer No but that matters of Faith are those which are clearly contained in Scripture whether or no Protestants or any other belieue them then you both answer and confute your owne Objection and turne it against yourselfe You say it is ridiculous to say we agree in matters of Faith and are all agreed that only those things wherin we agree are matters of Faith And yet you say Protestants if they were wise would do so too which is to say Protestants if they were wise would do that which you say is ridiculous Nay according to this your wholsome advise if they will be wise they must not regard what indeed is matter of Faith as being revealed by God but only that they procure to agree among themselves and then say that they agree in matters of Faith which is to say they agree in those things wherin they do agree which is the thing you object against vs. Neverthelesse I know not well by what Logike you will inferr that we speake as if one would say we agree in those things wherin we agree vnless perhaps by some such wild Syllogisme as this All matters of Faith are those wherin we agree but we agree in all matters of Faith Therfore we agree in all those things wherin we agree as if you say every maÌ„ is a reasonable creature but every reasonable creature is a man Therfore every maÌ„ is a maÌ„ If you would to the purpose you might say whatsoever we agree in is a matter of Faith but we agree in the belief of the Trinity c. Therfore the beliefe of the Trinity c. is a matter of Faith But howsoever this be we vtterly deny that definition of Faith and leaue it to Protestants that they may be wise according to the wisdom of your advise and definition 3. To the rest of this N. 5. as also to your N. 6. I answer that you would gladly divert vs to particular disputes But it is sufficient to say in generall That whatsoever is knowne to be proposed by the Church as revealed by God is a Point of Faith in respect of him to whom it is so proposed Neither it is pertinent to this present Worke to dispute in what subject infallibility resides Let me now tell you that which may suffice for the present that those three meanes of agreement which you mention the Pope A Councell with him The vniversall Church haue never yet nor ever shall nor ever can be found to disagree And it is no fayre dealing in you to omitt what Ch ma hath concerning this matter Part 2. Chapt 5. N. 15. and 16. where he answers the objection aÌ„d discovers the falsifications of Potter in citing Catholique Authors about this point But to proue that the vniversall Church cannot be infallible or a meanes of agreement you say N. 6. And indeed what way of ending Controversyes can this be when either part may pretend that they are part of the Church and they receiue not the decree therfore the whole Church hath not received it Answer I know no man hath greater obligation to answer your Objection than yourselfe who teach that by vniversall Tradition we know Scripture to be the word of God For if one should say what way of determining what Scripture is the Word of God can this be when if any deny it they may pretend that they are part of the Church and they receiue not such or such Scriptures therfore the whole Church or vniversall Tradition hath not received them If you answer that the number or Authority of a few is not considerable in comparison or opposition to all the rest nor ought to prevaile against the contrary suffrages as you speake Pag 68. N. 43. I answer First that if the Church be fallible it is not the number but the waight of reason which ought to prevaile And secondly you cannot but see how easy it is for vs to say the same That it imports not if some who are not of consideration in respect of all the rest disagree from them But the truth is your Objection is of no force vnless you helpe it out with your wonted refuge of begging the Question and supposing the Church not to be infallible For if she be infallible whosoever oppose Her decrees and Definitions by doing so become Heretikes and cease to be members of the Church nor can preteÌ„d that they are part of the Church and they receiue not the decree Therfore the whole Church hath not received it As I sayd aboue that Schismatiques cannot pretend to be members of the Church after their separation And this your subtility is directly against Dr. Potter Pag 57. saying Whosoever either wilfully opposes any Catholique Verity maintayned by this Church or the Catholique visible Church as doe Heretikes or perversly drvides himselfe from the Catholique Communion is doe Schismatikes the condition of both is damnable The Scriptures and Fathers cited here by the Mistaker proue this and no more and therfore prone nothing against Protestants who never denyed it Now why do you not aske your client Potter How any man can oppose the whole Church or depart from Her Communion seing they who oppose and depart may pretend that they are part of the Church and do not oppose or depart from themselves and therfore Protestants who the Doctour saith never denyed it must deny it if they will belieue you or you must deny yourselfe if you will belieue them Your N. 7.8 are meere words without any proofe and deserue no other Answer 4. Your whole N. 9. is plainly impertinent Charity Maintayned Part 1. Chap 3. N. 1. declared how Protestants are wont to abuse the distinction of Points Fundamentall and not Fundamentall to many purposes of theirs and among the rest to this That if you object their bitter and cotinued discords in matters of Faith without any meanes of agreement they instantly tell you they differ in points not Fundamentall In which words it is cleare that Ch. Ma. intends only to shew what vse Protestants make of the sayd distinction and that he speakes truth you neither do nor can deny the thing being notorious But you decline the matter and say I desire you to tell me whether they do so or doe not so that is whether they differ in points only not Fundamentall or do nor differ in them If they doe so I hope you will not find fault with the Answer But your hope

Churches Foundaâ—ions Now such they could not be without freedome from etrour in all those things which they delivered constantly is certaine revealed truths And to proue that the Apostles are the Foundation of the Church you alledge N. 30 S. Paul saying Built vpon the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Fphes 2.20 43. I reply First The Church must be led into such an all as is necessary to judge of controversyes which yourself Pag 35. N. 7. confess to require an vniversall infallibility Secondly seing Scripture containes not all points necessary to be believed the Church must be indued with infallibility for such points Otherwise we could haue no certainty concerning them And if once you grant her infallible for Points not evideÌ„t in Scripture you cannot deny her an Infallibility derived not from evidence of Scripture but from the assistance of the Holy Ghost And as you say the Apostles were vniversally infallible because the Church was builded on them so every Christian is builded vpon the Church and for that cause she must be vniversally infallible Thirdly We are not saied to be builded vpon the writings of the Apostles or Scripture but vpon the Apostles who were the Foundation of the Church before they wrote any thing by their preaching and verbum traditum Tradition So that indeed this Text Ephes 2.20 makes for vs and proves that we are builded on the vnwritten word and might haue beene so though no Scripture had bene written Fourthly you still mistake the Question and seeke diversions but never goe about to proue by some evident Text of Scripture that the infallibility of the Apostles may not be limited to Fundamentall Points as your restraine to such Points the generall Promises of infallibility made to the Church in holy Scripture and limit the word Foundation to the writings of the Apostles which I haue shewed to be a manifestly vntrue limitation S. Paul 1. Tim 3. avouches the Church to be the Pillar and Ground of Truth and yet you deny Her to be vniversally infallible How then can you proue by the word Foundation which cansignify no more than the pillar and Ground of Truth that the Apostles cannot erre in any Point but the Church may Yea even to make this place Ephes 2.20 cleare and convincing in favour of the Apostles the authority of the Church is necessary and the letter alone will not suffice if you will regard the doctrine or authority of some learned prime Protestant And therfore Fiftly you haue cause to reslect on what Cornelius a Lapide vpon this place saieth That Beza and not he alone interprets vpon the Foundation of the Apostles to signify Christ who is the Foundation of the Apostles Prophets and the whole Church and he Beza saieth that it is Antichristian to put an other foundation For no man can put an other Foundation beside that which is put Iesus Christ. If this exposition be admitted the saied Text Ephes 2.20 will not proue that the Apostles but only that our Saviour the Foundation of the Apostles and of the Church was infallible nor will the stability of a Foundation expressed in this place of Scripture belong to the Apostles And albeit indeed this interpretation be not true yet to you it ought not to seeme evidently false being the Opinion of so great a Rabby as also because it is very agreable to the manner which Potestants hold in impugning Catholik Doctrine when for example they argue The Scripture saieth We haue an Advocate Jesus Christ Therfore Saynts cannot be our Advocates though in an infinitly lower degree than our Saviour is Especially if we reflect that it is saied of our Saviour with a Negatiue or exclusiue particle No man can put an other Foundation wheras in those words we haue an Advocate there is only an affirmation that Christ is our Advocate but no negation that any other is Other examples might be given in this kind if this were a place for it We do therfore grant that the Apostles were Foundations of the Church and that they received Revelations immediately from our Saviour and the Church from them so that as I saied she depends on them not they on Her and you wrong vs while N. 30. in your first Sillogisme you speak in such manner as the Reader will conceiue that we make the infallibility of the Church equall in all respects to that of the Apostles the contrary wherof all Catholikes belieue and proue I omit to obserue that you take occasion to descant vpon these words as well which are not found in Charity Maintayned though for the thing itselfe he might haue vsed them Your N. 31. and 32. haue beene already confuted at large and the words of Dr. Stapleton considered and defended with small credit to Dr. Potter and you 44 You say N. 34. he teaches the promises of Infallibility made to the Apostles to be verifyed in the Church but not in so absolute a manner Now what is opposed to absolute but limited or restrained 45. Answer first our Question is not what Dr. Potter saied but what he did or could proue and in particular I say it cannot be proved by any evident Text of Scripture that the words which he confesses to be verifyed in the Church are limited to fundamentall points in respect of her and not as they are referred to the Apostles Secondly wheras you say what is opposed to absolute but limited or restrained I reply absolute may be taken in diverse senses according to the matter argument or subject to which it is applied and therfore though some tyme it may be opposed to limited yet not alwayes Do not you N. 33. oppose to absolute a conditionall moderate secondary sense which being epithetons much different one from an other giue vs to vnderstand that you are too resolute in asking what is opposed to but limited seing more things than one may be opposed to it What Logician will not tell you that in Logick not Limited but Relatiue is opposed to absolute And we may also say that the infallibility of the Apostles was absolute that is independent and the infallibility of the Church dependent as the Effect depends on the Cause and so is not absolute in that sense but hath a Relation of dependance to the infallibility of the Apostles as to its Cause which particular Relation the Apostles haue not to the Church 46. You say also N. 34. that though it were supposed that God had obliged himself by promise to giue his Apostles infallibility only in things necessary to salvation nevertheless it is vtterly inconsequent that he gaue them no more or that we can haue no assurance of any farther assistance that he gaue them Especially when he himself both by his word and by his works hath assured vs that he did assist them farther 47. Answer I know not to what purpose or vpon what occasion you vtter these words Only I am sure that they containe both a manifest falshood and contradiction to

containes aâ— necessary Points of meere belief Now whosoever ponders those Premisses with attention will see that your multitude and Aggregation of Syllogismes haue only this that they are more difficult to be vnderstood than answered 10. Your N. 24. is answered by only reading the whole N. 9. of Ch Ma you cite it N. 10. For it will be found that you are grounded only vpon your falsification of his words when you object No proposition is implied in any other which is not deducible from it But where doth Ch Ma say the contrary He expressly speaks N. 9. of points which by evident and necessary consequence may be deduced from Articles both clearly and particularly contained in the Creed and I hope you will not say that every proposition implied in an other is deducible from it by evident and necessary consequence 11. You vrge The Article of the Catholique Church wherin you will haue all implied implies nothing to any purpose of yours vnless out of meere favour we will grant the sense of it to be that the Church is infallible and that yours is the Church Answer Independently of the Creed we proue the infallibility of the Church and we must not gather it at the first from the meaning of this Article but we learne the sense of this Article from the Church pre-believed to be infallible And seing you profess to receiue the Creed and even Scripture from the Tradition of the Church you cannot be certaine that the contents therof are true vnless first you belieue the Church to be infallible Besides by the Church all ChristiaÌ„s vnderstaÌ„d a Congregation of Faithfull people capable of salvation and yourself teach that every errour in Faith vnrepented brings damnation How then can it be saied that the whole vniversall Church can erre in Faith But you doe very inopportunely talk whether Ours be the Church seing we speak only of the Church in generall abstracting for the present from that other Question though it be euident that if there were any true Church which delivered to Christians the Scripture and Creed when Luther appeared it must be the Roman and such as agreed with her 12. You goe forward and say to Charity Maintayned The Apostles intention was by your owne confession particularly to deliuer in the Creed such Articles of belief as were fittest for those tymes Now to deliver particularly and to deliver only implicitely to be delivered particularly in the Creed and only to be reduâ—â—ble to it I suppose are repugnances hardly reconciliable Answer I know not well what nor whom you can pretend to impugne For Ch Ma never saied that there are no Truths particularly expresed in the Creed yea N. 5. and 8. he named divers in particular expreseb in it but he only affirmed that all are not so expressed in partilular but some implicitely others reductiuÃ¨ as he declares in those two Numbers Now that some things should be delivered particularly and other some only implicitely and other only reductively can be no irreconciliable repugnance seing in all good Logick repugnance must be in order to the same thing as it is no repugnance that one writer should procede honestly and speak to the purpose and an other doe quite the contrary 13. For answer to your N. 25.26.27.28.29 I haue attentively considered and compared with my observations all the Authorityes or sentences which you alledg out of Catholique Writers and find them to containe no difficulty not precluded and answered by those observations And who knowes not that all Catholiques belieue that all declarations of Generall Councells concerning the Creed and all other points of Faith are necessarily to be belieued to say nothing of the other observations But I must be still intreating the Reader to reade in Charity Maintayned his N. 10.11.12.13.14.15 which you confusedly huddle vp togeather 14. In your N. 30. you grant as much as can be desired by vs to proue that to alledg the Creeds containing all necessary and Fundamentall points is impertinent to make either both Catholiques and Protestants or all Protestants capable of salvation though they belieue the Creed yet differ in other revealed Truths Thus you write in order to the N. 10. of Char Ma Neither is there any discord betweene this Assertion of your doctors and their holding themselves obliged to believe all the Points which the Councell of Trent defines For Protestants and Papists may both hold that all points of belief necessary to be knowen and believed are summed vp in the Creed And yet both the one and the other think themselves bound to belieue whatsoever other points they either know or belieue to be revealed by God For the Articles which are necessary to be knowen that they are revealed by God may be very few and yet those which are necessary to be believed when they are revealed and knowen to be so may be very many These words shew that Prorestants do but delude poore soules when they tell them that all Protestants haue the substance of Faith because they belieue the Creed when in the meane tyme they disagree in other points revealed by God and yourself say els where that as things now stand there is the like necessity to belieue all points contained in Scripture as well not Fundamentall as Fundamentall And therfore it can litle availe Protestants to agree in the Creed which yet they do not if we regard the sense and not the meere sound of the words while they disagree in so many other points belonging to Faith The Truth is This grant and declaration of yours might well haue freed me from answering all the rest which you haue in this Chapter and whatsoever els you proue or disproue cannot be against the substance of that which Charity Maintayned affirmed in his fourth Chapter which treates this Question about the Creed 15. You pretend in your N. 31. to answer the N. 11. of Charity Maintayned but you omitt his discourse about the Decalogue of the commandements to shew a simili or paritate that it is not necessary that the Creed coÌ„taine all necessary points seing what is not expressed in it may be knowen by other meanes It will not be amiss to set downe the words of Ch Ma which are Who is ignorant that Summaries Epitomees and the like briefe Abstracts are not intended to specify all particulars of that science or subject to which they belong For as the Creed is sayd to containe all points of Faith so the decalogue comprehends all Articles as I may terme them which concerne Charity and good life and yet this cannot be so vnderstood as if we were disobliged from performance of any duty or the eschewing of any vice vnlesse it be expressed in the ten Commandements For to omitt the precepts of receaving Sacraments which belong to practise or manners and yet are not contained in the Decalogue there are many sinnes even against the Law of nature and light of reason which are not contained in the ten Commandements

private persons and as representing the Church musâ— be differently vnderstood c. 12. n. 80. p. 767. and seq Their authority must be believed before we can belieue what they spake or wrote c. 3. n. 22. p. 294. n. 31. p. 300. passim Apostles for the essentiall are and alwayes must be in the Church c. 12. n. 99. p. 782. All the Apostles commanded to preach none to write c. 2. n. 25. p. 131. The Apostles being the salt of the earth atheistically explicated by I hil c. 12. n. 91. p. 777. Apprehension taken for the first operation of the vnderstanding agrees not to Faith which is an assent or judgment taken in generall as knowledge often is it agrees to Faith as knowledge doth c. 15. n. 4. p. 886 887. How argumeÌ„ts of credibility may be elevated to produce certainty and in what sense they are the word aÌ„d voyce of God c. 1. n. 79.80 p. 95.96 Attrition without absolution insufficient for salvation VVhat conditions it must haue to obtaine absolution c. 8. n. 3. p. 597. seq S. Austin rejected and alleadged by I hil for the selfe same poynt and shewed to be adversary to I hil c. 2. n. 193. p. 265. and seq His advise for the vnderstanding of Scripture n. 201. p. 269. his sense of Tradition and of the practice of the Church n. 209. p. 274. c. 11. n. 26. p. 667. and seq VVhy he is an eyesoare to the Socinians c. 7. n. 123. p. 544. He is defended against I hil his forgery c. 12. n. 57. p. 749. and seq c. 2. n. 207. p. 273. alibi saepius B. Baptisme acknowledged by Protestants neâ—essary and as required by Scripture and Antiquity c. 4. n. 60. p. 389. and seq It is to be given to children by the authority and practice of the Church ibidem p. 389. and seq The difference and absurdityes amongst Protestants concerning Baptisme c. 2. n. 39. p. 146. seq It is validly administred by Iewe or Gentill if they intend to doe what Christians doe c. 4. n. 42. p. 377. 378. Baptisme in tho Doctrine of divers Protestants pardons all sinnes past present and to come c. 2. n. 85. p. 187. Beatificall vision if Faith be naturall and only probable is also naturall and may be a meere fiction c. 1. n. 113. p. 118. 119. To belieue only that Iesus is the sonne of God is acknowledged even by heretiques insufficient for salvation c. 2. n. 169. p. 245. 246. VVho believes not one poynt sufficiently propounded can haue no supernaturall Faith about any other c. 11. n. 13. p. 658. c. 15. n. 43. p. 922. and seq This proved by Heretiques and Catholiques ibidem Not to belieue any revealed truth sufficiently propounded is a mortall sinne n. 49. p. 927. I believe not the speaker wheÌ„ I only asseÌ„t for the reason he gives or for some other authority cited by him c. 12. n. 49. p. 744. alibi Bellarmine viudicated from I hil his cavills c. 2. n. 98. p. 201. and seq VVhat Byshop or Episcopus signifyes cannot evidently be knowne by Scripture alone c. 2. n. 11. p. 126. That Byshops in the Church are not juris divini is an heresy c. 5. n. 4. p. 429. seq Doctor Andreweâ— his contradictioÌ„ in this poynt ibidem Bishops haue no succession in England ibidem Bookes published to forwarne I hil to cleare himselfe of his vnchristiaÌ„ doctrines which he would never be induced to doe pr. n. 4. p. 2. C Caiphas in Chillingworthes doctrine spoke truth when he wickedly sayd that our Saviour blasphemed c. 11. n. 38. p. 675. Canon of Scripture cleered from Chill his malicious imputation c. 11. n. 22. it should be 21. p. 663. seq The Canonicalness of the bookes of Scripture is to be taken from the declaration of the Church c. 11. n. 6. 7 p. 653. falsly put 953 passim alibi every Canonicall writer wrote all that was necessary for the end inspired him by the holy Ghost not all that was necessary for salvation or for the Church to belieue c. 2. n. 136 p. 223 seq ac alibi Causabons miserable end c. 6 n. 9 p. 444 Catholiques by the confession of Protestants may be saved c. 2 n. 83 p. 185 c. 7 n. 145 p. 563 seq ac alibi No visible Church but the Catholique Romane out of which Luther departed c. 7 n. â—1 p. 522 Reasons why the Catholique Church is not to be forsaken n. 124 p. 545. 546 If she could erre her errours were rather to be professed then her Communion forsaken n. 132 p. 551 deinceps Catholiques judge charitably that Protestancy vnrepented destroyes salvation aÌ„d PiotestaÌ„ts if they hold their Religion true should judge the like of Catholiques c. 9 n. 2 p 624 Catholiques guided by the infallibility of the Church cannot be prejudiced by translations of Scripture nor feare corruptions c. 11 n. 16 p. 659 The Catholique Church an easy way to find Christs doctrine c. 3 n. 89 p. 348 She is infallible or all Christianity a fiction c. 4 n. 1 p. 352 Not Catholiques but LutheraÌ„s exposed to idolatry c. 4 n. 65 p. 393. Catholiques freed by Protestants from that imputation Ib. p 395 Catholiques prooue their Faith without a circle Toto c. 5 but Sectaryes cannot Ibid And particularly n. 14 15 p. 437 438 Also c. 2 n. 55 p. 158 Catholiques falsly charged by Chill that they hold Faith to haue no degrees of perfection c. 1 n. 43 44 p. 68 69 Catholique writers falsly cited by Potter as holding that Catholiques and Protestants doe not differ in the essence of Religion c. 7 n. 148 p. 567 Catholiques though falsly suposed to err their errour must be invincible c. 7 n. 158 p. 578 seq Causes by divine power may be elevated to produce effects nobler then themselves as also by concauses c. 1 n. 79 p. 94 Certainty in the vnderâ—â—anding forces not the will c. 1 n. 62 p. 80 seq Ceremonies vide Rites Charity Maintayned alledged and impugned by I hil either with falsification or ommitting his arguments or with some other fraud is often shewed through this whole Booke His Booke is not answeared by I hil but new heresies broached and old fetched from Hell to overthrow all Christianity Pr n. 3 p. 1. 2 Charity highly broaken by Protestants in judginge Catholiques vncharitable c. 9 n. 7 p. 628 It is ordered either according to the Phisic all perfection of the things loved or the morall obligation of loving imposed by God c. 16 n. 6 p. 935 936 Chillingworths Tenets and consequences He holds that Faith is only a probable rationall assent I. n. 16 p. 11 seq and c. 10 n. 13 p. 640 641 That to hold Christian faith infallible is presumptuous vncharitable erroneous doctrine of dangerous and pernicious consequence c. 1 n. 1 p. 37 And that it excludes all progress in charity n. 71 p. 86 That Faith may stand with Heresie I. n. 51 p. 35 He rejects grace

of this Introduction LIII Let vs now come to handle the matter it selfe for which I know and acknowledge the necessity of grace and therfore renouncing all confidence in humane reason and force of nature with profoundest humility begge of the Eternall Father for the Merits of his only son Christ Iesus true God and true Man the assistance of the holy Ghost and his diuine spirit of Wisdome Vnderstanding Counsell Strength Knowledge Piety and aboue all the spirit of the Feare of our Lord mouing and assisting me willingly to suffer death rather than wittingly vtter any least falshood or conceale any truth in matters concerning Faith and Religion and so prostrate in soule and body I pray with the Wiseman Sap. 9 4.10 O Lord of mercy giue me wisdome the assistant of thy seates send her from thy holy Heauens and from the seate of thy greatness that she may be with me and may labour with me that so my labours of themselues most weake may by Grace tend first to the Glory of the most blessed Trinity and next to the eternall good of soules CHAP I. CHRISTIAN FAITH NECESSARY TO SALVATION IS INFALLIBLY TRVE 1. AS all Catholiques haue reason to grieue that we were necessitated to proue the necessity of Gods grace against our moderne Pelagians so euery Christian yea euery one who professes any Faith Religion or worship of a God may wonder that dealing with one who pretends to the name of Christian I should be forced to proue the Certainty and Infallibility of Christian Faith which M. Chillingworth not only denies but deepely censures Pag. 328 N o 6. as a Doctrine most presumptuous and vnchariatble and Pag. 325. N. 3. as a great errour and of dangerous and pernitious consequence and takes much paines to proue the contraay that is the fallibility of Christian Faith A strang vndertaking wherby he is sure to loose by winning and by all his Arguments to gaine only this Conclusion that his Faith in Christ of Scripture and all the mysteryes contained therin may proue fabulous and false And yet I confesse it to be a thing very certaine and euident that the deniall of jnfallibility in Gods Church for deciding controuersyes of Faith must ineuitably cast meÌ„ Vpon this desperate vnchristian and Antichristian doctrine and while Protestants mayntaine the Church to be fallible they cannot auoide this sequele that theire doctrine may be false since without jnfallibility in the Church they cannot be absolutely certaine that Scripture is the word of God O what a scandall doe these men cast on Christian Religion by either directly acknowledging or laying grounds from which they must yeild Christian Faith not to be jnfallibly true while Iewes Turks PagaÌ„s and all who professe any religion hold their belief to bee jnfallible and may justly vpbraide vs that euen Christians confess themselues not to be certaine that they are in the right and haue with approbation of greatest men in a famous Uniuersity published to the world such their sense and belief In the meane tyme in this occasion as in diuerse others I cannot but observe that Heretiques alwayes walke in extreams This man teacheth Christian Faith in generall and the very grounds therof not to be infallibly certaine Others affirme Faith to be certaine euen as it is applyed to particular persons whom they hold to be justifyed by an absolute certaine beliefe that they are just 2. But now let vs come to proue this truth Christian Faith is absolutely and infallibly true and not subject to any least falshood wherin although I maintayne the cause of all Christians and of all men and mankind who by the very instinct of nature conceiue the true Religion to signify a thing certaine as proceeding from God and vpon which men may and ought securely to rely without possibility of being deceiued and that for this reason the whole world ought to joyne with me against a common adversarie yet even for this very reason I knowe not whether to esteeme it a more dissicile taske or lamentable necessity that we are in a matter of this moment and quality to proue Principles or a Truth which ought to be no less certaine then any Argument that can be brought to prove it as hitherto all good Christians haue believed nothing to be more certainly belieued by Christian Faith than that it selfe is most certaine Yet confiding in his Grace whose Gift we acknowledg Faith to be I will endeauour to proue and defend this most Christian and fundamental truth against the pride of humane witt and all presumption vpon naturall forces 3. Our first reason may be taken from that which we haue touched already of the joynt conceypt vnanimous concent and inbred sense of men who conceyue Diuine Faith and Religion to imply a certainty of Truth and if they did once entertayne a contrary perswasion they would sooner be carryed to embrace no religion at all than weary their thoughtes in election of one rather than another being prepossessed that the best can bring with it no absolute certainty Thus by the vniversall agreement of men we proue that there is a God and from thence conclude that the beliefe of a Deity proceeds from the light of nature which also assures vs that God hath a prouidence ouer all things and cannot want meanes to communicate himselfe with reasonable creatures by way of some light aÌ„d knowledg exempt from feare or possibility of fraude or falshood especially since Rationall nature is of it selfe ã€ˆâ€¦ã€‰ truth and Religion or worship of a God This consideration is excellently pondered and deliuered by S. Austin de vtilitate credendi Cap. 16. in these words Authority alone is that which incites ignorant persons that they make hast to wisdome Till we can of our selues vnderstand the truth it is a miserable thing to be deceyved by Authority yet more miserable it is not to be moued therwith For if the Divine prouidence do not command humane thinges no care is to be taken of Religion But if the beauty of all things which without doubt we are to belieue to flow from some fountayne of most true pulcritude by a certaine internall feeling doth publikly and priuatly exhort all best soules to seeke and serue God We cannot despaire that by the same God there is appointed some Authority on which we relying as vpon an infallible stepp may be eleuated to God Behold a meanes to attaine certainty in belief by some infallible authority appointed by God which can be none but the Church from which we are most certaine what is the writteÌ„ or vnwritteÌ„ word of God 4. M. Chillingworth professes to receiue Scripture from the vniuersall Tradition of all Churches though yet there is scarcely any booke of Scripture which hath not beene questioned or rejected by some much more therfore ought all Christian to belieue Christian Faith to be jnfallible as beinge the most vniversall judgment and Tradition of all Christians for their Christians beliefe and of all men for their

of opinions or strayings of errours By the name of substance something certaine and setled is appoynted thee Thou art shut vp within certaine bounds and confined within limits which are certaine for faith is not an Opinion but a certainty But concerning this Text of S. Paul more shall be sayd herafter out of excellent words of S. Chrisostome The same Apostle Heb. 6. V. 17. 18. 19. sayth God meaning more aboundantly to shew to the heires of the promise the stability of his counsell he interposed an Oath That by two things vnmooueable wherby it is impossible for God to lie we may haue a most strong comfort who haue fled to hold fast the hope proposed which we haue as an anker of the soule sure and firme But how can we haue a most strong comfort an anker of the soule sure and sirme or how doth he shew to the heires of his promise the stability of his counsell if the faith of Christians be reduced to probabilityes which are not stable but of themselues subject to change and falshood and for ought we know may finally prooue to be such as long as we haue no other certainty to the contrary Or how can we be assured of that concerning which God interposed an Oath if we be not sure that he euer interposed an Oath or euer witnessed or reuealed any thinge 1. Thessall 2.12 We giue thankes to God without intermission because when you had receiued of vs the word of the hearing of God you receyued it not as the word of men but as it is indeed the word of God which must signify that they receyued it by an Assent proportionable to such an Authority Motiue and Formall Object and therfore certaine infallible and aboue all humane faith opynion and probability For this cause the Apostle giues thanks to God because when they had receyved the word of God they receyued it as such declaring that they belieued with an assent requiring Gods speciall Grace for which thankes are to be giueÌ„ eleuating the soule aboue the forces of nature to a super naturall certaine Act proportionable as I sayd to so sublime an Authority 2. Tim. 1.12 I know whom I haue belieued and I am sure that he is able to keepe my depositum vnto that day Where S. Paule speakes of God as a judg and of the day of judgment and reward of the just which are Articles of Christian Faith not knowne by the light of reason This Text is alledged by S. Bernard Ep. 190. to this very purpose saying Scio cui credidi certus sum clamat Apostolus tu mihi subsibilas Fides est aestimatio tu mihi ambiguum garris quo nihil est certius The Apostle cryes out I know whom I haue belieued and I am certaine and dost thou whisper Faith is opinion dost thou prate as of a doubtfull thing concerning that than which nothing is more certaine Act. 2.36 Let all the house of Israel know most certainly not only probably that God hath made him both Lord and Christ this Iesus whom you haue crucifyed 2. Pet. 1.19 We haue the propheticall word more sure which you doe well attending vnto as to a caÌ„del shining in a darke place In which words the Apostle compares the saying of the Prophets which we belieue by faith concerning Christ our Sauiour with the sight of the eyes and hearing of the eares of the Apostles on Mount Thabor when they sawe our Sauiours glory and heard the voyce of his Father saying This is my beloued Son and yet saith that the Propheticall word is more sure And by this place we also gather that faith though it be jnfallible aÌ„d certaine yet is ineuident and obscure like to a candle in a darke place which obscures the light of the candle against the doctrine of Chillingworth that certainty and obscurity are incompatible Luke 21.33 Heauen and Earth shall passe but my words shall not passe Surely if his words were belieued by vs only with a probable assent we could not in good reason thinke they were more stable than heauen and earth which by euidence of sinse and reason we see to be constant firme and permanent 1. Ioan. 5. Yf we receyue the testimony of men the testimony of God is greater But as I sayd aboue what imports it that the testimony of God is greater in it selfe if we can assent to it no more firmely than the Arguments of Credibility or history and humane tradition and testimony of men enable vs For by this meanes we shall finally be brought as low as humane faith 1. Cor. 2.5 That your faith might not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God The contrary wherof we must affirme in his principles who reduceth Christian Faith to the Power or rather jmpotency of humane tradition and reason Which last Texts do clearly ouerthrow his doctrine that we belieue the Scripture for humane fallible Tradition and testimony of men not for the jnfallible Authority of Gods Church 2. Pet. 1.21 For not by mans will was prophecy brought at any tyme but the holy men of God spake inspired with the Holy Ghost What neede of diuine inspiration for assenting probably to a Conclusion euidently deduced from premisses euidently probables or how can the Holy Ghost inspire an assent which may prooue false 1. Pet. 5.9 Whom resist ye strong in Faith Tob. 3.21 This hath euery one for certaine that worshippeth thee that his life if it be in probation shall be crowned Ioan. 10.35 If he called them Goddes to whom the word of God was made and the Scripture cannot be broken May not the Scriptures be broken in order to vs if for ought we certainly know their Authority is not divine nor the poynts they contayne true Act. 2.24 Whom God hath raysed vp loosing the sorrowes of Hell according as it was impossible that he should be holden of it Now if our belief of Scripture and contents therof be only probable we cannot be certaine that the contrary assertions or objects are impossible or that it was impossible he should be holden of it since possibility of being true is excluded only by a contrary certainty and whosoeuer belieues any poynt only with probability hath in his vnderstanding no disposition which of it selfe is repugnant to probability and much less to possibility for the contrary part Coloss. 1. V. 21. 22. 23. And you wheras you were sometyme alienated and enemyes in sense in euill works yet now he hath reconciled in the body of his flesh by death to present you holy and immaculate and blamelesse before him if you continue in the Faith grounded and stable and vnmoueable from the Gospell which you haue heard which is preached among all creatures that are vnder Heauen Obserue that the Apostle not only speakes of a Faith which is stable and ground of immobility but also declares that such a Faith is necessary to be reconciled to God from being alienated and enemyes and to be

vs now come to some other kind of Argument 27. Hitherto Christians haue belieued that true Christian Faith is a Theologicall vertue that is it hath for its Formall object and Motiue God as he is infinitly Wise and True as Hope respects Him as infinitly Powerfull and Charity as infinitly Good But the Faith of these men cannot be a Theologicall vertue Therfore their faith is no true Christian Faith The Minor cannot be denyed in the grounds of this man For although they will pretend to belieue the Articles of ChristiaÌ„ Religion because God hath reuealed them yet the ArgumeÌ„ts of Credibility or humane testimonyes are the only formall object or Motiue of this Assent God hath reuealed the Mysteryes of Christian Religion They are I say Premises from which the sayed Conclusion or act and assent of Faith is deduced and according to which it is to be measured and not only Preparations or Dispositions to it as Catholike Diuines teach so that the infallible Diuine Reuelation comes to be only a materiall object belieued for another fallible Motiue or Formall Object infinitly beneath the Testimony of God which alone is able to constitute a Theologicall vertue Thus he plainly saith Pag 36. N. 8. God desires only that we belieue the Conclusion as much as the Premises deserue that the strength of our faith be equall or proportionable to the credibility of the Motiues to it and most expresly he saith in the same place Our faith is an assent to this Conclusion that the Doctrine of Christianity is true which being deduced from a Thesis which is metaphysically certaine and from an Hypothesis wherof we can haue but a morall certainty we cannot possibly by naturall meanes be more certaine of it then of the weaker of the Premises You see he holds the Assent of Faith to be a Conclusion not proportioned to Diuine Reuelation which is most infallible and strong but measured by the weaker of the Premises grounded vpon humane inducements which cannot giue Species or nature and essence to a Theologicall vertue and so his probable Faith is no more than an humane Opinion For euen as he who concludeth out of Mathematicall Principles knowne only probably hath not knowledg but opinion so he that belieues out of Principles not certaine a Reuelation of its nature certaine hath not certaine knowledg but only opinion And therfor his saying Pag 35. N. 7. that he conveyues Faith to be an assent to Diuine Reuelations vpon the authoty of the Renealer will in no wise free him from the just imputation of turning Diuine Faith into Opinion since his assent to Diuine Reuelation is grounded and measured and receyues its essence from testimonyes and Principles only probable and humane and not from the Diuine Reuelation without which euen Dr. Potter Pag. 143. expressly sayes Faith is but Opinion or perswasion or at the most an acquired humane belief And it is to be obserued that the Doctour speakes expresly of the Authority of the Church which he sayth can beget only an Opinion and yet Chillingworth resolues our belief of the Scripture into the Tradition and teaching of the Church and therfor his belief of the Scripture cannot passe the degree of Opinion or humane belief 28. Children are taught in their Catechismes that Faith Hope and Charity are vertues and all Diuines agree that Faith is a vertue infused and seing it resides in the vnderstanding it must be a Vertue of the vnderstanding which of its nature cannot produce any but true acts because vertue out of S. Austine Lib 2. de Libero arbitrio is a quality which by no man is vsed ill And vertue as Diuines teach togeather with Aristotle disposes the Power to that which is best Wherfor the vertue of the will disposeth it vnto Good which is the wils good and an intellectuall vertue must dispose the vnderstanding to that which is True which is the intellectiue Powers greatest Good Since therfor Faith is of its owne essence an intellectuall vertue it must haue an intrinsecall reference and tye vnto true Acts and an incapacity and repugnance vnto false ones and errours 29. Besides Faith is the first Power of supernaturall Being and ought not to be inferiour to Habitus Principiorum in our naturall Being which Habits cannot incline to any false assent And whence comes it that the Habit of Faith for producing an Act requires Gods speciall helpe which cannot moue vnto falshood but that such a Habit is determinated to Truth Or how is it giuen vs as a fitt sufficient and secure meanes wherby to captiuate our vnderstanding with great considence to the obedience of Faith and of God if it be not determined to truth without all danger of errour Will he deny that it exceeds Gods Power to produce such a Habit or to concurre with our vnderstanding to such an Act as shal be incapable of errrour Or what imaginable reason can there be to deny that Faith is such in which concurre Diuine Reuelation a Pious Affection and command of the will and the speciall Grace of the Holy Ghost What A supernaturall End of eternall Happyness a supernaturall Habit a supernaturall Grace a supernaturall Act an infinite Authority or formall Object and all to end in meere weake Probabilityes Doth water rise as high as the source from which it flowes and shall not all these diuine and supernaturall fountaynes raise vs higher than Opinion Good Christians can correct naturall Reason in poynts which to Philosophers seemed euident truths and Principles as in the Creation against that Axiom Ex nihilo nihil fit of nothing nothing is made In the Resurrection against From priuation there is not admitted a retourning back to the former Being In the incarnation against A substance is that which exists by it selfe and yet our Sauiours sacred Humanity exists in the Eternall Word in the Mystery of the B. Trinity against Those things which are the same with a third are the same amongst themselues and not to alledge more particulars all miracles wrought by our Sauiour aboue the strength of all naturall causes seemed in humane reason to imply a contradiction or impossibility and whatsoeuer is belieued aboue Reason would seeme false and against it if we did not correct Reason by Faith which could not be done vnless we did judge the light of Faith to be more certaine than the light of Reason or the Principles therof And this Chilling must either grant and so yield faith to be infallible or els must be content to acknowledg a plaine contradiction to himselfe This appeares by these words Pag. 376. N. 56. Propose me any thing out of this booke the Bible and require whether I belieue it or no and seeme it neuer so incomprehensible to humane reason I will subscribe it with hand and hart as knowing no demonstration can be stronger then this God hath sayd so therfor it is true And in the Conclusion of his Booke Â§ And wheras he professeth that he will not belieue

bloud Act 20.28 a Church on earth indued with all things necessary for the whole Community or mysticall Body For every State or Degree For every single Person or Member therof And therfor to maintayne that Scripture alone contaynes all poynts necessary to be believed must imply that in or from Scripture alone we may evidently learne what is necessary to be believed of all according to the triple mentioned consideration or distinction of Persons which Distinction we will here only touch cursarily and precisely as farr as is necessary for our present purpose 3. The Church as it signifyes one Community or mysticall Body necessarily requires some kind of Governours or Pastours Meanes and Manner to provide for a Succession of them Power to enact lawes and to punish offenders by spirituall Censures some vndoubtedly lawfull Liturgy or publike worship of God Sacraments and to omitt other thinges in particular some certaine infallible Meanes to know this very Poynt whether Scripture alone contayne evidently all thinges necessary to Salvation without certayne knowledg wherof there can be no certainty in the Faith of Protestants 4. But now for different Degrees or Officers in the Church more or lesse knowledg is necessary according to their severall obligations aÌ„d Dutyes as for Bishops Pastours Priests c who for example are obliged to teach others Ordaine Priests conficere and administer Sacraments c 5. Lastly for every particular Person or member of the Church some things are absolutely necessary in the judgment both of Catholikes and Protestants as v. g. Faith True and Divine for essence and sufficient for Extension for all points absolutely necessary to be expressly believed and Repentance after deadly sin committed and according to Catholiks Baptisme in Re for children and in Re or Voto for Adulti as also the Sacrament of Pennance after the committing of Actuall sinne if it be deadly and finally the keeping and consequently knowing of the Commandements 6. For explication of the word evident I note that to be contayned evidently in Scripture may be vnderstood in three manner of wayes First that some Poynt be contayned in particular and so evidently that no man who vnderstands the language can doubt what it signifyes according to the vsuall signification of the word and that in such a Text it is taken in such a common signification and not in some figurative or mysticall or morall sense as divers tymes it happens For if it be capable of such a sense I must haue some certainty that it is not taken so before I can ground vpon it an infallible Assent of Faith and therfor I must haue more than only probable that is some certaine and infallible meanes to know whether it be taken in the common signification or if it haue more vsuall or common significations than one in which of them it is taken Which depending on the Free will of God can be knowne only by Revelation that is according to Protestants by some other evident Text of Scripture and so without end vnless they can find some Text necessarily determined to one only sense 7. Secondly evident may signify that some poynt be indeed contayned in Scripture in it selfe or in particular but not so as to be vnderstood clearly and certainly by Vertue of the words taken alone without the help of some interpreter to whom if antecedently we giue credit that will become evident to vs by his interpretation which before was obscure as the words of the Prophet Isay became evident to the Eunuch by the Declaration of S. Philip whom he tooke for a true interpreter Act. 8. V. 35. 8. Thirdly A thing may be evident in Holy Scripture not in particular or in it selfe but in some generall Meanes or Authority expressly and clearly delivered and recommended to vs by Scripture which being once believed and accepted with a firme Assent whatsoever such a Meanes or Authority doth evidently propose may be sayd to be evidently contayned in Scripture not in it selfe but in that generall Meanes expressly recommended by Scripture In this manner S. Augustine speaking of Rebaptization of such as were baptized by Heretiques sayth De vnitate Eccle Cap 22. This is neither openly nor evidently read neither by you nor by me Yet if there were any wise man of whom our Saviour had given testimony and that he should be consulted in this question we should make no doubt to performe what he should say least we might seeme to gainsay not him so much as Christ by whose testimony he was recommended Now Christ beareth witnes to his Church And a little after whosoever refuseth to follow the practise of the Church doth resist our Saviour himselfe who by his testimony recommends the Church And Lib 1. cont Crescon Cap 32. 33. We follow indeed in this matter even the most certaine authority of Canonicall Scriptures But how Consider his words Although verily there be brought no example for this point out of Canonicall Scriptures yet even in this point the truth of the same Scriptures is held by vs while we do that which the authority of Scriptures doth recommend that so because the Holy Scripture cannot deceiue vs whosoever is afrayd to be deceived by the obscurity of this question must haue recourse to the same Church concerning it which without any ambiguity the Holy Scripture doth demonstrate to vs. 9. In one of these two latter senses Catholike Authors may truly affirme all things necessary to be evidently contaynd in Scripture But Protestants who reject the infallibility of the Church must vnderstand it in the first sense only according to which they remayne obliged to a very hard taske of proving First in generall out of evident Scripture that all things necessary to be believed are evident in Scripture 2. of proving every particular Point of Faith out of Scripture immediatly or by certaine and cleare deductions from it and not by topicall Arguments of their owne fancy which they will needs be calling or rather miscalling Reason 3. of proving every Point out of evident Scripture and so evident that it be certaine the words de facto are not taken in some sense of which they are capable different from their vsuall common obvious and as I may say most litterall signification as Protestants interpret the words This is my Body For since the words concerning which the Question arises are still the same their meaning must be taken from some other evident Text as I sayd aboue and so without end vnlesse they can alledge some words which certainly cannot be taken in any sense but one though of themselves they be capable of more and though even divers chief learned Protestants teach that one Text of Scripture may haue diverse litterall senses Nay here is not an end of their labours For since the word Evident may be fitly taken in three senses of which that only which I put in the first place is accepted by Protestants they must proue by some Evident Text that all things

necessary are evidently contayned in Scripture in that first sense and by an evidence of the Text alone without dependance or relation to any other thing for example the Church or Tradition which particulars surely the Scripture never expresses I beseech the Reader to consider this and mark to what an impossible taske Protestants are engaged Yet this is not all It will still remayne doubtfull whether that Text which did say that all things are evidently contayned in Scripture be vnderstood vniversally of all things necessary to be believed or only of things necessary to be believed and written which if you wil needs haue to be all one or of the same extent you begg the Question in supposing that all things necessary to be believed are necessarily to be written in the Holy Scripture 10. These reflections being premised about the Meaning of the words Necessary and Evident I belieue any man who as I sayd shall thinke well before he speake and then speak as he thinks will hold it a very impossible thing to proue evidently out of Scripture all things necessary for the Church as one Mysticall Body For every Degree and for every particular Member therof according to the first Meaning of Evidence and other prescriptions which I haue declared Let vs therfor looke backe a litle vpon those three different sorts of Persons 11. First for Government and Governours of the Church if we abstract from the Authority Practise Tradition and interpretation of Gods Church I wonder who will goe about to proue with certainty out of evident Scripture what Episcopus must signify in Scripture a Bishop Superintendent or Overseer or any who hath a charge or superiority according to the fashion of Protestants who loue to take words according to Grammaticall derivation not according to the Ecclesiasticall Ancient vse of them Even Protestants grant that the words Presbyter and Episcopus are in Scripture taken for the same and Dr Jer Taylor in his Defence of Episcopacy Â§ 23. Pag 128. saith expressly The first thing done in Christendome vpon the death of the Apostles in this matter of Episcopacy is the distinguishing of Names which before were common If they will translate Presbyter to signify an Elder what Certainty can they receyve from that word whether it ought to be taken for elder in Age or greater in Dignity And it is no better than ridiculous that Protestants should first deny vnwritten Traditions and Authority of the Church for interpreting Scriptures and deciding Controversyes in Faith and then take great paynes to proue out of evident Scripture alone that Bishops are de Jure Divino and the same I say of any other particular Forme of Ecclesiasticall Government and of the Quality and Extent of Authority in any such Forme whether they can inflict Ecclesiasticall Censures and of what kind concerning which and other such Poynts necessary to be knowne in the Church Protestants in vayne and without end will be sighting for an impossibility till they acknowledge some other Rule or judge of Controversyes than Scripture alone 12. Besides how will they learne out of Scripture alone the Forme of Ordination of Priestes and other Orders the Matter and Forme of other Sacraments which some in the Church are to administer by Office and others to receyue of which I shall speake more particularly hereafter with diverse other such Poynts necessary for the Church in generall 13. Secondly For diverse Degrees or States in the Church no man can chuse but see how hard it is to learne evidently out of Scripture alone what in particular belongs to every one both for Belief and Practise 14. Thirdly For every particular Person How can a Protestant proue evidently out of Scripture the Nature of Faith since one Sect of them denyes Christian Faith to be infallibly true against the rest of their fellowes and an other affirmes that justifying Faith is that wherby one firmly believes that he is just which kind of Faith others deny or the necessary Extent of their Faith seing Chilling holds that there cannot be given a Catalogue of Points necessary to be believed explicitly by all and therfor every one must either remayne vncertaine whether he believe all that is absolutely necessary or else be obliged vnder damnation to know explicitly all cleare passages of Scripture which are innumerable least otherwise he put himself in danger of wanting what is indispensably necessary to salvation which is a burthen no lesse vnreasonable than intolerable even to men not vnlearned and much more to vulgar Persons 15. Neither is there less dissiculty concerning Pennance or true Repentance than Faith since Protestants do not agree in what Repentance consist and Chilling hath a conceypt different from the rest that true Repentance requires the effectuall mortification of the Habits of all vices which being a worke of difficulty and tyme cannot be performed in an instant as he writes Pag. 392. N. 8. and therfor even that most perfect kind of sorrow which Divines call Contrition and is conceyved against sin for the loue of God will not serue at the howre of ones death because saith he Repentance is a work of difficulty and tyme. 16. Morover it is impossible for Protestants to proue evidently out of Scripture that the Sacraments of Baptisme and Pennance are not necessary for salvation For where fynd they any such Text If they say we must hold them not necessary because we find no such necessity evidently exprest in Scripture they do but begg the Question and suppose that all things necessary are contayned in Scripture besides that we haue Scripture for both Nisi quis renatuâ— fuerit c vntess one shall be borne againe c Ioan 3.5 And whose sinnes you retayne they are retayned Ioan. 20.23 and it is impossible for any man to shew evidently out of Scripture that those Texts are not de facto vnderstood as we vnderstand them since it is most evident that the words are capable of such a sense and consequently we cannot be certaine but that such is their meaning vnless they can bring some evident Text to the contrary especially since that even divers chief learned Protestants teach the necessity of Baptisme for children of the Faithfull as I shew herafter And certainly if Scripture were evident against this Doctrine of Catholiques so many learned Protestants could not but haue seene it 17. The same I say of the Sacrament of Pennance which divers learned Protestants hold to be so necessary as some say that It is a wicked thing to take away private Absolution And that They who contemne it do not vnderstand what is Remission of sinnes or the power of the keyes And that it is an Errour to affirme that Confession made before God doth suffice And that Private Confession being taken away Christ gave the keyes in vaine vide Triple Cord Chap. 24. Pag. 613. And vitae Lutheri Autore Gasparo Vienbergio Lippiensi Cap. 30. it is sayd Osiander primus ex ministris Norinbergae

amongst themselves nor vvith vs Catholikes Socinians goe further and deny Baptisme to be a Sacrament and teach that all are not obliged to receaue it but that some may be enrolled amongst the number of Christians without it That the church may either leaue it of or at least can compell none to receyue it and in a vvord that it is a thing adiaphorous or indifferent (b) Volkel Lib. 6. Cap. 14. The Eucharist also they hold not to be a SacrameÌ„t (c) Volkel Lib. 4. C 22. that it may be administred by lay persons (d) Ibidem and receyved by such as are not baptized (e) Lib. 7. Cap. 14. Other Protestants do not agree about the necessity of Baptisme 40. As for the Matter and Forme of those tvvo Sacraments vvhich they admit Divers of them expressly teach that vvater is not absolutely necessary in Baptisme but that some other liquid thing may serue and yet the scripture sayth Joan 3. V. 5. Vnless a man be borne againe of vvater and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter the Kingdome of God And Ephes 5.25.26 Christ loved the church and delivered himself for it that he might sanctify it cleansing it by the laver in the vvord of life And for the Forme there vvant not that teach those vvords In the name of the Father c. not to be necessary About the Forme of the Eucharist they agree not some requiring no vvords at all other requiring vvords but in a farr different manner and meaning one from another as may be seene in Bellarm. Lib. 4. de Sacrament Eucharistiae Cap. 12. And for the Matter some Protestants as Beza Tilenus Bucanus Hommius teach that neither bread nor vvine is necessary for the Eucharist though it be evident in scripture that our Sauiour consecrated in bread and vvine As also Beza Lib Quest Respons Vol 3. Theol Pag 364. saith that it is naevus in Ecclesijs c. A blemish in those Churches which vse vnleavened bread rather than leavened and savours of Iudaâ—sme and yet he affirmes that Christ first blessed vnleavened bread and instituted this supper at that tyme when it was not lawfull for the Iewes to vse any but vnleavened bread And Sadeel ad Artic 56. abjurat Pag 511. saith Christ indeed vsed vnleavened bread Did Christ that vvhich savours of Judaisme Christ did institute the Sacraments at supper By what authority then do they alter these things if we must stand to scriprure alone without the churches tradition and authority What evident Text can they bring for these and the like alterations as not first washing feete c. And Volkel Lib 4. C. 22. affirmes that if one cannot drinke wine he may vse water without changing the substance of the Lord's supper as he speakes Montague the pretended Bishop first of Chichester then of Norwich in the articles of visitation Ann 1631. Tit. Articles concerning Divine service and administration of the Sacraments N. 9. sayth thus Is the wine as it should be representing bloud not sacke whyte wine water or some other liquor but yet for the further satisfaction of the Reader I think sitt to transcribe the words of Brereley who Tract 2. Cap. 2. Sect. 10. subdivis 7. doth to this purpose cite punctually the opinions of divers learned Protestants in these words Concerning the forme of words requisite to a Sacrament Luther (a) To 2 Wittenberg Lib de Captivit Babilon Cap de Baptis Fol 75. affirmes Baptisme to be good with whatsoever words it be ministred so the same be not in the name of man but of God Yea he sayth I doubt not but if one receyue Baptisme in the name of God although the wicked Minister giue it not in the name of God he is truly baptised in the name of God Also Brentius (b) In Catheches Cap de Bap and Zwinglius (c) To 2. Lib de vera falsa Religione Cap de Baptism sub finem Fol. 202. And see Zuinglius more plainly To 2. Lib. de Baptis Fol 66 affirme that no prescript forme of words is necessary in Baptisme to omitt that Bullinger (d) in his Decads Decad. 5. Ser 6. Pag. 969. paulo post med and 975. and 976. and 974. doth discourse at large against the necessity of any forme of words to be pronounced And that Bucer in Matth. C. 26 teacheth recitall of Christ's words in the Sacrament of the Eucharist not to be necessary one of their owne martyrs Iohn Lassells in his letter Apologeticall recorded for the supposed worth therof by M. Fox in his Acts and monâ— Pag 678.679 affirmes ehat S. Paul durst not take vpon him to say Hoc est Corpus meum This is my body but omitted those words affirming yet further that The Lord Iesus sayd it once for all Whervpon he maketh the necessity to consist not in any words pronounced but in the breaking and giving of bread Wherevnto might be added the agreeable doctrine of Muscolus (e) in Lo comm C. de Caen Dom Pag 336. circa med post medium and the like answerable practise of the reformed Church in Scotland f As appeares in the booke of the vsage of the kirk of Scotland printed at Rochell 1596. Pag. 189.190.191.192.193 41. The same I may say of the Forme Matter and Manner to be vsed in the Ordination of Bishops Priests and others Degrees in the church All which poynts being of great importance in Gods church which cannot consist without true Governours and Sacraments and yet not being determinable by scripture alone as is manifest both by the thing it self and by the different and contrary Opinions of learned Protestants concerning them we must infer that all things necessary are not evidently contayned in scripture 42. Which is so manifest a truth that Dr. Field one of the greatest Clerks amongst English Protestants L. 4. C. 20. summeth togeather divers traditions not contayned in scripture saying we admit first the Bookes of Canonicall Scriptue as delivered by tradition what more fundameÌ„tall article than this to Protestants who profess to haue no Faith but by scripture which this man acknowledges to be receyved and believed by traditions Secondly the chief heads of Christian Doctrine and distinct explication of many things somwhat obscurely contayned in Scripture Mark that a poynt contayned obscurely in scripture may become evident by explication of the church as I sayd in the beginning of this chapter and mark that he specifyes the chief heads of christian Doctrine Fourthly the continued practise of such things as are not expressed in scripture Fiftly such observations as are not particularly commanded in scripture Amongst which and the former he numbreth the Fast of Lent the Baptisme of infants of which he sayes it is not expressly delivered in scripture that the Apostles did baptize Infants nor any express precept there found that they should do so and observation of our Lords day and afterward he confesseth that many other things there are which

the Apostles doubtiess delivered by Tradition Covell in his Answer to Iohn Burges Pag 139. affirmes the moderate vse of the Crosse to be an Apostolicall Constitution and in his Examination against the Plea of the innocent Cap. 9 Pag. 104. referreth the termes of Archishops vnto Apostolicall Ordination And VVhitgift in his Defence c affirmeth and proveth the Apostles Tradition of Easter And Oecolampadiuâ— affirms the Baptisme of infants not to be taught in scripture in liâ— Epiâ—tolarum Zuâ—nglâ—i Occolampaâ—â— Pag 101. and 363. and so likewise doth Zuinglius To 1. Lib de Bapt. Fol. 96. These men therefore must either confess the authority of Gods church and her infallible Traditions or yield to the pernicious Doctrine of Anabaptists Dr. Taylor in is Defence of Episcopacy is so full to our purpose for the necessity of Traditions that I thought sit to transcribe his words as they ly Â§ 19. which are these Pag 100. Although we had not proved the immediate Divine institution of Episcopall power over Presbyters and the whole flock yet Episcopacy is not lesse then an Apostolicall ordinance and delivered to vs by the same authority that the observation of the Lords day is For for that in the new Testament we haue no precept and nothing but the example of the Primitiue Disciples meeting in their Synaxes vpon that day and so also they did on the saturday in the Jewish Synagogues but yet however that at Geneva they were once in meditation to haue changed it into a Thursday meeting to haue showne their Christian liberty we should thinke strangely of those men that called the Sunday Festivall lesse then an Aposticall ordinance and necessary now to be kept holy with such observances as the Church hath appointed Baptisme of infants is most certainly a holy and charitable ordinance and of ordinary necessity to all that ever cryed and yet the Church hath founded this rite vpon the tradition of the Apostles and wise men do easily obserue that the Anabaptists can by the same probability of scripture inforce a necessity of communicating infants vpon vs as we doe of baptizing infants vpon them if we speak of immediate Divine institution or of practise Apostolicall recorded in scripture and therfore a great Master of Geneva in a book he writ against the Anabaptists was forced to fly to Apostolicall traditiue ordination and therfor the institution of Bishops must be served first as having fairer plea and clearer evidence in scripture then the baptizing of infants and yet they that deny this are by the just anathema of the Catholick Church confidently condemned for Hereticks Of the same consideration are diverse other things in Christianity as the Presbyters consecrating the Eucharist for if the Apostles in the first institution did represent the whole Church Clergy and Laity when Christ sayd Hoc facite Doe this then why may not every Christian man there represented doe that which the Apostles in the name of all were commanded to doe If the Apostles did not represent the whole Church why then doe all communicate Or what place or intimation of Christes saying is there in all the foure Gospells limiting Hoc facite id est benedicite to the Clergy and extending Hoc facite id est accipite manducate to the Laity This also rests vpon the practise Apostolicall and traditive interpretation of H Church and yet cannot be denyed that so it ought to be by any man that would not haue his Christendome suspected To these I adde the Communion of Women the distinction of bookes Apocryphall from Canonicall that such books were written by such Evangelists and Apostles the whole tradition of scripture it selfe the Apostles Creed the feast of Easter which amongst all men that cry vp the Sunday-Festivall for a Divine institution must needs prevaile as Caput institutionis it being that for which the Sunday is commemorated These and diverse others of greater consequence which I dare not specify for feare of being misunderstood rely but vpon equall faith with this of Episcopacy though I should waue all the arguments for immediate Divine ordinance and therfore it is but reasonable it should be ranked amongst the Credenda of Christianity which the Church hath entertained vpon the confidence of that which we call the Faith of a Christian whose Master is truth it selfe Thus farr the Doctour in whom beside other divers points for our purpose it is remarkable that he affirmes the deniall of the baptizing of infants to be an Heresy and yet that the contrary truth is not contained in scripture which therfore cannot be sayd to containe all necessary points of Faith 43. Seaventhly it is a prodigious kind of thing that Protestants would make men belieue that all necessary poynts are evident in scripture and yet for vnderstanding scripture prescribe certaine necessary Rules or Meanes which it is evident few can possibly obserue and no lesse evident by the confession of our adversaryes that being observed they are not sufficient and consequently even by those Meanes assigned for vnderstanding scripture we know that scripture is not evident in all necessary things which is a poynt well to be noted Sanchius de sacra scriptura Col 409. saith The Holy scripture in those things which are necessary to be knowne for salvation is so cleare that it may easily he vnderstood of all those who are indued with Gods spirit and who reade it attentively and dayly and vnderstand the words and phrases therof Easily Doth not this contradict all the former words which require knowledg hard to be gotten and paynes not easy to be taken The scripture sayth this Protestant is cleare in all necessary poynts to all that are indued with the spirit of God But if they be indued with the spirit of God they are presupposed to haue true Faith for points necessary to be knowen and then I aske fromwhence had they that Faith without which scripture is not cleare Not from scripture because it is prerequired to the vnderstanding of scripture Therfore from some other meanes which certainly can be no other but the Church and tradition Besides this that is beside the spirit of God yea aÌ„d true Faith they must reade scripture daily and attentively and must penetrate the words and phrases which is so farr from being easy to be done that he assignes no fewer thaÌ„ nineteene Rules for doeing it wherof one is that we interpret scripture juxta analogiam Fidei and by the Scriptures themselves by diligent conferring of places like to one an other Is this easy And yet we must not forget that he speaks of poynts necessary to de believed Scharphius assignes twenty Rules in cursu Theologico de scrip controvers 8. Pag 44. which vnless they be kept we cannot but erre But perhaps all these Rules are easy Iudg of the rest by these To know originall languages also to discusse the words phrases and Hebraismes to conferr the places which are like and vnlike to one another to aske advise

conceyves to be obscure or false 48. Fiftly Consulting the Originals is thought a great matter to interpretation â—f Scriptures But this is to small purpose For indeed it will expound the Heb â—w and the Greek and rectify Translations But I know no man that sayes that the Scriptures in Hebrew and Greek are easy and certaine to be vnderstood and that they are hard in Latine and English The difficulty is in the thing however it be expressed the least in the Language If the Originall Languages were our mother tongue Scripture is not much the easyer to vs and a naturall Greek or a Iew can with no more reason nor authority obtrude his interpretations vpon other mens consciences than a man of another Nation 49. And Num 6. he sayth in generall That all these wayes of interpreting Scripture which of themselves are good helps are made either by designe or by our infirmityes wayes of intricating and involving Scriptures in greater difficulty because men do not learne their doctrines from Scripture but come to the vnderstanding of Scripture with preconceptions and ideas of doctrines of their own and then no wonder that Scriptures looke like Pictures wherein every man in the roome believes they looke on him only and that whersoever he stands or how often soever he changes his station So that now what was intended for a remedy becomes the promoter of our disease and our meate becomes the matter of sickness And the mischiefe is the wit of man cannot find a remedy for it for there is no rule no limit no certaine Principle by which all men may be guided to a certaine and so infallible an interpretation that he can with any equity prescribe to others to belieue his interpretations in places of controversy or ambiguity Osiander in his confutation of the Booke which Melancton wrote against him observes that there are twenty severall opinions concerning justification all drawn from the Scriptures by the men only of the Augustan Confession There are sixteen severall opinions concerning originall sin and as many definitions of the Sacraments as there are sects of men that disagree about them This makes good what I sayd aboue that the Protestants cannot agree in the very definition of Sacraments 50. Lastly Num 8. he concludes thus Since those ordinary meanes of expounding scripture as seurching the Originalls conference of places parity of Reason and analogy of Faith are all dubious vncertaine and veryfallibe He that is the wisest and by consequence the likelyest to expound truest in all probability of reason will be very farr from coÌ„fidence because every one of these aÌ„dmany more are like so many degrees of improbability aÌ„d vncertainty all depressing our certainty of fynding out truth in such mysteries aÌ„d amidst so many difficultyes 51. I haue thought good to set down this discourse as being vnanswerable and making directly for vs against the tenet of Protestants that the Scripture is evident in all things necessary to be believed I say even in things necessary For although he giue to his Third Section this Title Of the difficulty and vncertainty of Arguments from Scripture in Questions not simply necessary not litterally determined yet it is minifest thathis reasons either proue vniversally of all articles or proue nothing at all especially if we consider that the most necessary mysteryes of Christian Faith are also most sublime and therfor no wonder if having in the title to his Third Section mentioned the difficulty and vncertainty of argumeÌ„ts from scripture in questioÌ„ns not simply necessary in the proofes and prosecution of his reasons he is silent of any such distinction and shewes not in all or any one of his reasons of the difficulty and vncertainty of the sense of scripture any difference between necessary and vnnecessary points nor is any man able to doe it vpon any solid ground as will appeare to any one who will severally consider his reasons And when in the same Title he mentions Questions not literally determined I cannot imagine what he would say since according to his reasons no Question can literally be determined in such manner as still there will not remaine difficulty and vncertainty vnless he were content to acknowledg the authority of the Church for determining some particular meaning of Scripture as the literall seÌ„se therof Besides vnless he can giue vs a catalogue of questions simply necessary which Chilling sayes is impossible to be done and those Protestants who haue gone about to doe it could never agree amongst themselues nor is it possible they should c how shall we know that they are literally determined or that Scripture in them is evident 52. He sayd the difficulty arises from diversity of editions translations senses literall or spirituall naturall or figuratiue the insufficiency of conferring places of parity of reason analogy of faith consulting the originalls And who can deny but that these reasons hold as well in necessary as vnnecessary poynts Where will he fynd any text of scripture evident and not subject to any one of those difficultyes which he hath vrged to proue the difficulty of scripture affirming that those meanes and helpes are insufficient for vnnecessary poynts sufficient for necessary If he answer that if they be not cleare they cannot be necessary I reply This is not to proue out of Scripture but by reason and he hath told vs that it is with reason as with mens tastes and in our present question his reason wil be petitio principij a supposing that all necessary points are evidently contayned in Scripture For if this be not supposed it wil be soone answerd that we may be obliged to belieue articles of Faith by meanes of the Church or tradition though they be not in particular evidently contained in scripture Doth not the prime Prorestant Sanchius by me cited aboue affirme that the sayd meanes or nineteene Rules prescribed by him are required for finding out the sense of Scripture in those things which are necessary for salvation Therfor if these meanes be doubtfull and vncertaine we cannot from Scripture alone receyue sufficient certainty to belieue with an act of Faith even things necessary to salvation And indeed all the meanes which Protestants prescribe being humane actions and endeavours wherin every man is subject to errour this only remaines certaine that they can yield vs no certainty A deduction so cleare that Whitaker de Eccles Controv. 2. Q. 4. P. 221. sayes plainly Such as the meanes are such of necessity must be the interpretation but the meanes of interpreting dark places are vncertaine doubtfull and ambiguous therfor it cannot be but that the interpretation also must be vncertaine then it may be false c. 53. Eightly Protestants require for interpretation of Scripture the spirit of God as we haue seene aboue and 2. Pet. 1. V. 20.21 it is sayd No prophecy of Scripture is made by private interpretation but the holy men of God spake inspired with the Holy Ghost And therfor God hath

the whole wheresoever it is spred but is found separate in some parte it is manifest that they are not in the Catholik Church Therefore it is not sufficient for salvation only to belieue that Christ is the sonne of God 64. The example of men of Beroea Act 17. V 11. who were searching the scriptures if these things were so is of no force in many respects First Heere is no least insinuation of any vniversall precept to reade or search the scriptures but only a narratioÌ„ of what those meÌ„ did and if the fact of some may be alledged as a command for all to reade the scriptures why may not the example of others who belieued only by hearing S. Paule and the other Apostles preach and seeing them worke Miracles and propose excellent reasons and arguments of Creâ—â—â—bility be alledged for a command that men should belieue without delaying their conversion till they reade scriptures Secondly they did not search the scriptures with any intention to find all the particular Mysteryes of Christian Faith evidently expressed in them which is our question but only that mayne poynt which was preached to them by S. Paule that this is Jesus Christ whom I preach to you V. 3 other particular poynts they would easily learne by further instruction of the Apostles being once assured in generall that they were persons worthy of all credit and Messengers of God Thirdly The scriptures which they did search were the Bookes of the Old testament in which all the necessary particular poynts of Christian Faith are not evidently contayned since Protestants teach that all necessary poynts are contayned in scripture only after the whole Canon of the Bible was ended yea the word searching shewes that euen that article of the true Messias was not evidently contayned in the Old testament but that the finding of it required labour as in the like case I shewed aboue out of S. Chrissostome and others about the word scrutamini search Fourtly Although the search of scriptures and consonance of them with s. Paules wordes might help the conversion of those meÌ„ yet who can doubt but the preaching and viva vox interpretation and explication of scripture alledged vrged and illustrated by S. Paul did also cooperate and operate more then the only reading of scriptures which many did reade and yet were not converted Which shewes their obscurity even in this Fundamentall Article concerning the Messias as we reade Act. 13.27 Not knowing him nor the voyces of the prophets that are read every sabboth And Luc. 24.44.45 it is sayd These are the words which I spake to you when I was with you that all things must needs be fulfilled which are written in the Law of Moyses and the Prophets and the Psalmes of me Then he opened their vnderstanding that they might vnderstaÌ„d the scriptures Wherfor the example of the Beroeans is not to the purpose vnless it can be proved that they redd the scripture without the assistance of such other meanes as I haue mentioned and that they found theÌ„ so â—â—ident that they needed no other help which certainly is wholy impossible to be proved Even Cartwright in whitg Def. P. 784. confesseth that Vnless the Lord workes miraculously and excraordinarily the bare reading of the scriptures without the preaching caÌ„not deliver so much as one poore sheepe from destruction Therfor scripture is not evident in all necessary Poynts otherwise it might deliver men from destruction Fiftly I say that not only those men had no obligation to read the scripture before they believed S. Paul but as the rhemes testameÌ„t vpon this place wisely observes they were bound to belieue the Apostle aÌ„d obey his word whether he alledged scripture or no or whether they could reade and vnderstand it or no. Therfor this example cannot be alledged to proue that all necessary Poynts of Faith are evident in scripture alone Sixtly This example is wholy impertineÌ„t if the Beroeans did search the scriptures only for their greater comfort aÌ„d confirmation in the Faith which they had already embraced by the preaching of S. Paul aÌ„d not by searching the scriptures as Cornelius Ã Lapide holds and to that purpose alledges the Text itself which sayth V. 11. And these were more noble theÌ„ they that are at Thessalonica who receyved the word with all greediness daily searching the scriptures if these things were so Where first it is sayd they receyved the word and then were searching the scriptures And this also is the judgment of the Rhemes TestameÌ„t 65. Besides the places which I haue answered Protestants are wont to alledg the words of the Apocalyps 22. V. 18.19 I testify to every one hearing the words of the prophecie of this Booke If any man shall add to these things God shall add vpon him the plagues writteÌ„ in this book And if any man shall diminish of the word of the book of this prophecy God shall take away his part out of the book of life aÌ„d out of the holy citie aÌ„d of these things that be writteÌ„ in this booke But what is this to the purpose of proving that we are obliged to reade and seek out of the Apocalyps alone for of it only S. Iohn expressly declares himself to speake all necessary Poynts of Christian Faith or that it contaynes evidently all such points in particular So farr was this sacred booke from having been written for a Catechisme or an entire Rule of Faith that it is a Prophecy or revelation of things to come so hidden and sublime and profound that S. Hierome sayth Tot habet SacrameÌ„ta quot verba Every word is a Mystery The curse which S. John interminates falls vpon such as either would add any thing contrary to this book or corrupt it by fathering on it some apocriphall writing or Revelation or diminish it by some part or which is worst of all quite abolish it as not Canonicall as in old tyme Marcionistae Alogiani Theodosiani as witnesseth Epiphan Lib. 2. Heres 51. did And Erasmus Lutherus Brentius and Kemnitius doe The Author of the Commentary vpon this booke bearing the name of S. Ambrose saith that He curses Heretikes that vsed to add somwhat of their own that was false and to take away other things that were contrary to their Heresyes But God forbid we should interpret Him to exclude the Authority of the Church and lawfull Pastours since S. John himself as long as he lived was a Living Rule or Iudg for matters of Faith besides the word written in the Apocalyps or in other Canonicall scripture and so no scripture was then the only Rule of Faith Yea S. John after the sayd curse adds two verses more and Cornel. a Lapide Quest Proaemialib in Apocalypsim saith it is cleare that S. John wrote the Apocalyps before he wrote the Gospell For this he wrote being retourned from his banishmeÌ„t of Patmos where he wrote the Apocalyps as S. Hierome teaches in Catal. script Ecclesiast and Eusebius Lib. 5. Hist C. 24.

that it is inspired and that it is prositable Therfor as every part of Scripture is inspired so is it also profitable And what an incongruous change of sense were it of the same word All Scripture that is every part of Scripture is inspired and all Scripture that is only the whole body of Scripture is profitable How then will they be able to proue much less to proue evidently that the words All Scripture must be certainly taken in this sense And yet till they doe this they haue done nothing for their purpose 69. Fourthly We must also consider to whom S. Paul avoucheth Scripture to be even profitable Which is not to every vnlearned person but that the man of God may be perfect wherby is to be vnderstood a Doctour and Bishop as Corn a Lapide affirmeth vpon this place and In 1. Timoth Cap 6. V. 11. where S. Timothy is called Homo Dei the man of God proves it out of S. Chrisost and Theodoret that men eminently holy are called men of God as Prophets are so called 4. Reg 1.11 12. Elias is called the man of God and Samuel 1. Reg 9. The like we see Judic 12.6 and 3. Reg 13.1 It is also a title of Kings Princes and Prelates so Moyses Deut 13.1 is called Homo Dei man of God and David 2. Paral 8.14 Now Timothy was a Doctour Bishop and Prince of the Church of Ephesus This is also the interpretation of Beza To those then who are supposed to be already well instructed by other teachers the Scripture is very profitable that is not Scripture alone but joyned with tradition and interpretation of Gods Church A paralel to this of S. Paul All scripture inspired of God is the Text of S. Peter Ep 2. C. 1. 20.21 Vnderstanding this first that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation For not of mans will was prophecy brought at any tyme but the holy men of God spake inspired with the Holy Ghost If Heretiques did confider and practise this primum first that all prophecy is not made by private interpretation For not by mans will c they would not be Heretiques but would see to whom scripture is profitable not to those who will admitt no Guide nor interpretation but their own witt and will to whom it becomes by their only fault not profitable but pernicious as experience tells vs. So far is it from being necessary or sufficient 70. Thus their Chiefest proofes out of scripture being clearly confuted it remaynes demonstrated that they haue no solid proofe that Scripture alone contaynes all things necessary to Salvation But yet let vs alledg some more Arguments to disproue their Tenet 71. Eleaventhly Seing Protestants cannot proue out of scripture that scripture is evident for all necessary poynts this alone is sufficient to overthrow their Assertion and Religion But for the difficulty and obscurity of scripture we haue alledged evident scripture even in a poynt most necessary concerning the Messias in the example of the Eunuch and the Apostles themselves which difficulty is further most clearly testifyed by S. Peter who expressly writes thus 2. Pet 3.15.16 As also our most deare brother Paul according to the wisdome given him hath written to you As also in all Epistles speaking in them of these things in the which are certayne things hard to be vnderstood which the vnlearned and vnstable depraue as also the rest of the scriptures to their owne perditioÌ„ In which words I obserue First that as by reason of the hardness of some things in S. Paules Epistles meÌ„ did erre so they did erre also in the rest of the scriptures for the same reasoÌ„ which shewes that other scriptures contayne things hard to be vnderstood Secondly That those meÌ„ did erre in necessary poynts seing their errours were cause of their destruction Therfor the scripture is hard and obscure in necessary matters For an errour cannot be damnable vnless the contrary truth be necessary The translatour of the English bible Ann 1600. Preface avoucheth that it is A very hard thing to vnderstand the holy scriptures and that divers errours sects and heresies grow daily for lacke of true knowledg therof Mark that he speaks of matters of moment in which to erre is to fall into Heresy 72. Twelfthly I take an Argument from these your owne words Pag. 54. N. 4. If men did really and sincerly submitt their judgments to Scripture and that only and would require no more of any man but to do so it were impossible but that all Controversies thouching things necessary and very profitable should be ended and if others were continued or increased it were no matter In which words you seeme te extend the sole sufficiency and evidence of scripture to things very profitable For if these be not evidently contayned in scripture how can you say it were impossible but that all controversies touching them should be ended since obscurity or want of evidence is that which produces all Controversyes Besides you say that if Controversyes in things not necessary or not very profitable were continued or increased it were no matter Therfor a contrario sensu it imports that Controversyes about things very profitable be ended But this saying of yours demonstrates how little credit you deserue in affirming all things necessary to be evidently contayned in scripture alone since you teach the same of things very profitable which are so far from being all contayned evidently in scripture that for a convincing Reason for the contrary we need no other proofe then manifest Experience and contentions of Protestants among themselves concerning many poynts which they expressly declare to be of great momeÌ„t as for example the Canon of scripture it self and How it is knoweÌ„ to be the word of God the infallibility of ChristiaÌ„ Faith the Eucharist Predestination Free-will vniversall Grace RepentaÌ„ce Definition necessity effect of Sacraments Government of the Church and other poynts and yet in Charity whose essentiall Character is to judg and hope the best as you say Pag. 34. N 6. I suppose you will not judg but that all those your brethren at least divers of them do really and sincerely submitt their judgments to scripture and seing it is manifest that they do not agree I see no remedy but that you must confess scripture alone not to be evideÌ„t nor sufficient in all things very profitable If then even according to your owne words aboue recited it import that there be some evideÌ„t aÌ„d certaine meanes to end Controversies touching things very profitable and that this cannot be done by scripture alone it must require a living Guide Besides what evident text of scripture can you produce to proue that it alone is evident in all things very profitable And your Reader wil be glad to know what you meane by things very profitable and whether you intend to distinguish them from things profitable and whether your meaning be that scripture alone is cleare for things very profitable but

that the alteration of the Sabboth from Satterday to Sunday is not proved by scripture but is acknowledged to be an Apostolyque Tradition to be perpetually observed sett tymes of Fasting and from certaine meates appointed not only for politique order but for spirituall considerations the primacy of one over the Church in seuerall Nations and Kingdomes vnwritten traditions necessary to be observed blessing of our meate and forhead with the signe of the crosse and further vse therof in the publike liturgy about which Joannes Creecelius in his descriptio refutatio Ceremoniarum Missae c Printed Magdeburgi An 1603. Pag 118. giveth testimony of the Lutherans doctrine saying We do not disallow the signe of the holy Crosse if once or twice without superstition it be freely vsed in the Divine Service yea if in private our meate and drinke be-signed therwith For when we goe to bed or rise we signe our selves with the Crosse according to the institution of Luther and other godly men And Joannes Manlius Luthers Scholler in loc Commun Pag 636. saith Luther sayd Having made the signe of the Crosse God defend me c As also the Communion-Booke in the tyme of King Edward the sixt penned by advise and approbation of Cranmer Latimer Ridley and other Protestant Divines of that tyme printed Ann 1549. Fol 116. prescribeth the Priests signing of the Sacrament with the signe of the Crosse And Fol 131. it prescribeth the Priests like consecrating the Font of Baptisme with the signe of the Crosse 92. These Poynts and more than these which I omitt Brierley doth punctually demonstrate divers Protestants to hold with vs against their owne Brethren which I haue more willingly set downe that Protestants may see how little reason they haue to esteeme the very name of Papists odious since many of their greatest Divines are Papists in so very many and chiefest Poynts and which ought not to passe without reflexion even in those particular Doctrines which to the vulgar sort seeme most Superstitious and for which they are brought vp in contempt and hatred of our Religion and vs. If our Catholique Religion were as beggarly as that of Protestants which is content to call those Brethren who disagree from them in innumerable Poynts we might easily encrease our number with addition of as many Protestants as we haue rehearsed and of many more than we can easily reckon Certaine it is that Protestants will scarcely be able to object any Poynts of moment against vs but that joyntly they must wound their owne Brethren if indeed they did vnderstand what they say and did not think the name of Papists to be a sufficient cause of hatred whatsoever that name doth signify wherof many are very ignorant But for my purpose I conclude that Scripture alone cannot be cleare seing Protestants in so many and so important matters especially in those very particulars wherin they pretend to differ from vs are indeed so far divided among themselves as that they fall to joyne with vs with whom nothing but meere necessity and force of evident truth could moue them to agree And as the agreeing of so many Protestants with vs shews that the Scripture is not cleare at least in behalf of them who are forsaken by their owne Brethren soÌ„ their disagreeing among themselves doth convince the same For how can men if with sinceryty they seeke the truth be so divided having before their eyes one and the same cleare and evident Rule as they pretend scripture to be 93. If any for avoyding the premises adventure to say that those learned protestants who affirme the Ancient Fathers to stand for vs do not vnderstand the meaning of their words aÌ„d that for the same cause perhaps protestants do not agree with vs nor differ among themselves so much as their writings not well vnderstood make shewe To this answer although I might reply with those words of Tertullian in Apologet Nemo ad suum dedecus mentitur c No man will lye to his owne shame but rather to his owne credit we sooner believe the confession of men against themselves then their denyall against themselves as also I might say that the testimonies of protestants for the sayd purposes are so evident so many of so different persons and delivered not incidently or by some other occasion but of sett purpose at large and as I may say in cold bloud that they cannot with any modesty be avoyded yet I will only say and the Objection deserves no other answer that if the writings of meÌ„ which are infinitely beneath the Majesty and sublimity of the Style and misteryes of holy scripture and proportioned to the weakness of humane vnderstanding be so hard and obscure we ought even from this Objection to conclude that scripture alone cannot be evident Thus the Lutherans do grievously complaine against the Calvinists (a) Gerardus Gieskenius a Lutheran in his Book de veritate Corporis Christi in Coena contra Pezelium Pag 93. so charges the Calvinists because say they you alledge Luthers words against his meaning In like manner the same Lutheran Charges them for that they (b) Vbi supra Pag 77. endeavoured to make the Confession of Augusta which teacheth the Reall presence to be Zuinglian that is against the reall presence exclayming therat if this thing had bene done in Arabia America Sardinta or such like remote Countryes and of former tymes this vsurpation of fraud and historicall falshood were more tolerable But seing the questioÌ„ is of such things as be done in our owne tymes and in the sight of all men who with a quiet mynd can endure such lyes In like manner Fulk in his Answer to a counterfaite Catholique Artic 17. Pag. 61. is not ashamed to say that the Lutherans and the Zuinglians do both consent in this That the Body of Christ is receaved spiritually not corporally with the hart not with mouth which all the world knowes to be manifestly vntrue Thus also Dr. Field of the Church L. 3. C. 42. Pag 170. sayth I dare confidently pronounce that after due and full examination of each others meaning there shal be no difference found touching the matter of the Sacrament the Vbiquetary Presence or the like between the Churches reformed by Luthers ministery in Germany and other places and those whom some mens malice call Sacramentaryes And Dr. Potter Pag 90. is not afrayd to say that the Lutherans and Calvinists differ rather in forme and phrases of speech then in substance of Doctrine even in the maine controversy between them about Consubstantiation which after occasioned that of Vbiquity The maine truth on both sides is out of Controversy that Christ is really and truly exhibited to each faithfull communicant and that in his whole person hee is every where The doubt is only in the manner how he is in the symboles and how in Heaven and Earth which is no part of Faith but a curious nicyty Is it all one to be exhibited

it to be a perfect Rule he believes it to be a Rule 95. Besides this you deliver another doctrine which overthrowes the sufficiency of scripture taken alone Thus you write p. 144. N. 31. The Apostles doctrine was confirmed by Miracles therfor it was entirely true and in no part either false or vncertaine I say in no part of that which they delivered constantly as a certaine divine truth and which had the attestation of divine Miracles The falshood and danger of this doctrine I will purposely confute herafter For the present I say that it makes Scripture wholly vncertaine and vnfit to be a sufficient yea or any Rule of Faith although it were never so cleare and evident in all necessary points For if once we yield that the Apostles could err in poynts belonging to Religion we cannot belieue them with certainty at any other tyme or in any other article as I demonstrate in the next Chapter and the thing is manifest of it self All Divines and all men by the light of Reason require an vniversall Infallibility in that Authority for which they must belieue with divine Faith and if it could erre at one tyme it might erre at another for ought we could know or if it say one thing to day and the contrary to morrow what certainty can we haue to belieue rather the one than the other And indeed we can belieue neither of them with certainty Besides you seeme to require that every part of Christian doctrine be confirmed by miracles beforwe can be certaine of the truth therof which blastes the credit of all scripture For how do you know that the Apostles wrought miracles to proue immediatly and in particular that scripture is the word of God Or how can you belieue that miracles were wrought severally in confirmation of every rext of scripture And yet we belieue every such Text with an assent of divine Faith Nay wheras protestants alledg some texts to proue that scripture contaynes evidently all necessary points you must shewe that those very texts were confirmed by miracles if you will belieue them with certainty as entirely true which I suppose you will judg to be a Chimericall endeavour and therfor we must inferr that by no text of scripture you can proue it to contayne all necessary poynts of Faith Divers other errours you maintayne against holy scripture which as in the next chapter I will demonstrate make it vncapable of being any Rule at all for Christian Faith and therfor you must either retract those errours or renounce the common principle of protestants that scripture alone contaynes evidently all points necessarily do to believed 96. 19. And lastly I overthrow theit sufficiency of scripture alone by not only answering but also confuting the arguments by which they endeavour to establish it For seeing it lye vpon them positively to prove their Assertion if it be demonstrated that the arguments which they bring are either impertinent or insufficient it wil remayne effectually proved that they caÌ„not avouch Scripture alone to contayne all things necessary to salvation I must therfor of necessity be large in answering their Objections in performing wherof I both Answer and Impugne Defend the truth and Confute my Adversary in one generall poynt which alone implyes or extends it self to all particular controversyes in Faith Your 97. First Objection Pag. 109. N. 144. is taken from a saying of Bellarmin de Verb. Dei L. 4. C. 11. That all those things were written by the Apostles which are necessary for all 98. Answer First Bellarmin even as you alledge him speaks only of things necessary for all that is for every private person not of things necessary for the whole Mysticall body of the Church as if all such things were evidently contained in scripture yea he expressly declares himself to the contrary Â§ Nota Secundo affirming that the Apostles were wont to preach some things only to Prelats Bishops and Priests as of the manner of governing the Church administring Sacraments refuting Heretiques c Secondly he sayes not that all things which are necessary for all are writtren evidently which only could serue your turne but only that they are written which is true though they were writteÌ„ obscurely as many things are contained in scripture in particular and yet obscurely and much less doth he say that they are evident without the declaration of the Church and helpe of tradition which only were for your purpose yea that his words can haue no such meaning but the direct and express contrary Bellarm himself will best declare in that very Chapter from which your objection is taken and almost immediatly after the words by you cited Thus he speaks Â§ sed admissa Dico eorum omnium dogmatum c I say that there are found in scripture testimonyes of all those Doctrines which belong to the nature of God aÌ„d that we may concerning such Doctrines be fully and plainly instructed out of the scriptures if we vnderstand them aright but that sense of scripture depends on the vnwritten Tradition of the Church Wherfor Theodoret L. 1. C. 8. relates that scriptures were alledged on both sides both by Catholiques and Arians and when the Arians could not be convinced by them scriptures because they did expound those selfsame scriptures otherwise then Catholiques did they were condemned by words not written but vnderstood according to piety and no man ever doubted but that ConstaÌ„tine consented to that condemnation Could any thing haue been spoken more clearly solidly and truly to shew in what sense things of greatest moment as was that article of the Divinity of Christ our Lord against the wicked Arians for defense wherof the church suffered so much and so many Martyrs shedd their bloud are contaynd fully and plainly in scripture that is in those texts which fully and plainly recommend the church and vnwritten tradition as I noted in the beginning And yet further in the same Lib. 4. Cap. 4. Â§ 7. Necesse est c. he saith that oftentymes the scripture is doubtfull and intricate so that it cannot be vnderstood vnless it be interpreted by some who cannot erre therfore it alone is not sufficient which are his express words and then gives divers examples of some chief points even belonging to the nature of God which all good Christians beleeue as matters of Faith and yet cannot be proved by scripture alone And Cap. 7. he saith S. Austine sayd that that Question whether they who were baptized by Heretiques were to be rebaptized could not be decided by scripture before a full Councell of the Church but that after the Councell had declared the doubt and the whole Question there may be taken assured documents from the scripture For scriptures being explicated by the Councell do firmely and certainly proue that which they did not firmely proue before But why do I stand vpon particular passages since in the same Lib. 4. Cap. 3. he speakes vniversally and sayes that we Catholikes disagree

from Heretiques because we affirme that all necessary doctrine concerning either Faith or Manners is not contayned expressly in scripture and that beside the written word of God there is required the vnwritten word that is Divine and Apostolicall Traditions c aÌ„d C. 4. the very title wherof is this The necessity of Traditions is proved in the beginning he sayth First we will endeavour to shew that scripture without Traditions was neither simply necessary nor sufficient Secondly that there are extant Apostolicall Traditions not only concerning manners but also Faith Is it not very straÌ„ge you should alledg Bellarmine for the sufficieÌ„cy of scripture alone who in a whole booke containing twelue Chapters professes to teach and proue the necessity of Tradition or Gods vnwritten word and in most cleare words which even now we alledged declares how scripture is cleare and sufficient namely togeather with Tradition and Interpretation of Gods church But by this is confirmed what I sayd aboue how hard it is to find evidence in holy Scripture the matter and manner wherof surpasses all naturall witt seing the words of men are so confidently alledged out of those places wherin they purposely teach profess and proue the direct contrary of that for which they are produced as here you say that the words you cite out of Bellarmine are as you conceyue as home to your purpose as you could wish them 99. Object 2. You say Pag 337. N. 20. S. Luke plainly professeth that his intent was to write all things necessary And Pag 212. N. 43. For S. Luke that he hath written such a perfect Gospell that is as you speake the whole substance all the necessary parts of the Gospell of Christ in my judgment it ought to be with them that belieue him no manner of question And this you endeavour to proue out of these words of S. Luke in the Introduction to his Gospell For asmuch as many haue taken in hand to set forth a declaration of those things which are most surely believed amongst vs even as they delivered vnto vs which from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word it seemed good to me also having had perfect vnderstanding of things from the first to write to thee in order most excellent Theophilus that thou mightest know the certainty of those things wherin thou hast bene instructed To this place you add the entrance to his history of the Acts of the Apostles the former treatise haue I made Ã´ Theophilus of all that Iesus began both to doe and teach vntill the day in which he was taken vp Therfor say you all things necessary to salvation are certainly contayned in S. Lukes writing alone 100. Answer First you falsify S. Luke in saying that he plainly professeth that his intent was to write all things necessary For where do you find those words all things necessary And much less can you find that he plainly professeth to deliver all things necessary and least of all that he plainly professeth to deliver all necessary things plainly or evidently The Question is not between vs whether all necessary things be contayned in scripture obscurely or implicitely or in a generall way of referring vs to Gods Church for divers particulars but whether all necessary Points be contayned in scripture expressly in particular evidently without reference to the Tradition Interpretation or Declaration of the Church and it is evident that S. Luke hath no evident words to proue all that I haue sayd you must proue if you speake to the matter Which also appeares by considering that not only Catholiques amongst whom you will not deny but there are many learned pious and desirous to saue their soules but Protestants also see no such evidence for proving the sufficiency of S. Lukes Gospell or any other Gospell or particular Booke of Scripture taken alone seing their doctrine is that scripture contaynes all things necessary only after the Canon was finished and yet S. Lukes Gospell was written forty yeares before the whole scripture was written For this cause Protestants interpret Omnis scriptura vtilis est 2. Tim. 3.16 All scripture is profitable not distributiuÃ¨ for every particular part or Booke of scripture but collectiuÃ¨ for the whole Bible and some English Protestant Translation Ann 1586. hath not All scripture but the whole Bible is profitable where by the way is to be noted how they can helpe their errours by their different Translations and how litle credit is to be given to their Bibles Neither do Protestants commonly alledge these Texts of S. Luke for the sufficiency of scripture but other places as we haue seene aboue and who can imagine that they would haue omitted so pregnant a proofe if they were of your mynd concerning the evidence therof Remember here what you say Pag. 61. N. 24. The thing is not evident of it self which is evident because many do not belieue it How then can the words and meaning of S. Luke be evident of themselves seing so many both your Brethren and Adversaryes neither see nor belieue any such meaning Call also to mynd what you write Pag 99. N. 119. How shall I be assured that the places haue indeed this sense in them Seing there is not one Father for 500. yeares after Christ that does say in plaine termes the Church of Rome is infallible This I retort and fay seing there is not I say not one Father for 500. yeares after Christ but not one learned writer for 1500. yeares after Christ that interprets this Text as you doe How shall I be assured that this place hath indeed this sense in it Yea even by this appeares the necessity of a living judg to declare the true meaning of this and other Texts of Scripture as occasion shall require 101. 2. S. Luke saith Assecuto omnia Having had perfect vnderstanding of All And the former Treatise haue I made of all that Jesus began both to doe and teach Of All All is a signe of Vniversality he that sayes all excepts nothing If therfor we follow the plaine obvious vsuall Grammaticall and Logicall sence it must signify that S. Luke delivered in writing absolutely all that our Saviour wrought and taught But this larg notion you caÌ„not admitt without contradicting S. John Cap 21.25 But there are many other things which Jesus did which if they were written in particular neither the world it-self I thinke were able to containe those books that should be writteÌ„ Well theÌ„ being driveÌ„ from the Logicall aÌ„d seeming evideÌ„t notion of All you must vnderstand All not in the whole latitude of the word but with some restriction I pray you shew vs this particular restriction not from any probable vncertaine topicall discourse of your own but from some certaine express evident Text of Scripture declaring this restriction But this is impossible for you to doe as every child will see Therfor this your argument is already at an end for as much as can be proved out of

of exercising humility in our selves and obedience to Gods Church and to our Saviour himself who sayd Luke 10.16 He that heares you heares me and Matth. 18.17 If he heare not the Church let him be vnto thee as a Heathen or Publican together with a dependence of one man vpon another as it was sayd to S. Paul even in that great vision Act. 9. V. 7. Goe into the citty And it shal be told thee what thou art to doe and to him who was cured of the leprosy Matth. 8.4 Goe shew thy self to the Priest As also for procuring peace and vnity in Religion which cannot be conserved if all controversyes must be tryed by scripture alone that being in effect to leaue every man to his owne witte will and wayes as we see by constant experience in all those who reject the Authority of a Living Judg. 148. But what you cannot evince by reason you endeavour to proue by an example in these words Suppose Xaverius had bene to write the Gospell of Christ for the Indians think you he would haue left out any fundamentall Doctrine of it 149. Answer Are these Arguments taken from evident Texts of scripture as yours against vs ought to be in this poynt which is the only foundation of Protestantisme If you tell vs what you meane in this particular Objection by the Gospell of Christ yourself may easily answer for vs out of what hath beene sayd already We haue heard you saying By the Gospell of Christ I vnderstand not the whole History of Christ but all that makes vp the covenant between God and man Now then to your example I Answer that if S. Xaverivs had intended to write the Gospell as it signifyes the History of Christ he had not bene obliged to write all necessary Points as neither the Evangelists who wrote the Gospell were obliged to do aÌ„d it is straÌ„ge that we denying it of them you would seek to proue it only by changing the person as if any would attribute more to S. Xaverius than to the EvaÌ„gelists But if S. Xauerius had purposed to write not the History of our B. Saviour as the Evangelists did but a Catechisme or summe of Christian doctrine or the Gospell as it signifyes to vse your words all that makes vp the Covenant between God and man which the Evangelists did not intend then what you say or imagine of S. Xaverius cannot be applyed to the Evangelists seeing in that case their ends in writing had bene very different Nevertheless even vpon this supposition that S. Xaverius had purposed to write a Catechisme we must consider some particular circumstances before we can affirme that he was obliged to write all necessary points of Faith for example if that Saint had bene assured that in his absence and for all future tymes there would never be wanting Preachers Teachers Prelats Pastors and Apostolicall men to instruct Christians convert Infidels and supply abundantly by word of mouth and a perpetuall Succession and Tradition whatsoever was not expressed in such a Catechisme as de facto we see God in his Goodness hath furnished the Indyes with so many Pastours Preachers c. that no one Cathecisme is absolutely necessary in that case I say no man can judge that S. Xaverius had bene obliged to leaue in writing precisely every particularnecessary Point but only such as Tyme Place Persons and all other particular circumstances considered should in prudence seeme most for the purpose and such a Catechisme togeather with those other helpes had bene a most sufficient Meanes for that End which S. Xaverius had proposed to himself vpon the sayd supposition of Pastours c. Now this is our case The Evangelists were most certaine that Hell-gates could noâ— prevaile against the Church Matth. 16. that there should be a perpetuall Succession of Pastours that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth 1. Timot. 3. that he gaue some Apostles and some Prophets and other some Evangelists and other some Pastours and Doctours c. that now we be not children wavering and carryed about with every winde of doctrine in the wickedness of men in craftyness to the circumvention of errour Ephesi 4. Where we see that for avoyding errours Scripture alone is not appointed as the only Meanes yea is not so much as mentioned but Apostles Pastours Doctours c. to the worlds end To which purpose ancient S. Irenaeus Lib. 3. Cap. 4. speaks very fully in these words What if the Apostles had not left Scriptures ought we not to haue followed the order aÌ„d tradition which they delivered to those to whom they committed the Churches to which order many nations yielded assent who belieue in Christ having salvation written in their harts by the spirit of God without letters or inke and diligently keeping ancient Tradition It is easy to receiue the truth from Gods Church seing the Apostles haue most fully deposited in her as in a rich storehouse all things belonging to truth It is therfor cleare that the Evangelists had no obligation to write all necessary points in particular and some may retort your example thus the Evangelists had no reason to doe so therfor neither S. Xaverivs in the like case and circumstances had been obliged therto and not argue as you doe S. Xaverius should haue bene obliged to do so therfor we must say the same of the Apostles I will not stand heer to say that although S. Xaverius had bene obliged to set downe all Points necessary to be believed by every priuate person as such yet I hope you would not haue obliged him to expresse all things necessary for the whole Church as I sayd in the beginning which yet is a most necessary thing 150. But here occurs a difficulty which will shew your example of S. Xaverius or of any other to be not only insufficient or impertinent but also impossible and chimericall and even ridiculous in your grounds of which I believe you did not reflect You teach that there cannot be given a particular Catalogue of fundamentall poynts but that men may be sure not to faile in believing all such Articles if they belieue all that is evidently found in scripture which clearly containes all necessary things in particular and many more If then S. Xaverius could not know precisely what points in particular be fundamentall how will you oblige him or any other not to omitt any one such point Neither I do vnderstand how in your principles any man can set downe all necessary points in such manner as he may be sure to omitt none except by referring them to scripture or procuring that they haue either the whole bible according to the common opinion of other Protestants or at least the Gospell of S. Luke which you hold for certaine that it contaynes all necessary points for of the other three Evangelists you are doubtfull which is a strange kind of composing a Catechisme and yet there can be no other perfect Catechisme made either

you wholy but by word of mouth and that thervpon Paul also sayd we speake wisdome amongst the perfect But the word wholy in your parenthesis is wholy your owne false glosse to make those Heretikes seeme like to vs Catholiques wheras it is plaine as we haue heard out of your owne confession that those Heretiks held scripture vnfitt to proue any truth at all and not only vnfitt to proue all necssary truths because they held it not to be the infallible word of God but to contayne falshoods and contradictions and your conscience cannot but beare witness that we do not deny the sufficiency of scripture alone and necessity of tradition vpon any such Atheistical perswasion as that was 164. This also appeares by S. Irenaeus in the first Chapter of the same Book which you cited where he sayth against those Heretiks Neither is it lawfull to say that they preached before they had receyved perfect knowledge as some presume to say boasting that they are correctours of the Apostles And this horrible Heresy he confutes because the Apostles did not preach till first they had receyved the Holy Ghost Where I beseech you remember with feare and trembling your owne doctrine that the Apostles did erre about preaching the Gospell to Gentils and in some things did not deliver divine truths but the dictates of humane reason and all this after they had receyved the Holy Ghost and then consider whether you or wee disagree from S. Irenaeus and detract from the sufficiency of scripture which if these your doctrines were true would be of no greater authority than those absurd Heritiks wickedly affirmed it to be with whom therfore you do in this perfectly agree This also appeares by the words of S. Irenaeus Lib 1. Cap 29 where he sayth of Marcion the Heretike he perswaded his disciples that his word was more to be believed than the Apostles who delivered the Gospell 165. You could not also but speak against your conscience while you liken the Tradition which Catholiks belieue to those of the sayd wicked Heretiques who indeed agreed with you in the point of denying the Traditions which we defend as is fully witnessed by S. Irenaeus in that very Chapter and Book which you alledg and therfor you are inexcusable in laying to our charge the traditions of those men For S. Irenaeus in the same Lib 3. Cap 2. having sayd that when those Heretiks are pressed with scripture they fly to tradition he adds But when we provoke them to that Tradition which comes from the Apostles and which is kept in the Churches by the Successions of Priests they oppose themselves against Tradition saying that they themselves being wiser not only than Priests but also than the Apostles haue found out the sincere truth And so it comes to passe that they assent neither to scripture nor Tradition Which is agreeable to the Title of that Chapter Quod neque scripturis c. as I sayd aboue Wherby it appeares that they rejected Catholike Traditions derived from the Apostles by succession of Pastours and therfor when they appeale to Tradition it was to certaine secret traditions of their owne men which even yourself Pag. 344. N. 28. affirme out of S. Irenaeus where you say that Catholikes alledged Tradition much more credible than that secret tradition to which those heretikes pretended against whom he S. Irenaeus wrote And Pag. 345. N. 29. You speake most clearly and effectually to your owne confutation For there you make a paraphrase of some words of S. Irenaeus and make him speake in this manner You heretiks decline a tryall of your doctrine by scripture as being corrupted and imperfect and not fit to determine Controversyes with out recourse to Tradition and insteed thereof you fly for refuge to a secret tradition which you pretend that you receaved from your Antecessours Do not these words declare both that those heretiks held scripture to be corrupted and that they relyed vpon certaine hidden and vaine traditions of their owne As contrarily it is evident out of S. Irenaeus that the Fathers were wont to convince heretiks by Tradition coming from the Apostles and which is conserved in the Churches by succession of Priests which demonstrates that there was no necessity that all necessary points should be written and you wrong S. Irenaeus alledging him to the contrary wheras it is most certaine and evident that this holy Father writes most effectually in favour of Traditions descending to vs by a continued succession of Bishops and Pastours aÌ„d particularly of the Bishops of Rome whose succession and names he setteth downe to his tyme as may be seene Lib. 3. Chap 3. and then concludes by this order and succession that tradition which is in the Church derived from the Apostles and preaching of the truth came to vs. And this is a most full demonstration that it is one and the same life-giving Faith which from the Apostles to this tyme hath bene in the Church conserved and delivered in truth I beseech the Reader for the good of his owne soule to read what this holy Father writes of traditions Lib. 3. C. 4.25.40 and Lib. 4. C. 43. where he hath these remarkeable words wherfore we ought to obey those Priests which are in the Church and haue succession from the Apostles who with Episcopall succession haue receyved the certaine gift of truth according to the pleasure of the Father But others who depart from the principall succession and haue their conventicles in what place soever we ought to hold for suspected either as Heretikes and of ill doctrine or as schismatikes and provd and pleasing themselves or els as hypocrites doing these things for lucre and vainglory And yet further L. 4. C. 45. he hath these words Paul teaching vs where we may find such he meanes Faithfull persons whom our Lord hath placed ouer his family of whom he spoke in the end of the precedent 44. Chapter saith he placed in his Church first Apostles secondly Prophets thirdly Doctours where therfor the gifts of our Lord are placed there we ought to learne the truth with whom there is a succession of the Church from the Apostles and that is constantly kept which is wholsome vnblemished for conversation and not spurious but incorruptible in doctrine that is both for manners and Faith affirming that in neither of those the Church can erre For those men do keepe our Faith which is in one God who made all things and expound to vs the scriptures without danger And the same he sayth L. 4 C. 63. yea even vvhitaker Controu 1. 9. Q. C. 9. saith We confess with Irenaeus the Authority of the Church to be firme and a compendious demonstration of Canonicall doctrine a posteriori Where vve see Whitaker speakes of doctrine and not only of conserving and consigning scripture to vs. And S. Epiphanius is so cleare for traditions Heresi 61. we must vse traditions for the scripture hath not all things and therfor the Apostles delivered

certaine things by writing and certaine by tradition with vvhom agrees S. Basile de spiritui sancto Cap. 27. saying some things we haue from scripture other things from the Apostles tradition c both which haue like force vnto godlines that Dr. Reynolds in his conclusions annexed to his conference 1. conclus Pag. 689. ansvvering to these sayings of S. Epiphanius and S. Basil sayth I took not vpon me to control them but let the Church judge if they considered with advise enough c And for other Fathers both Greek and Latine they are so plaine for tradition against the sufficiency of scripture taken alone that as may be seene in Brierley Tract 1. sect 3. subdivis 12. wheras S. Chrysostome saith in 2. ad Thessal Hom 4. The Apostles did not deliver all things by writing but many things without and these be as worthy of credit as the other Whitaker de Sacra Scriptura Pag 678. in answer therto sayth I answer This is an inconsiderate speech and vnworthy so great a Father And wheras Eusebius Lib 1. Demonstrat Evangel Cap 8. is objected to say That the Apostles published their doctrine partly without writing as it were by a certaine vnwritten law Whitaker Pag 668. saith therto I answer that this testimony is plaine enough but of no force to be receyved because it is against the Scripture And of S. Austine Cartwright saith in Mr. Whitgifts Defence Pag 103. If S. Austines judgment be a good judgment then there be some things commanded of God which are not in the Scriptures Yea not to insist vpon every particular Father Kemnitius Exam Part 1. Pag 87.89.90 reproves for their like testimony of vnwritten Traditions Clemens Alexandrinus Origen Epiphanius Hierome Maximus Theophilus Basil Damascen c Fulk also confesses as much of Chrysostome Tertullian Cyprian Austine Hierome c And Whitaker acknowledgeth the like of Chrysost Epiphanius Tertullian Austine Innocentius Leo Basil Eusebius Damascene c. Now sir are not these Fathers and Ancient Doctours who teach that the Apostles haue not delivered all things in writing directly opposite to your contrary Assertion so often repeated but without any proofe which you know is but to begg the Question Of people without succession of Pastours which is the ground of Tradition we may truly say as Optatus saith of the Donatists Lib. 2. cont Parm. Sunt sine Patribus filii c. They are children without Fathers disciples without maisters and in a prodigious manner begotten and borne of themselves 166. I will make an end of this matter if first I haue noted that it is a false glosse of yours like to that which I haue noted aboue and directly against S. Irenaeus that when he sayth those Heretiks taught that truth cannot be found by those who know not Tradition he must meane sufficient truth as if those heretiks had agreed with Catholikes that all truth is not sufficiently contayned in scripture alone wheras S. Irenaeus expressly declares the doctrine of those Heretiks to haue been that the scriptures were not right and came not from good authority but were various one from another as I haue shewed and yourself affirme in those very words which you translate out of S. Irenaeus and so not only sufficient truth could not be learned in the scriptures but they could not assure vs of any truth at all Wheras you say to haue sayd against those Heretiks that part of the Gospell which was preached by Peter was written by S. Mark and some necessary parts of it omitted had been to speake impertinently and rather to confirme than confute their errour I must say that your consequence is no less impertinent than your supposition is false because no body did ever go about to confute those Heretiks by saying that part of the Gospell was written and some part omitted but by proving that the scriptures were true and of infallible authority which they denyed and also that beside scripture there are true Catholique Traditions opposite to the foolish traditions of those Heretiks from which truth may be learned both which Points S. Irenaeus proves and so confutes the double errour of those heretiks that truth could be found neither by the scriptures nor by the Traditions of Catholiques and therby expressly makes good such Traditions and that both out of scripture and Tradition we may learne some Points of Christian Faith which is directly against that very thing for which you alledge him and proves my chief intent that scripture is not the only Rule of Faith To which purpose I beseech you heare your owne words Pag 345. N. 29. where you bring S. Irenaeus Lib. 3. Cap. 2. speaking thus to those Heretiks Your calumnyes against Scripture are most vnjust but yet moreover assure yourselves that if you will be tryed by Tradition even by that also you will be overthrowne For our Tradition is farr more famous more constant and in all respects more credible than that which you pretend to It were easy for me to muster vp against you the vninterrupted Successions of all the Churches founded by the Apostles all conspiring in their testimonyes against you But because it were too long to number vp the Successions of all Churches I will content my self with the Tradition of the most Ancient and most glorious Church of Rome which alone is sufficient for the confutation and confusion of your doctrine c Thus you And though you render very imperfectly both the words and meaning of S. Irenaeus and in some words following those which I haue sett downe falsify his sense And therfor I beseech the Reader to examine the place yet this is sufficient to shew by your owne confession what was the judgment of this glorious Saint and Martyr concerning Traditions and the no-necessity that all Poynts of Faith should haue bene written since we may receyue them from the Church 167. By the way For what mystery do you goe about to proue that S. Mark hath written all things necessary because S. Irenaeus Lib. 3. Cap. 1. saith Mark S. Peters disciple delivered to vs in writing those things which S. Peter had preached and yet do not apply the same proof to S. Luke of whom S. Irenaeus in the same place saith Luke a follower of Paul wrote downe the Gospell which had bene preached by him S. Paul To what purpose would you goe the further way about first proving that S. Mark hath all necessary points and from the nce inferring that S. Luke whose Gospell is larger than that of S. Mark must needs haue written all such things When as you might haue immediatly proved the same thing of S. Luke of whom S. Irenaeus speaks in the very same manner as he speaks of S. Mark 168. From S. Mark you passe to S. John whom Pag. 211. N. 42. you would proue to haue written all necessary points because he saith Many other signes also did Iesus in the sight of his disciples which are not written in this Booke But these

are written that you may belieue that Iesus is Christ the Sonne of God and that believing you may haue life in his name John 20. V 31. By these are written may be vnderstood either those things are written or these signes are written Take it which way you will this conclusion will certainly follow That either all that which S. Iohn wrote in his Gospell or less then all and therfor all much more was sufficient to make them belieue that which being believed with lively Faith would certainly bring them to eternall life 169. Answer Of this Text we haue spoken already Who would ever haue dreamed of this Argument S. John sett downe in his Gospell as much of the Miracles which our B. Saviour wrought as was sufficient to oblige men to belieue that he was the Son of God Therfor he sett downe evidently all things necessary to salvation as if nothing were necessary except the belief of that single Point or as if none can be damned if he belieue that Point which is to say no Christian can be damned For he who believes not Jesus Christ to be the Son of God and the Messias is no Christian Doth the Apostles Creed consist only of that Poynt And yet Potter and you say it containes only things belonging to Faith Do not many Heretiks beleeve that Point Yea if they did not belieue that Article they were not Heretikes but Jewes Turks or infidells and Aposttaes from Christian Faith Suppose S. John had written only some Miracles sufficient to proue Jesus Christ to be the Son of God without mentioning any other doctrinall point at all who will say that he had evidently sett downe all things necessary to salvatioÌ„ And S. John Epist 1. C. 2. V. â— saith these things I write to you that you may not sinne as he saith in his Gospell These things are written that ye may belieue that Jesus is Christ the son of God Therfor as you will not say that in that Epistle he evidently setts downe all Points of Faith and other conditions required for keeping the commandements and avoyding sin but only that he wrote it to that end which yet was not to be obtained by that Epistle alone so although S. John saith Ep. 1. C. 1.4 These things we write to you that your ioy may be full yet the contents of that Epistle alone could not giue full ioy which requires the state of Grace and observation of all things belonging to Faith and Good life Nothing is more ordinary than to attribute an effect to some one cause because indeed it is a cause though it alone be not sufficient to produce such an effect He that shall belieue and shal be baptized shall be saved Mark 16.16 and yet Historicall Faith alone even according to Calvinists togeather with baptisme is not sufficient for salvation Luther Postilla in Dominic 5. post Pasch saith Here we see that to belieue in Christ doth not consist in believing that Christ is one Person which is God and man For this would availe no man Sadeel Resp ad Artic abjurat 33. Pag 495. saith it is not enough to belieue that Iesus Christ came into the world that he suffered death that he rose againe and ascended into Heaven for this Historicall Faith will not saue me This you did see and therfor to helpe the matter you closely add that S. John wrote sufficient to make men belieue that which being believed with lively Faith would certainly bring them to eternall life With lively Faith Therfor not by believing that Point alone Jesus is the Son of God A lively Faith signifyes the belief of all other Points of Faith and all things necessary for keeping all the Commandements and you should haue proved that S. John setts downe in his Gospell evidently all Points belonging to Faith and manners Here I must put you in mynd of your doctrine that there cannot be given a Catalogue of necessary or fundamentall Points of Faith and yet it may be easily and speedily given and you actually give it in this place if the belief of this Article alone Iesus Christ is the Son of God will certainly bring men to eternall life 170. But indeed is this Poynt which you alledg cleare and evident in S. Johns Gospell You could scarcely haue picked out a place or Poynt less for your and more for our purpose Do not Protestants differ both from Catholiks and amongst themselves about the Consubstantiality Merit and Satisfaction of out B. Saviour And for that which you say was S. Johns prime intent in writing his Gospell Vt credatis That you may belieue do not you in this differ from other Protestants toto genere as much as a belief only probable and fallible differs from a most certaine and infallible assent And concerning the words that you may haue life in his name do not you and your Socinian brethren differ from other Protestants who belieue the Value of our Saviours workes his Merit Satisfaction for our sinnes and Redemption of mankind And so in his name must be vnderstood by different Protestants in a very different sence which is the life of scripture In which maine differences you in your Principles will not say but that many or divers or at least some Protestants do sincerly seeke the true meaning of scripture and therfor could not disagree among themselves and from Catholikes if those words of S. John were evident according to your owne Rule That a thing is not evident when men so qualifyed disagree about it Catholique Bishops did overthrow the Arians who made no end of alledging scripture for their Heresy by Tradition and the word homoousion which is not found in scriprure And so you could not haue brought any Text of greater strength to proue the necessity of Tradition and of a Living Judg then this which you alledg for the evidence and sufficiency of scripture alone and if this Text itself be so difficult how can you by it proue that all other necessary Points are evident especially if we reflect on your words Pag. 93. N. 106. That the Evangelists wrote not only for the learned but for all men And therfor that they intended to speake plaine even to the capacity of the simplest A pretty paradox that the simplest are able to learne with certainty out of the bare words of scripture alone the most sublime mysteryes of Christian Religion which is more than the learned can do without observing divers Rules exceeding the capacity of the vnlearned and yet this absurdity cannot be avoyded if scriprure alone be the sole Rule of Faith because God hath provided meanes of salvation both for the learned and vnlearned and therfor if there be no other meanes beside scripture it must be cleare to all sorts of people What is this but to cast men into despayre 171. By what hath bene sayd there offers it self an easy answer to the Objection which you make Pag. 93. N. 105. Where speaking of the Evangelists

to vvhat purpose you say in your second Ansvver that it is one thing to be a perfect Ruâ—e of Faith an other to be proved so vnto vs seing your adversary expressly spoke of scripture in order to vs affirming Pag 41. N. 6. that it could not be proved vnto vs to be the word of God by its owne saying so which you also grant vnless it were to giue a blow to Protestants who calumniate vs as if we did subject the word of God to the judgment of the Church wheras we say no more then here you acknowledg that Scripture is in it self true but not knowen or proved so to vs otherwise than only by Tradition which say you is a thing credible of it self against other Protestants who hold the Church to be only the first externall Motiue or inducement and direction to belieue scripture as Potter speakes Pag 193. and 141. but not that for which we chiefly belieue it which they hold to be either the privat Spirit or the Majesty or other signes found in scripture it self 190. Object 6. That all may vnderstand in Scripture enough for their salvation you endeavour to proue Pag 93. N. 105. out of S. Austine whose words you cite thus Ea quae manifestÃ¨ posita sunt in Sacris Scripturis omnta continent quae pertinent ad Fidem moresque vivendi The place you cite not which is your ordinary custome I conceiue you meane de Doctrina Christiana Lib 2. Cap 9. Where S. Austine speaking of the Bookes of Holy Scripture sayth Illa quae in eis apertÃ¨ posita sunt vel praecepta vivendi vel regulae credendi solertius diligentiusque investiganda sunt Quae tanto quisque plura invenit quanto est intelligentiÃ¢ capacior In iis enim quae apertÃ¨ in Scriptura posita sunt inveniuntur illa omnia quae continent Fidem moresque vivendi spem scilicet atque charitatem 191. Answer You know very well that S. Austine believed we are obliged to belieue more then can be clearly and certainly and particularly proved out of scripture taken alone without the authority and Declaration of Gods Church Did he not belieue and most zealously defend the validity of Baptisme conferred by Heretikes and taught it as a Point to be believed and practised by all And yet de vnit Eccles Cap. 22. he teacheth expressly that we must in this Point rely vpon the authority of the Church as we haue seene by his words This Testimony of S. Austine was alledged by Cha Ma Part 1. Ch 2. N. 27. Pag 74. and you take notice of it in your Page 118.119 N. 163. and yet returne to alledg against vs the words of the same saynt in iis quae apertÃ¨ posita sunt c which shewes that I was not rash in saying you could not but know that S. Austine held that more points are to be believed and practised then can be proved out of scripture Nay your owne Answers to this authority of S. Austine demonstrate that you believed what I say about his judgment For 192. You answer First you say to Catholiques In many things you will not be tryed by S. Austines judgment this you proue by instances which are answered by an absolute denyall that S. Austine is contrary to vs in those points and therfor can with no reason or equity require vs to do so in this matter 2. To S. Austine in heate of disputation against the Donatists and ransaking all places for Arguments against them we oppose S. Austine out of this heate delivering the Doctrine of Christianity calmely and moderately where he sayes In ijs que apertÃ¨ posita sunt c. 193. Answer It is strang or rather ridiculous I will not say Boyes-play as you thought good to speake that you should except against our allegation of S. Austine because say you in many things we will not be tryed by him and that you in this very place alledg S. Austine against vs you I say who togeather with your fellow Socinians speak more contemptibly of that holy learned glorious Saint than of any other Father And no wonder seing you find that zealous Doctour to be most direct cleare and efficacious for the Visibility Splendour Amplitude Perpetuity Succession and Infallibility of Gods Church and vnwritten Traditions which is our present Question This spirit you discover Pag 152. N. 44. where you speake in this manner To deale ingenuously with you and the world I am not such an idolater of S. Austine as to thinke a thing proved sufficiently be cause he sayes it nor that all his sentences are oracles and particularly in this thing that whatsoever was practised or held by the vniversall Church of his tyme must needs haue come from the Apostles But good Sr. what play is this To bring for an Argument and proofe against vs a saying of S. Austine and yet to professe not to thinke a thing proved sufficiently because he sayes it And which is most strang to bring for an Argument against vs a place of S. Austine to proue by his authority the contrary of that which you acknowledg him to affirme namely that whatsoever was practised or held by the vniversall Church of his tyme must needs come from the Apostles as if with reason and equity you may require vs to beleeue S. Austine when you bring him against vs and yet yourselfe not belieue him when in the very selfe same matter for which you alledg him against vs yourself acknowledg him to stand for vs to wit that whatsoeuer the vniversall Church holds must be believed to come from the Apostles and consequently to be believed although it be not expressed in Scripture which is directly against that for which you alledg him even here that all necessary Points of Faith are set downe in scripture alone But of your little respect to B. Saint Austine more may beseene through your whole Booke particularly Pag. 258. N. 16. Pag 259 N. 20.21 Pag 301. N 101. c 194. In your second answer you do not only slight S. Austines judgment but wickedly taxe his will and piety as if he had overlashed out of heate or had bene more excessiuely earnest in impugning heresyes than zealous in delivering the Doctrine of Christianity as you speake out of which Book you cite his words against vs or as if that can be called heate of disputation which is delivered in writing at leasure vpon mature study and never rÃ©tracted But as I sayd you cannot endure that B. Saint because he is so great a defender of Gods Church and you could not haue done a service more acceptable to the Divell and pernitious to soules than to giue a ground for every one to despise S. Austines Writings against the Donatists as being but exaggerations and effects of heate in disputation wheras of all those holy learned and pious volumes of his none can be of greater profit to Gods Church then those which he wrote against the Donatists who were Schismatikes

containe something against scripture For example whether according to the example of our Saviour the Eucharist were not to be celebrated after supper or at the tyme when we are wont to supp as Protestants commonly call it the supper which certainly you cannot avoyd by scripture alone but only by authority of the Church which practiseth the contrary And this is so great a doubt that Januarivs consulted S. Austine about it and S. Austine answers that we are to follow the custome of Churches though yet in the same Epistle Cap. 7. he saith Nonnullos probabilis quaedam ratio c. Some were moved with a probable reason that vpon one particular day in the yeare on which our Lord gaue the supper the Body and Bloud of our Lord might be offered aÌ„d receyved after meate as it were for a more remarkable commemoration The same I say of washing the feete and other circumstances which abstracting from the practise of the Church you can haue no certainty but that we are obliged to follow our Saviours example in them all And in particular for washing of feet our Saviour Joan. 13. V. 8. said to S. Peter If I wash thee not thou shalt haue no part with me And V. 14. you also ought to wash one anothers feet Mark the word ought which may seeme to sound a commaÌ„d and was spoken not only to S. Peter but to all the rest Therfor vnless we rely on the churches practise Declaration and infallibility we must say that there is a command to wash feete either before we receyve the Eucharist or els absolutely without relation to that Sacrament because our Saviour sayd absolutely you ought to wash one an others feet Morover How will you assure vs that bread for the Matter of Consecration must not of necessity be vnleavened and the wine only of that kind which our Saviour vsed at that tyme Or if you may coÌ„secrate in any kind of wine why not in any kind of bread Which are things belonging not only to decency or circumstance but also to the substance of the Sacrament and though they belonged only to circumstance yet if they were forbidden or commanded in scripture the doing or omission of theÌ„ were damnable therfor S. Austine must suppose that the vniversall church caÌ„not erre Neither caÌ„ he be thought to say these things are not vnlawfull but indifferent therfor it is madness to dispute against them if they be practised by the whole church but contrarily he must say the whole church practises them therfore they are lawfull aÌ„d it is madness to dispute against them which were not so if the whole church might erre neither had he sayd any more of the vniversall than of any particular church which ought not to be disturbed for things indifferent as you ibid Pag. 151. N. 42. deny not but it might be esteemeÌ„d pride and folly to contradict and disturbe the Church for matter of order partaining to the tyme and place and other circomstaÌ„ces of Gods worship And yet S. Austine in that Epistle Cap. 2. having first mentioned things contayned in scripture adds these words But those things which we keep not as written but by tradition if they be observed through the whole world are vnderstood to be kept as recoÌ„mended and ordayned either by the Apostles themselves or by generall Councells whose authority is most wholsome in the Church and having given examples of things which are differeÌ„tly observed in different places and countryes saith this kind of things is freely observed neither is there any better order for a grave and prudent Christian then that he doe as he sees done in that church to which he chances to come aÌ„d afterward he disallowes their proceeding who are cause of disturbance for things which can be decided neither by the authority of holy scripture nor by tradition of the vniversall church Therfor according to S. Austine if oÌ„ce we haue a tradition of the vniversall church we may aÌ„d ought to defend it without further dispute aÌ„d to impugne aÌ„d reject whatsoever practise or doctrine of any particular church or countrey though it may seeme to be occasion of trouble which we could not doe without pride aÌ„d folly vnless we were assured that the vniversall church cannot approue any vnlawfull practise or deliver any thing against faith aÌ„d therfor he saith Cap. 4. that he who alledges only the custome of his particular country will not speake out of scripture neither will he take his proofes froÌ„ the voice of the vniversall church dilated through the world Where we see S. Austine makes a difference between a particular and vniversall church and constantly ioynes togeather the Holy Scripture and the voice of the vniversall church either of which whosoever can alledg he may confidently stand for what they deliver And for this cause cap. 5. he saith that Januarius to whom he wrote was to consider whether that of which there was Question be contayned in scripture or be vnanimously practised by the whole church or of the third kind which is different in divers places and countryes of which third kind he saith let every one doe what he findes in that church where he fynds himself But of the two first kinds he speakes as I noted aboue in another manner that there is no doubt but that we are to doe what the Holy Scripture prescribes as also whatsoever the vniversall church doth practise and that to dispute against any such thing is most insolent madness What could haue bene spoken more cleare to shew that we are not to follow the vniversall church because we judg aforehand that what she practises is lawfull but because we learne by her practise that it is lawfull and so ought not to doubt quin ita faciendum sit that is ought to be so done and so we must learne of her both the practise and the lawfulness therof And consequently whatsoever is against scripture or the practise of the vniversall Church must not be ranked among the third kind of things of which he sayd none of those things are against Faith or Manners and contrarily whatsoever is of the two first kinds that is against scripture or the vniversall Church must be esteemed to be of a different nature and contrary to Faith or Manners and therfor saith he velemendari opportet quod perperam fiebat vel institui quod non fiebat Either that must be mended which was done amisse or that is to be ordayned which was omitted And therfor your saying here that it is not to be accounted pride or folly to goe about to reforme some errours which the Church hath suffered to come in and to vitiate therby the substance of Gods Worship is directly against S Austine and you cannot avoyd the crime of schisme by parting from the Church vpon such false pretenses nor of Heresy even by this most pernicious Doctrine that the vniversall Church may erre 210. From these places of S. Austine and what we haue sayd

the same tyme in thâ— same circumstances necessary to be belieyed Out of which words it followeth that seing one can at no tyme disbelieue or dissent from that for which he hath the same reason in vertue wherof he belieues another thing he must necessarily belieue it according to your doctrine Secondly If we belieue a thing meerly for some humane or naturall Reason you will not I belieue be able to shew that we are obliged to belieue any one thing and are not obliged to belieue another for which we haue the same reason For if the command be only this that reason obliges vs to belieue that which in reason deserves belief the reasons being equall the necessity of believing must be equall But if the command of believing be supernaturall or some Positiue Divine Precept then this must be notifyed to vs by revelation and so there will not be the same reason for both but as different as is between humane reason and divine revelation and therfore Thirdly If I haue the same reason of divine revelation to belieue both there is alwayes an equall necessity for the belief of those things for the belief wherof there is that equall reason of divine reuelation and so your subtilty That there is not alwayes an equall necessity for the belief of those things for the belief wherof c is against reason against yourself aÌ„d against all divinity 11. I haue no tyme to loose in examining your saying If any man should doubt or disbelieue that there was such a man as Henry the eight king of England it were most vnreasonably done of him yet it were no mortall sin nor sin at all God having no where commanded men vnderpayne of damnation to belieue all which reason induceth them to belieue Yet perhaps some wold aske whether you suppose that he who in the example you giue so doubts or disbelieves doth it vincibly or invincibly If invincibly then in him it is not vnreasonable because he in such circumstances could judg no otherwise and so in him it is reasonable For it falls out often that a true judgment may be imprudent and vnreasonable if it be framed lightly and for insufficient reasons and contrarily one may judge amisse for the materiall truth in it self and yet judg prudently if he be moved by probable reasons and so a true judgment may be rash and a false one prudent But if he who so doubts be supposed to erre vincibly you will not easily excuse him from all fault for example of pertinacy and obstinacy of judgment against all wise men or precipitation or imprudency or at least from an idle thought in his extravagant vnreasonable false and foolish belief which surely can be of no solid profit for himself or others or for the glory of God and you know our B. Saviour hath revealed that every idle word is a sin But whatsoever be sayd of your Doctrine taken in generall that God hath no where commanded men to belieue all which reason induceth them to belieue yet I leaue it to be considered whethert he particular example which you giue may not seeme in it self to imply somthing of the dangerous for if it be no sin at all to belieue that there was never any such man as Henry the eight and I suppose you will say the same of other like examples of Kings Princes Commonwealths and Magistrats some perhaps will infer That if your Doctrine were true it could be no sin at all to belieue that they had no lawfull Successours seing no body can succeed to a Chimera or to a No-Body or a Non-Entity as you say King Henry may be without sin believed to haue bene 12 But at least your frends will thinke you haue spoken subtilly and to the purpose in your other reason or example That as an Executor that should performe the whole will of the dead should fully satisfy the law though he did not belieue that Parchment to be his written will which indeed is so So I belieue that he who believes all the particular doctrines which integrate Christianity aÌ„d lives according to theÌ„ should be saved though he neither believed nor knew that the Gospels were written by the Evangelists nor the Epistles by the Apostles Yet in this also you either erre against truth or overthrow your owne maine cause For if such an Executor did not belieue that Parchment to be the dead mans written will and had no other sufficient ground to belieue the contents to be his will he should neither satisfy the law which gives him no power but in vertue of the dead mans will nor his owne conscience but should vsurpe the office without any Authority and expose himself to danger of committing great injustice by disposing the goods of the dead against his meaning and depriving of their right those to whom for ought he knowes they were bequeathed by the true will of the party deceased Now apply this your case to our present Question and the result will be that seing according to Protestants de facto we know the contents of Scripture and the Will and Commands of God delivered therin only by Scripture it selfe aÌ„d by no other meanes of Tradition or declaration of the Church if one be not obliged to belieue the Scripture he cannot be obliged to belieue all or any of the particular doctrines which integrate Christianity nor can judge himself obliged to liue according to them nor can any man without injury depriue men of the liberty which they possess by imposing vpon their consciences such an obligation 13. And here I must not omitt your saying that a man may be saued though he should not know or not belâ—â—ue the Scripture to be a Rule of Faith no nor to be the word of God Where you distinguish between being a Rule of Faith and being the word of God wheras it is cleare that nothing caÌ„ be a Rule of ChristiaÌ„ Faith except it be the word of God because Christian Faith as I sayd hath for its Formall Object the Divine RevelatioÌ„ or word of God aÌ„d nothing which is not such caÌ„ be a Rule of our Faith D. Potter Pag 143. saith The chief Principle or ground on which faith rests and for which it formally assents vnto those truths which the Church propounds is Divine Revelation made in the Scripture Nothing less then this nothing but thâ—s caÌ„ erect or qualify an act of supernaturall faith which must be absolutely vndoubted and certaine In which words although he erre against truth in saying that the Divine Revelation on which Faith must rest must be made in scripture seing Gods word or Revelation is the same whether it be written or vnwritten yet even in that errour he shewes himself to be against your errour that one may belieue or reject scripture in which alone divine revelation is made according to him aÌ„d so take away scriptures or the belief of them all Revelations and Faith must be taken away and he declares

suppose you will not deny but that he can and then seing one cannot be a Saint or a converted sinner or persever to the end except by free Actions of the will proceeding from Grace you must grant that the congruous and efficacious Grace of God may consist both with freedome of our will aÌ„d infallibility in Gods fore-sight I sayd that if freewill in the Church cannot stand with infallibility neither could it consist with infallibility in the Apostles Now I add your Arguments proue not only against the fallibility of the Church and Apostles but also of Christ our Lord in your wicked doctrine that he is not God nor Consubstantiall to his Father but only man and then your demands enter whether he were moved by his Father resistibly or irresistibly And the same answer you giue for Him must be given for his Apostles and his Church You say Pag 86. N. 63. God gaue the Wâ—semen a starr to lead them to Christ but he did not necessitate them to follow the guidance of this starr that was left to their liberty But this instance makes against your self for no man dare deny but that God so moved those Wisemen as he was sure they would follow the starr and performe that for which he preseÌ„ted it to their eyes and gaue light to their vnderstandings and efficacy to their wills that so our Saviour Christ might be preached to the Gentils by their meanes as S. Leo serm 1. de Epiphan saith Dedit aspicientibus intellectum qui praestitit signum quod fecit intelligi fecit inquiri He who gaue the signe gaue them also light to vnderstand it and what he made to be vnderstood he made to be sought after where the word fecit signifyes that God did moue them effectually and yet we haue no necessity to say that they were necessitated 66. By what we haue sayd is answered a wild discourse which you make Pag. 87. N. 95. about the Popes calling the Councell of Trent which I haue shewed might be done both freely and yet proceed from the infallible fore-knowledg and Motion of the Holy Ghost And what you say of the Pope may be applyed against the Apostles and other Canonicall Writters why they did delay so long to write Scripture and whether they were moved to it resistibly or irresistibly c. 67. I conclude that togeather with the Church you impugne the infallibility of Christ and the Apostles and consequently of their Writings which forces me to repeat that according to your Doctrine scripture cannot be any Rule of Divine Faith and much less a sufficient Rule though it were supposed to contayne all necessary Points of Faith 68. Your 9. and most capitall Errour remaynes wherby you depriue scripture of certainty and infallibility and make both it and the contents of it lesse credible than the Books of prophane Authours and things related in them I meane your Assertion that we know Scripture to be the word of God not by an infallible private Spirit or by vndoubted criteria or signes appearing in Scripture it self as some other Protestants teach nor by the Church as infallibly assisted by the Direction of the Holy Ghost according to the Doctrine of Catholikes but from the Tradition of all Churches meerly as they are an Aggregation of men subject to Errour and as their consent is derived to vs by History and humane Tradition The private Spirit which must be tryed by Scripture and not Scripture by it and those pretended manifest signes found in Scripture it self are meere fopperyes confuted by the experience of so many learned men who hertofore haue differed and of Protestants who at this day differ about the Canon of Scripture and this forceth you to say to your Adversary Pag 69. N. 46. That the divinity of a writing cannot be knowne from it self alone but by some extrinsecall Authority you need not proâ—e for no wise man dâ—nyes it And therfor wheras Protestants teach that the Church is only an inducement and not the certaine ground for which we belieue Scripture you in opposition to them affirme that those criteria or signes are only Inducements but that the ground to receyve Scripture is the Church in the manner I haue declared Out of these considerations you choose rather to be sacrilegious then seeme to be simple or no wise man and therfor teach that Christian Faith is not infallibly true but only probable Which being a doctrine detested by other Protestants and by all respectiyely who profess any Religion and Worshipp of God it followes that we must receyue Scripture from the Church of God acknowledged to be infallible This being once granted we must further say that Her infallibility is vniversall in all things concering matters of Faith and Religion neither is it possible to bring some other infallible Authority to proue the Church infallible in this Point alone For to omitt other Reasons you must proue that Authority by some other and so without end In the meane tyme we haue reasoÌ„ to bless our good God who hath forced ProtestaÌ„ts at length to see the foolery of a private spirit and the vanity of manifest signes pretended to be found evidently in scripture and so come either to acknowledg the infallibility of Gods church or with Atheists and enemyes of Christian Religion to deny the infallibility of Christian Faith by setling the truth therof vpon humane fallible tradition which say you Pag. 72. N. 51. is a principle not in Christianity but in Reason nor proper to Christians but common to all men And Pag 53. N. 3. you teach that scripture may be judge of all controversyes those only excepted wherin the Scripture itself is the subject of the Question which cannot be determined but by naturall Reason the only Principle beside scripture which is common to Christians Behold the Analysis or Resolution of Christian Faith into humane fallible naturall Reason But now let vs shew the falshood of this your Errour 69. First it is an argument of no small waight that both in this devise itself you contradict all Catholikes and Protestants and in the consequence which inavoidably followes it namely that the assent of Christian Faith is fallible wherin as I sayd you contradict all Christians and all men who profess any Religion 70. 2. Christian Faith is infallible as I haue proved which it could not be if the ground on which it relyes were fallible 71. 3. It hath bene proved that Christian Faith is the Gift of God and in all occasions requires the supernaturall influence of the Holy Ghost which yet could not be necessary if Faith were but a fallible conclusion evidently deduced from a Principle not in Christianity but in naturall reason as we haue heard you profess and vpon that ground affirme that Christian Faith is only probable not raysing our Vnderstanding aboue the probability of humane inducements wherin it differs froÌ„ the judicium credibilitatis of which Catholike Divines speake and by which

so all comes to be vncertaine vnless we admit some infallible Living guide 78. But here I must reflect how apt you are in every occasion to write contradictoryes You say of the places of Scripture wherby we proue the in fallibility of the Church that they are as subject to corruption as any other and more likly to haue bene corrupted if it had bene possible then any other aâ—d made to speak as they do for the advantage of those men whose ambition it hath bene a long tyme to bring all vnder their authority You say that those places are more likly to haue bene corrupted if it had bene possible which signifyes that it was not possible and yet a few lines after you affirme that it is possible and not altogeather improbable that we haue done it Is the same thing not possible aÌ„d possible or not possible aÌ„d yet not improbable Beside you say it is more likly those places which we alledg for the infallibility of the Church haue bene corrupted if it had been possible than any other aÌ„d made to speake as they do for our advantage Wherin you confess that actually some places of Scripture speake for our advantage and then who are you to controwle Gods Word and speak against those for whose advantage it speakes Morover you say no proof can be pretended for the infallibility of the Church but incorrupted places of Scripture where you signify that nothing can be proved vnless we know certainly what places be incorrupted Now I aske whether it was possible for vs to corrupt those places which we bring to proue the infallibility of the Church or it was not possible If it were not possible then you wrong vs in saying that it is both possible and not altogeather improbable that we haue done it If it be possible then as I sayd what certainty haue you that we haue not done it seing you say it is both possible and not improbable that we haue done so Or what certainty can you haue that others haue not done the like in other Texts for defence of their severall Doctrines 79. Lastly You still go vpon a false ground that we cannot proue the Church otherwise then by Scripture wheras we must first proue Scripture by the Church 80. 8. How vncertaine your kind of Tradition is appeares by your owne words which are such as no enemy of Christian Religion could haue vttered more to the prejudice therof than you doe Pag 90. N. 101. Where in the Person of a member of the ProtestaÌ„t Church of England you speake to Catholiks in this manner You haue wronged so exceedingly his Christs Miracles and his Doctrine by forging so evidently so many false Miracles for the confirmation of your new Doctrine which might giue vs just occasion had we no other assurance of them but your Authority to suspect the true ones what Authority haue you but that of the Roman Church and such as agreed with Her Who with forging so many false Storyes and false Authors haue taken a faire way to make the Faith of all Storyes Questionable if we had no other ground for our belief of them but your Authority who haue brought in Doctrines plainly and directly contrary to that which you confess to be the word of Christ Ã´ portentuous vntruth and which for the most part make either for the honour or profit of the Teachers of them which if there were no difference between the Christian and the Roman Church would be very apt to make susptâ—ious men belieue that Christian Religion was a humane invention taught by some cunning Impostors only to make themselves rich and powerfull I pray you what good Christians were there before Luther except Roman Catholiques and such as agreed with them And therefore what difference can you put between good Christians and Roman Catholicks Who make a profession of corrupting all sorts of Authors a ready course to make it justly questionable whether any remay ne vncorrupted For if you take this Authority vpon you vpon the six Ages last past how shall we know that the Church of that tyme did not vsurpe the same Authority vpon the Authors of the six last Ages before them and so vpwards till we come to Chrict himself Whose questioned Doctrines none of them came from the fountaine of Apostolike Tradition but haue insinuated themselves into the streames by little and little some in one Age and some in another some more Anciently some more lately and some yet are Embryos yet hatching and in the shell Thus you and then conclude Seeing therefore the Roman Church is so farr from being a sufficient Foundation for our belief in Christ that it is in sundry regards a dangerous temptation against it why should I not much rather conclude seeing we receiue not the knowledg of Christ and Scriptures from the Church of Rome neither from her must we take his Doctrine or the Interpretation of Scripture 81. Now let the Reader consider 1. If the Roman Church and all those Churches which agreed with Her before Luther that is all true Churches of Christ be such a thing as he describes what can they contribute to make vp any part of his vniversall Tradition Yea she must needs make it suspected for false fallacious fraudulent And then what Tradition will remayne creditable or even considerable The Greeke Church agreed and at this day agrees with Catholiques against Protestants as is manifest and confessed by learned Protestants for which cause they did directly refuse to joyne with Luther and his Associates The Muscovites Armenians Georgians Aethiopians or Abissines either hold the Doctrine of Eutyches which even Protestants detest as a damnable Heresy or vse Circumcision or for the rest agree with the Greek and Roman Church and they can contribute little to your Tradition I desire the Reader to peruse Charity Maintayned C 5. from N. 48. to 54. were he will find clearly demonstrated what I haue now sayd of the Greek and other Churches Since then you blast the credit of the Roman Church and such as agreed with Her against Protestants there will remayne no Tradition at all 82. 2. You say That we by forging Miracles Might giue just occasion had you no assurance of them but our Authority to suspect the true ones of Christ and by forging so many false storyes and false Authors haue taken a faire way to make the faith of all Storyes questionable if you had no other ground for your belief of them but our Authority This is your Assertion or Major Proposition to which if an enemy of Christian Religion will subsume and add this Minor which is evidently true But you can haue no assurance of Miracles and ground for belief of Storyes but by our Testimony or Tradition as I haue clearly proved What will be the Conclusion but this That there is just occasion to suspect true Miracles of Christ and Question all Storyes Behold the effect of your Tradition This I confirme out of what you

not this a goodly Tradition to be the ground of our belief of Scripture and all Christian Religion May not the enemyes of Christian Religion triumph and say we can alledg no Authors which may not justly be questioned whether they be not corrupted Which in effect is all one for erecting an Act of Faith as if we were sure they were corrupted 86. 6. You say Seing the Roman church is so farr from being a sufficient foundation for our belief in Christ that it is in sundry regards a dangerous temptation against it why should I not much rather Conclude Seing we receiue not the knowledg of Christ and Scriptures from the church of Rome neither from her must we take his Doctrine or interpretation of Scripture But still I must aske from what true Christian church could England or any member of any church in England receyue the Scripture and knowledg of Christ except from the Church of Rome and such as agreed with Her You confess it is not necessary to proue any church distinct from ours before Luther and yet you will not deny but it is necessary to receiue the Scripture from some church seing you profess to belieue the Scripture which you hold for a sufficient foundation of your belief in Christ vpon the sole Authority of the church and therfor you must take the direct negatiue of your conclusion and say seing we receiue the knowledg of Christ and Scriptures from the church of Rome from her we must take his Doctrine and the interpretation of Scripture Having thus pondered your sayings and proved that they overthrow Christian Religion we may now goe forward to impugne this your Tradition And therfor 87. 9. We haue shewed how vncertaine and dangerous your Tradition must needs be by reason of corruption to which all writings haue bene subject if your Assertions were true But besides this I will demonstrate how insufficient your Tradition must be of it self aÌ„d much more if you add the sayd danger of corruption Pag 273. N. 56. You alledg Charity Maintayned saying Part. 1. Chap 5. N. 17. VVhen Luther appeared there were not two distinct visible true Churches one pure the other corrupted For to faine this diversity of two Churches cannot stand with record of Historyes which are silent of any such matter and then you reply in these words The ground of this is no way certaine nor here sufficiently proved For wheras you say Historyes are silent of any such matter I answer there is no necessity that you or I should haue redd all Historyes that may be extant of this matter nor that all should be extant that were written much less extant vncorrupted especially considering your Church which had lately all power in her hands hath bene so perniciously industrious in corrupting the monuments of Antiquity that made against her nor that all records should remayne which were written nor that all should be recorded which was done Nothing could haue bene spoken more effectually to proue the necessity of a Living Judge who being once vpon good and solid reason most certainly believed to be infallible as the Apostles proved their owne infallibility takes away all doubt or possibility of feare least the want or corruption or alteration or contrariety of any writings or records may weaken our Belief of whatsoever such an Authority proposes For till one be setled in the strength of such an Authority one may be doubting of whatsoever fallible Tradition whether there may not be extant some Storyes Records or Tradition contrary to that which he followes there being no necessity that he should haue redd all Storyes nor that all Historyes or Records should be extant that were written which if they had bene extant and had come to his knowledg perhaps might haue moved him to relinquish the Tradition which now he embraceth nor that all should be recorded which was done and therfor he cannot tell whether somthing may not haue bene done repugnant to that which his Tradition induces him to belieue nor finally whether the Tradition on which he relyes hath not bene corrupted and therfor sit only to lead him into and keepe him in errour Which yet is further confirmed by your words Pag 266. N. 35. Why may not you mistake in thinking that in former Ages in some country or other there were not alwayes some good Christians which did not so much as externally bow their knees to your Baal And then Sr why may not you mistake in thinking that in former ages there were not alwayes some good Christians who did not agree with those from whom you take your Vniversall Tradition which therfor will indeed cease to be Vniversall Do you not see how strongly you argue against yourself And yet my next Reason will affoard more in this kind 88. 10. I take an Argument from what you deliver Pag 130. N. 6. where impugning some who as you say Hold the Acceptation of the decrees of Councells by the Vniversall Church to be the only way to decide Controversyes You haue these words VVhat way of ending controversyes can this be when either part may pretend that they are part of the Church and they receaue not the decree therfor the whole Church hath not receyved it I beseech you apply your owne words thus what way of ending Controversyes about the Canon of Scripture can this be when either part may pretend that they are part of the Church and they receiue it not therfor the whole Church hath not receyved it By this doctrine of yours those Heretiks who as you confess Pag 361. N 40. out of S. Irenaeus did accuse the Scriptures as if they were not right and came not from good Authority might haue defended themselves by saying the whole Church had not receyved them because they themselves were part of the Church and did not receiue them According to this account your vniversall Tradition comes to be nothing because whosoever dissent from the rest will be ready to say that they also are part of the whole and so no Tradition contrary to them can be vniversall just as you say that Luther and his fellowes departed not from the whole Church because they did not depart from themselves and they were part of the Church Also Pag 362. N. 41. You overthrow your owne Tradition while you write thus Though the constant and vniversall delivery of any doctrine by the Apostolike Churches ever since the Apostles be a very great Argument of the truth of it Yet there is no certainty but that truth even Divine truth may through mens wickedness be contracted from its vniversality and interrupted in its perpetuity and so loose this ArgumeÌ„t and yet not want others to justify and support itself For it may be one of those principles which God hath written in all mens harts or a conclusion evidently arising from them It may be either contayned in Scripture in express termes or deducible from it by appareÌ„t consequeÌ„ce But good Sr. seing that the CanoÌ„ of

Scripture or what Books be CaÌ„onicall is not one of those principles which God hath written in mens harts nor a conclusion evidently arising from them nor is contained in Scripture in express termes or deducible from it by apparent consequence it being your owne Assertion Pag 69. N. 46. that it need not to be proved that the Divinity of a writing cannot be knowne from itself alone but by some extrinsecall Authority for no wise man denyes it it followes that according to your Principles it can be knowne only by the constant and Vniversall delivery of all Churches ever since the Apostles Now as you say there is no certainty but that a Doctrine or truth even a Divine truth constantly and vniversally delivered by the Apostolique Churches may through mens wickedness be contracted from its vniversality and interrupted in its perpetuity So also may the Canon or Bookes of Scripture which can haue no other argumeÌ„t to justify and support them beside Tradition run the some hazard by the wickednenss of meÌ„ and so come to loose vniversality aÌ„d perpetuity aÌ„d so cannot justify aÌ„d support any Divine truth And as true Books may come to loose so false ones may by the wickedness of meÌ„ come to gaine authority vnless we be assured of the contrary by the belief of an infallible Guide which can never admit of Apocryphall of false Scripture 89. 11. I goe forward to impugne your Tradition out of your owne words Pag 14. N. 14. were you say Though you say that Christ hath promised there shall be a perpetuall visible Church Yet you yourselves doe not pretend that he hath promised there shall be Historyes and Records alwayes extant of the professours of it in all ages nor that he hath any where enjoyned vs to read those Histories that we may be able to shew them Out of these words I argue thus It is not sufficient for your vniversall Tradition of all Ages that the whole Church of this age for example accept a Booke for Canonicall vnless it can be proved to haue bene receyved by all Churches of all ages as Pag 152. N. 44. You openly profess to dissent from S. Austine in this that whatsoever was practised or â—eld by the vniversall Church of his tyme must needs haue come from the Apostles and therfor it is necessary for you to affirme that there alwayes must be Historyes and records which one Age is to receyve from another to proue that Scripture was delivered for the word of God by the Apostles But You do not pretend that God hath promised that there shall be Historyes or Records alwayes extant nor that he hath any where enjoyned vs to reade these Historyes that we may be able to shew them and by them know the true Books of Scripture Therfor you must grant out of your owne assertion that you haue no sufficient meanes to know and rely vpon your Tradition especially if we consider that vnlearned men cannot possibly know whether there be such sufficient ground and Historyes as are necessary to make it Vniversall and yet all sorts of people must haue necessary and sufficient meanes for the knowledg of all things necessary to salvation which meanes Protestants affirme to be the Scripture alone But with vs the case is farr different who belieue a Perpetuall Visible Church For we believing that Church to be Infallible in one age as well as in another are not obliged to seeke after historyes or Records of tymes past as you are for your humane fallible Tradition in regard the Church being alwayes existent and Visible is perpetually indued whith such Notes Prerogatives and Evident Signes as make her manifest in every age and worthy of credit in matters belonging to Religion and among other Points for this in particular that herself must alwayes be Visible as shall be declared herafter more at large though it be also true that it may be evidently shewed for every age by all kind of Witnesses as well friends as Adversaryes that our Church hath alwayes had a visible Being and Prosessours of her Doctrine with a perpetuall Succession of Pastours and this so manifestly that it can no more be denyed than that there haue bene Christians ever since the tyme of the Apostles yea or that there have bene Emperours Kings Writers Warrs or such publike things as no man can deny But you who ground your belief of Scripture and all Chaistianity vpon a fallible Tradition knowne by Humane Historyes and Records of all ages and every one of your sect must either despayre of salvation or els procure to be learned and versed in all Historyes though yet even this will not preserue them from cause of despaire considering how insufficient humane Tradition is of itself as I haue proved out of your owne words and to the rest I will add your saying Pag 361. N. 40. The Fathers did vrge the joynt Trad ã€ˆâ€¦ã€‰ all the Apostelique Churcher with one mouth and one voyce teaching the same Doctrine not at a demonstration but only as a very probable Argument If this be so seing your vniversall Tradition can I hope be no better than the joynt Tradition of all the Apostolique Churches surely you can Vrge it only for a very probable and no demonstratiue Argument especially if we reflect that you profess the whole vniversall Church before Luthers tyme to haue fallen into many great and gross errours even concerning the Canon of Scripture and consequently that the first vniversall Tradition from the Apostles came to be altered and corrupted and that your forsayd very probable Argument de facto hath fayled if your Heresy were true that the whole Church hath fallen into errour 90. 12. Pag 149. N. 38. You say I must learne of the Church or of some part of the Church or I cannot know any thing Fundamentall or not Fundamentall For how can I come to know that there was such a Man as Christ that he taught such Doctrines that he and his Apostles did such Miracles in confirmation of it that the Scripture is Gods Word vnless I be taught it So then the church is though not a certaine foundation and proof of my Faith yet a necessary introduction to it I confess I haue studyed to find what sense you can haue in these words and can find nothing but contradictions and finally that your owne Tradition cannot be a sufficient ground for our belief of Scripture You say I must learne of the Church or of some part of the Church or I cannot know any thing Fundamentall or not Fundamentall And in particular That Scripture is the Word of God I askeâ— what you meane by the Church or some part of the Church Is your meaning that the Tradition of some part of the Church is sufficient to believe Scripture to be the Word of God Against this you profess every where that the Scripture is to be receyved only vpon vniversall Tradition of all Churches and Times from the Apostles At least will you

fallible authority of some particular men who informe them that there is such a decree And if the decrees were translated into vulgar languages why the translatours should not be as fallyble as you say the translatours of scripture are who can possibly imagine 28. Answer Take away an infallible living Judg and Tradition of the Church you will hardly find any Text of Scripture containing the sublime Mysteries of Christian Faith evident even to the learned among you as hath bene proved hertofore and appeares by the experience of your great and irremediable disagreements and is manifest of itselfe because you haue no certaine Rule when the Scripture is to be taken in a litterall figuratiue morall c sense which difficulty ceases in the Decrees of the Church both because it is knowen vpon what occasion and against what Enours the Church makes â—her Decrees as all know vpon what occasion and against whom the sacred Councell of Trent was gathered and therby it is easy to vnderstand the decrees for the Negatiue or affirmatiue part at least for the substance and the things chiefly inteÌ„ded in them or if any doubt should remayne the Church can declare herself which Scripture can never doe And although the Decrees of Popes and Councells are not conceyved so obscurely as you would make men falsely belieue yet all obscurity is easily cleared by some further declaration As for languages in which they are written it is Latine a language knowne not only to the learned but to many also whom we need not reckon among the learned and they who vnderstand not Larine will find so great vniformity among all those who vnderstand that Language that they cannot remaine vncertaine concerning the meaning of those Decrees though they be not translated into vulgar Languages or if they were so translated eyther the translations would be found totally to agree or els it were easy to be informed which of them did mistake seing innumerable persons do perfectly vnderstand Latine and Besides as I sayd it is evidently knowne vpon what occasion the Decrees were framed and what was the scope of them and what part they condemned as false or defined as true But for Scripture seing you haue no certaine Rule to know the sense therof aÌ„d Translations of Protestants are manifestly seen to be contrary one to another the most learned among you can haue no certainty yea I dare say that greater learning will occasion greatest multiplicity of doubts and perplexityes vnless there be acknowledged an infallible Living Judg and much less can the vnleaned haue certainty sufficient to exercise a true Act of Diuine Faith More of this matter may be seen in Charity Maintayned Part 2. Chap 5. N. 32. in answer to an Objection made by Potter like to this of yours To your saying If the Decrees were translated into vulgar Languages why the Translators should not be as fallible as you say the Translators of the Scripture are who can possibly imagine I answer There is a manifold difference between the Translations of Scripture and of the Ecclesiasticall Decrees For every word of Scripture was inspired by the Holy Ghost One Text may haue divers literall senses intended by the same Holy Spirit We are ignorant what was the scope of Canonicall Writers for every particular Chapter or Text Every Reason given in holy Scripture is a matter of Faith The style and Majesty therof surpasses humane wit and manner of writing All which considerations make the Translations of Scripture both more difficult and more dangerous then those of Ecclesiasticall Definitions or Decrees in which the fore sayd Reasons haue not place as appeares by what I sayd even now 29. But you would proue Pag 94. N. 109. that no man can be certaine of the Churches Decrees which must be confirmed by a true Pope Now the Pope cannot be true Pope if he came in by simony Which whether he did or no who can answer me He cannot be true Pope vnless he were baptized and baptized he was not vnless the Minister had due intention So likewise he cannot be a true Pope vnless he were rightly ordained Priest and that againe depends vpon the Ordainers secret intention and also vpon his having the Episcopall Character All which things depend vpon so many vncertaine suppositions that no humane judgment can possibly be resolved in them I conclude therfor that not the learnedst man amongst you all no not the Pope himself can according to the grounds you goe vpon haue any certainty that any Decree of any Councell is good and valid and consequently not any assurance that it is indeed the Decree of a Councell 30. Answer These very Objections Potter made and are answered by Charity Maintayned Part 2. Chap 5. N 31. but you take no notice therof That your suppositions are never to be admitted but we are sure that whosoever in a tyme free from Schisme is once accepted by the Church for a true Pope is such indeed Yet if you will be making such vntrue suppositions that the Pope did enter by Simony or wanted Baptisme or true Ordination God would never permitt him to define any thing in prejudice of the Church Neither are the occasions of Defining matters of Faith alwayes vrgent as we see the Church for the space of three hundred yeares after the Apostles past without any Generall Councell Yea if de facto any Pope define some truth to be a matter of Faith we are sure even by his doing so that he is true Pope it being impossible that God should permit his vniversall Church to be obliged to belieue a falshood or an vncertaine thing as all are obliged to beleeve the Definition of one who is accepted for true Pope See more of this in the saied place of Charity Maintayned 31. But now Good Sr. I beseech you reflect that in being so eager against vs you haue degraded or rather haue denyed your Bishops Priests and the whole Pretended mock-Hierarchy of the Protestant Church in England which hitherto hath bene ambitious to proue the Ordination and Succession of your Bishops from the Roman Church of which nevertheless you say Pag 77. N. 67. He that shall put together and maturely consider all the possible wayes of lapsing and nullifying a Priesthood in the Church of Rome I belieue will be very inclinable to thinke that it is an hundred to one that amongst an hundred seeming Priests there is not one true one Nay that it is not a thing very improbable that amongst those many millions which make vp the Râ—man Hierarchy there are not twenty trâ—â— If this be so if the fountaine be so troubled or rather none at all what certainty can there be in the streame which flowed from Rome to England if of many millyons among vs there are not tweÌ„ty true Priests if wee keepe a proportion with England to the whole world there must not be among you one true Bishop or Priest And was not your Book fitly approved expressly as

and fancyfull opinion hath engaged them vpon so great mistake as without doubt is hath yet the will hath nothing in it but what is a great enemy to idolatry Et nihil ardet in inferno nisi propria voluntas 66. Having thus answered and retorted the Objections wherin you seeme to triumph it is tyme to goe forward in proving the necessity of a Living infallible Judg. 67. Fourthly then I resume the Argument of Charity Maintayned Part 1. Chap 2. N. 23. Pag 67. There was no Scripture for about two thousand yeares from Adam to Moyses And againe for about two thousand yeares more from Moyses to Christ our Lord Holy Scripture was only among the people of IsraÃ«l and yet there were Gentils indued with divine Faith as appeares in Job and his frends Wherfore during so many ages the Church alone was the instructor of the faithfull by meanes of Tradition The Church also of Christ was before the Scriptures of the New Testament which were not written instantly nor all at one tyme but successively vpon severall occasions and some after the decease of most of the Apostles And after they were written they were not presently knowne to all Churches and afterwardes some were doubted of c 68. To this Argument Pag 100. N. 123. You answer that it is just as if I should say Yorke is not in my way from Oxford to London therfor Bristell is Or a dog is not a horse Therfor he is a man As if God had no other wayes of revealing himself to men but only Scripture and an infallible Church wheras S. Paul telleth vs that men may know God by his workes and that they had the Law written in their harts Either of these ways might make some faithfull men without either necessity of Scripture or Church To this purpose you cite also S. Chrysostome Isid Pelus and S. Paul Heb 1.1 69. You could not but see the weakness of this your Answer since you know that we speake not of extraordinary cases or concurrence but of the ordinary Meanes which God in his Holy Providence is wont to vse helping one man by the ministery of another in governing teaching preaching and the like and making good that truth of the Apostle sides ex auditu Faith comes by hearing Which only way of teaching and Tradition could serue to beget Faith for that tyme wherin no Scripture either of the Old or new Law was written Will you take vp the Apostle for saying Fides ex auditu and tell him that there be other Meanes beside hearing to beget Faith as the Law written in mens harts aÌ„d consideration of Gods creatures If this be not the state of the Question to what purpose do you through your whole Booke seeke to establish the sufficiency of Scripture alone and to destroy the necessity of the Churches Declarations and Traditions Since when all is done you may be told in your owne words That without necessity of Scripture or Church there are other Meanes to produce Faith and so all your Arguments will be like this Yorke is not in my way c A dog is not a horse c By this Meanes one may with the Old Heretikes Manichees Valentinians Cerdonists Marcionists and the new Libertines reject Scripture and not be subject to the letter but that they ought to follow the Spirit that quickeneth As likwise the Swenckfeldians rejected the wtitten word as the letter that killed contenting themselves with internall Spirit and might with you alledg that men had the Law written in their harts Yourself say Pag 15â— N. 38. The Churche is though not a certaine Foundation of proofe of my Faith yet a necessary Introduction to it Which you must vnderstand in the Ordinary way Vnless you haue a mynde to contradict your self and say That absolutely there are no other possible meanes to attaine Divine Faith than by the Seripture and the Church as a necessary introduction to it Yourself therfor must answer your owne slighting Instances For if in the ordinary course and as I may say without a kind of Miracle it were true that the way from Oxford to LondoÌ„ were either Yorke or Bristoll or that a dog must be either a horse or aman were not these consequeÌ„ces very Good But Yorke is not therfor Bristoll is But a dogg is not a horse therfor he is a man Now the Ordinary necessary meanes to produce Faith being either Scripture or the Church if we subsume But it is not Scripture which is evident for that tyme when there was no Scripture it clearly followes Therfor it is the Church which I Hope you will not deny to haue bene infallible in the Apostles tyme before Scripture was written and so your examples proue against none but yourself 70. We must still remember that Faith being the Gift of God we cannot belieue except in cases wherin God by his Eternall Providence hath decreed to affoard vs his particular Grace for that end which he is not wont to doe vnless the conditions by Him prescribed be performed Since therfor the Church hath bene appointed as the ordinary Meanes to attaine Faith we ought not to promise ourselves the particular assistance of Grace necessary for exercising an Act of true Faith except vnder condition of hearing and submitting to that Church and not by consideration only of Gods creatures or by the Law written in our harts or by extraordinary enthusiasmes private spirits and the like If it had bene Gods holy pleasure to require of men to belieue only that God is and that he is a Rewarder of those that seeke Him or some other few Articles he would haue affoarded his sufficient supernaturall Grace to belieue those Points as also to loue Him repent of our sins and attaine salvation by believing those Pointes only for as much as would belong to Faith But de facto it falls out otherwise and we are to belieue many other Points as yourself pretend to teach Pag 133. N. 13. where you say That they who should belieue the sayd Article That God is and that he is a rewarder of them that seeke him Heb 6.11 might be rewarded not with bringing them immediatly to salvation without Christ but with bringing them first to Faith in Christ and so to salvation Which you endeavour to proue by the story of Cornelius Act 10. of whom you say Pag 134. If he had refused to bel euein Christ after the sufficient Revelation of the Gospell to him and Gods will to haue him belieue it he that was accepted before would not haue continued accepted still because one of the conditions which Christ requires for remission of sins and salvation from him is that we belieue what he has revealed when it is sufficiently declared to haue bene revealed by him This confirmes what I sayd that God doth not giue Grace to Belieue Hope and Loue except vpon those conditions which he appoints and requires which now is not only to belieue some one Article or to

is profanely applyed to our present case wherin it is an vnspeakable benefit to haue our liberty not taken away but moderated directed and elevated to the End of Eternall Happyness If in any case certainly in this that saying Licentia omnes sumus deteriores is most true as lamentable experience teaches in so many Heresyes and so implacable contentions of Heretikes among themselves by reason of the liberty which every one presumes to take in interpreting Holy Scripture And for avoiding so great an inconvenience and mischeife it is necessary to acknowledg some infallible Living Judg and so your Rule for Liberty being rightly applyed proves against yourself And the Church having once confessedly enjoyed infallibility I must returne against you your owne words Me thinkes in all Reason you that presume to take away Priviledges once granted by God himself for the Eternall Good of soules should produce some exprress warrant for this bold attempt especially it being a Rule Privilegia sunt amplianda chiefly when they proceed from a Soveraigne Power and are helped by that Dictate of Reason Melior est conditio possidentis And in the meane tyme you are hee who breake that Rule Ubi contrarium non manifestÃ¨ probatur praesumitur pro libertate by pretending that men are obliged to submit Reason though seeming never so certaine and evident to the contents of Scripture which yet you teach not to be manifestly and certainly but only probably true Against which is your owne saying Praesumitur pro libertate vbi contrarium non manifestÃ¨ probatur as it happens in your fallible and only probable Faith which cannot be manifestly proved to be true for if it could be so proved Christian Faith should be absolutely certaine and not only probable And so continually you are framing Arguments in favour of your Adversary 76. I will not here loose tyme in examining your saying Pag 101. N. 126. The Bookes of Scripture which were receyved by those that receyved fowest had as much of the Doctrine of Christianity in them as they all had which were receyved by any all the necessary parts of the Gospell being contayned in every one of the Gospells Are not the divers profitable things which are contained in some of the Gospells and omitted in others part of the Doctrine of Christianity taught by the Apostles to Christians Besides what can you vnderstand by these words Pag 101. N. 125. For ought appeares by your reasons the Church never had infallibility And yet Charity Maintayned spoke of the Church of Christ as it was before any Scripture of the new TestameÌ„t was written which Church He proved to be infallible because at that tyme there could be no other infallible Rule or Judg which is a cleare aÌ„d convincing ReasoÌ„ And so I hope it appeares by his Reasons that the Church once had infallibility 77. Sixthly You haue these words Pag 115. N. 156 Nothing can challeng our belief but what hath descended to vs from Christ by Originall and vniversall Tradition Now nothing but Scripture hath thus descended to vs. Therfore nothing but Scripture can challeng our belief Now I saie in like manner it is neither delivered in Scripture nor otherwise hath descended to vs from Christ by Originall and Vniversall Tradition that Scripture is not at this tyme joyned with some infallible Living Judg as once it was or that the Church was ever devested of that Authority and infallibility which it had or that God had provided a plaine and infallible Rule to supply the defect of a Living and infallible Guide as you say or that Scripture alone without Tradition is the Rule of Faith Therfore none of these Points can challeng our belief My saying hath bene proved hertofore and yourself confess that you do not proue out of Scripture that with the entring of it infallibility went out of the Church but contrarily that they did remayne togeather for a tyme. 78. Seaventhly I take an Argument from your owne Doctrine that Scripture is not a materiall Object of Faith or an Article which we belieue To which Maior I subsume thus But that Meanes by assenting to which alone I belieue all other Points must itself be assented to and believed for how can I believe any thing for an Authority which I do not belieue Therfore Scripture alone cannot be the Meanes by which I come to belieue all other Points And seing no other ordinary Meanes to produce Faith can be assigned besides Scripture and the Church we must inferr that the Church is the ordinary Meanes to produce Faith and decide Controversyes in Religion and consequently even according to your owne Doctrine she must be infallible Otherwise as you say of the Meanes to decide controversyes Pag 35. N. 7. We can yield vnto it but a wavering and fearfull Assent in any thing 79. Eightly You confess that the Church erring in any Fundamentall Point ceases to be a Church and seing you also profess that we cannot know what points in particular be Fundamentall you cannot know whether the Church de facto hath not fayled vnless we belieue that she is infallible and cannot fayle And yet most Protestants graâ—â— that the Church cannot fayle our Saviour having promised thaâ— ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ gates of Hell shall not prevaile against Her In so much as Whitaker against Reynolds in his Answer to the Preface Pag â—3 saith ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ belieue to the comfort of our soules that Christs Church â—â—th continued and never shall faile so long as the world endureth And we account is a sprophane Heresy to teach otherwise And Potter avoucheth that Christ hath promised the Church shall never fayle as you confesse Pag 277. N. 61. That there shall be by divine Providence preserved in the world to the worlds end such a company of Christians who hold all things precisely and indispensably necessary to salvation and nothing inevitably destructive of it This and no more the Doctour affirmes that God hath promised absolutely And yourself say Pag 106 N. 140. VVâ— yield vnto you that there shall be a Church which never erreth in some Points because as we conceyue God hath promised so much By the way if according to Whitaker it be a profane Heresy to say the Church shall fayle and that according to Potter God hath promised so much absolutly yea and that it was a most proper Heresy in the Donatists against that Article of our Creed I belieue the Catholike Church and that you also conceiue our Saviour Christ hath done so how dare you say Pag 15. N. 18. The contrary Doctrine I do at no hand belieue to be a damnable Heresy Is it not a damnble Heresy to belieue that Christ can faile of his promise Besides since these Protestants profess and you also conceaue that God hath promised the Church shall certainly be assisted so far as not to erre in Fundamentall Points I aske whether the Church can resist such an Assistance or Motion of God or no Whatsoever you answer for Protestants and yourself

others might yet in himselfe and to himself be infallible but he could not be a Guide to others A man or a church that were invisible so that none could know how to repayre to it for direction could not be an infallible Guide and yet he might be himself infallible This I say is retorted For whosoever is infallible in him selfe is fit to be an infallible Guide to others per se loquendo and in actu primo and needs only that accideÌ„tall impediments bee removed as it happeneth in our case the Church being visible and spred over the whole world So that she can be hidden to no body but is furnished with all meanes of communicating her Doctrine to others Yourself and Protestants grant that the Church is a necessary introduction to Faith which she could not be if she were invisible or that none could know how to repayre to her for direction And then Protestants teaching that she is infallible in Fundamentall points it followes that she may be an infallible Guide in such points and in all other according to your owne inference And so I conclude that your difference of the Churches being infallible and an infallible Guide is vanished into nothing But enough of this Let vs now proceed to other Reasons proving the necessity of an infallible Guide 89. I proue the infallibility of the Church by confuting a Reason or similitude much vrged by our Adversaryes That to him who knowes the way a Guide is not necessary And therfore the Scripture being a plaine Rule for all necessary Articles of Faith no living Guide will be necessary 90. But this Argument is many wayes defectiue 1. We retort it Seing it hath bene proved that Scripture alone is not a sufficient Rule a Living Guide must be necessary Certainly if the whole Bible had bene put into severall mens hands without any precedent knowne Tradition Declaration or Ministery of the Church it would haue fallen out that in the most important Mysteryes of Christian Religion which now all are obliged to belieue for example The chiefest Articles of the Creed Sacraments c. scarcely any one would haue agreed with another and much more had it bene impossible for them by the sole evidence of Scripture to joyne in the same Idea or frame of a Church Suppose then the Bible had bene offered to some Vnderstanding Pagan wholy ignorant of Christian Religion and Doctrine do you thinke he would haue bene able to gather from the bare words of Scripture the same meaning or Articles which Christians now belieue by the help of Tradition instruction and preaching I say he would never have fallen vpon the same meaning of the words whether he did belieue them to be true or no as we see Protestants themselves cannot agree Which is a signe that the words only of Scripture do not evidently signify those Mysteryes which Christians belieue them to containe Otherwise every one who vnderstands the words would vnderstand the true sense as ordinarily we vnderstand the meaning of other writings wherin we see men do seldome disagree And the more we consider the force vse and necessity of Tradition the more we shall be constrained to ranke it among those things which are better knowen by wanting than we can apprehend by alwayes enjoying them If men did do things only by the Booke even in mechanicall arts or handy-crafts how different and vnlike works would every one take from the precepts learned only by reading and with how much study and difficulty would that be done and how different would they be both from one another and from those which artificers do now by custome and tradition worke with great ease and vniformity I doubt whether you would trust an apothecary taught only by his booke or pharmacopaeia without any master at all 91. Secondly If one know a way as perfectly as it is capable to be knowen but that indeed it is such as there cannot possibly be given any Rule or Direction how to find or walk in it without danger of errour such a knowledg of such a way would not be sufficient of itself but a guide would be necessary to sind and walke in it without danger Now we haue shewed not only that the Scripture containes not all points necessary to be believed for which therfor we stand in need of a guide but also that there is no certaine infallible Rule how to know certainly the meaning of those truths which it containes which we proved out of Protestants themselves and by the many hard and intricate Rules which they give for that purpose and by their perpetuall and irreconciliable differences which could not happen if they had any such cleare and certaine Rules wherin agreeing they must needs agree among themselves Que sunt eadem vni tertio sunt eadem inter se Therfore beside scripture which you compare to a way there must be a living Judg to guide vs in that way 92. Thirdly You teach That Scripture is a plaine way in this sense that although we cannot either by it or any other Meanes know what points in particulat be Fundamentall yet because all such Truths and many more are evident in Scripture whosoever knowes all that is evident shall besure to know all that is necessary or Fundamentall Now this very Doctrine shewes that Scripture alone cannot be a plaine and sufficient way For to know precisely and certainly all evident places of Scripture is impossible to many and of obligation to none as I declared elswhere and therfore the End which is to know all necessary points and can be attayned by this Meanes alone cannot be of obligation which to affirme is absurd as if one should say points necessary to be knowen are not necessary to be knowen By a Living Guide this difficulty is avoyded we being sure that the Church will not faile to propose in due tyme all that shall be necessary without imposing on mens Consciences heavy and vngrounded burthens 93. Fourthly There is a great and plaine disparity betweene the knowing of a way by our corporall eyes and finding out a Truth by our vnderstanding the eye of our soule Our senses are naturally necessarily and immoveably determined to their objects One who is supposed to know his way perfectly may Voluntarily take an other way but cannot therfore be sayd to mistake his owne It passes not so with our vnderstanding except in some prime principles of Reason evident of themselves In other points which either are elevated above the naturall forces of humane capacity or haue an appearance of being contrary to it or crosse our will or cary with them a repugnance to the naturall dictates and inclinations of flesh and bloud our vnderstanding is apt and ready to mistake or be misled as daily experience teaches and therfore stands in need of some assisting help and Authority believed to be infallible to strengthen and settle it against all encounters and temptations It is your owne Assertion Pag 329. N.

pretended Bishop I meane for the consequence which he makes that if Episcopacie be Juris Divini it is damnable to impugne it and with Molin agrees Dr. Taylor of Episcopacy teaching Â§ 46. That to separate from the Bishop makes a man at least a Schismatike and Â§ 47. That it is also Heresy And in his Liberty of Prophesying Epist Dedic Pag 32.33 having sayd that the Lutheran Churches the Zuinglians and the Calvinists reject Episcopacy he adds which the Primitive Church would haue made no doubt to haue called Heresy More of this and of the Notes of the Church may be seene in Charity Maintayned Part 1. Chap 9. this not being a place to treat at large of these matters It is sufficient for our present purpose to demonstrate that we are no way guilty of walking in a Circle Only it will be necessary to note here two Points 5. First That the Arguments of credibility fall primarily vpon the Church not vpon Scripture which confirmes what I sayd that the Apostles were not Infallible because they wrote but their writings deserue credit because the writers were Infallible Thus in the Old Law Moyses gained authority by working Miracles and by other Arguments of credibility wherby the people accepted him as a Man sent by God to declare his word and will and in such manner as they were sure to belieue God by giving credit to Moyses They believed our Lord and Moyses his servant Exod 14.31 and 19.9 and ther vpon they belieâ—ed the Scripture which he wrote and proposed as the Infallible word of God and by it other particulars even concerning Moyses himself In the New Law the Apostles proved and settled the Authority of their Persons before their writings could be prudently receaved as Diuine or the Word of God The Reason therof is because the Motives or Arguments of credibility immediatly make that credible of which they are effects which immediatly manifest their cause Now the Motives to embrace Religion agree immediatly to the Church or Persons and not to writings and so Marc Vlt it is sayd These signes shall follow those who belieue And therfore though there were no Scriptures if the Church did still remaine these motives would also remaine for example Sanctity of life Miracles conversion of Nations Martirdomes Victory over all enemyes the name Catholique c Which could not agree to Scripture though we did falsely suppose that it did remayne and the Church perish For no Writing is capable of Sanctity of life Succession of Bishops c yea the Scripture can haue no efficacy vnless it be first believed to be the word of God and it must be beholding to the Church for such a Testimony and therfor whatsoever perfections or attributes may seeme to belong immediatly to the Scripture must depend on the Church as the Scripture itself doth in order to our believing it to be the word of God But contrarily the Perfections or priviledges of the Church are independent of Scripture as the Church itself is which was before Scripture And here it is also to be considered that we haue no absolute certainty that the Apostles ever wrought any particular Miracle to proue immediatly that Scripture is the word of God but we are sure they did it mediatÃ¨ by gaining Authority to their Persons and then to their writings And thus you say in your Answer to the Direction N. 43. That the Bible hath bene confirmed with those Miracles which were wrought by our Saviour and the Apostles But now if we be obliged to believe the Scripture in all things by reason of Arguments which bind vs to belieue it to be the word of God we must also be obliged to belieue the Church in whatsoever she proposes as Divine Verityes since the Arguments and Reasons of credibility do more immediatly proue the true Church than they proue Scripture 6. The second thing to be observed is That when we are obliged to receave some Persons as messengers of God appointed and assisted by him to deliver Divine Truths as the Apostles were we are bound to belieue them in all things which they propound for such Truths For as I haue often sayd if they might erre in some things of this nature we could not belieue theÌ„ in any other thing for their sole Authority as all coÌ„fess of Scripture that being once delivered by meÌ„ of the forsayd Authority as the word of God it must be receyved as vniversally true in all and every least passage though the Apostles did not confirme by seve rall Miracles the matter of every particular Text and yet every one is an object of Faith nor of every particular Truth which they spoke but it was sufficient that people did and were obliged to receaue them as men who by commission from God taught the true way to eternall Happynes and therfore were to be credited in all particulars which they did propose 7. Out of this true Ground I inferr That it cannot be sayed without injury to Gods Church to the Apostles and God himself that when men of our Church worke Miracles and produce other Reasons to proue that they preach the true Faith and Religion to gentils Jewes Turks or Heritikes those Miracles are not sufficient Proofes of all that which our Church propounds as Divine Truth but of some particular Points for example not of Purgatory Prayer to Saints Reall Presence c. but of such Christian verityes as Protestants belieue with vs. This cannot be sayd For it is evident that the same might haue bene objected against the Apostles to wit that God intended to proue by their Miracles only some verityes believed by Jewes or Heretikes and not every one of the particular Mysteryes of Christian Religion Neither can it be sayd that the Preachers of our Catholique Church when they convert Nations doe worke Miracles to bring them to I know not what Faith in generall or in abstracto or an Idea Platonica but to the Catholique Roman Religion which if it were false God in his Goodness could never permitt so many and great Miracles to be wrought and other so evident Arguments of credibility to be produced that people must be obliged to receiue such Preachers as Teachers of the true way to Heaven as he could not permit the Apostles to worke Miracles intending that they should be trusted in some not in all Points For this generall Reason taken from Gods Goodness and providence is the same in all who bring the like Arguments of Credibility as our Church never wants Arguments like to those whereby the Apostles made good their Authority Besides if the sayd Objection were of force men de facto can haue no certainty that Scripture is the word of God for all Points contayned therin because it will be sayd that although Miracles were wrought to proue that the Bible is the word of God they might be vnderstood not to confirme every passage or Text but only some Truths contayned therin And likewise according to

by knowing every plain Text of Scripture which as I sayd is an intollerable burthen 12. Fourthly It imports very much to know summarily and certainly what points men are obliged to belieue explicitly that they may with more facility application and perfection learne them and not be diverted by things not necessary with prejudice to the knowledg of Articles Fundamentall or necessary by obliging every one to know every Text of Scripture Neither can you answer that this is done already in the Creed of the Apostles For we haue that forme of Creed by Tradition only and according to your principles we cannot belieue any thing contained in the Creed except we first know it to be contained in Scripture from which if we cannot learne what is Fundamentall and what is not we cannot be certaine that the particular points contained in the Creed are Fundamentall nor can you learne out of any text of Scripture that the Creed containes all Fundamentall points to say nothing that the Creed without the Church and Tradition is not sufficient to declare the meaning of itself and so we see Protestants cannot agree in the sense of any one Article therof as I shewed hertofore Besides if the Creed containe all Fundamentall Points why do you deny that it is possible to giue such a Catalogue Or if you say that even in the Creed it is impossible to determine precisely what Points are Fundamentall my former Argument retaines its force that by this meanes one cannot tell what he is chiefly to study and learne nor what he is bound explicitly to belieue in the Creed itself Nay since you can alledg no precept out of Scripture that all men are obliged to know and belieue the Creed the Creed of itself can be to you no rule at all either for Fundamentall or not Fundamentall Points but still you are devolved to find in the whole Bible Fundamentall Articles of Faith mixt with Points not Fundamentall and so it availes Protestants nothing to alledg the Creed as a summary of all Fundamentall Points Lastly Potter Pag 241. holds it only for very probable that the Creed containes all necessary Points and yourself Pag 194. N. 4. say of Potter he affirmed it not as absolutely certaine but very probable as also rhe Doctour pretends only that all Articles of pure Faith but not of practise are contained in the Creed and yet no man can be saved without believing all Fundamentall points whether they be purÃ¨ credenda or belong to practise and therfore we must conclude that to alledg the Creed for solving this my Argument can in no wise satisfy 13. Fiftly According to Protestants we cannot be obliged to belieue explicitely any Object vnless we find such an obligation evidently set downe in Scripture And if such an obligation be evidently expressed in Scripture it followes that you may giue vs a Catalogue of such Points If not you cannot burden mens consciences with such an obligation not expressed in Scripture 14. Sixthly I oppose yourself to yourself Pag 149. N. 37. You speake of Protestants in this manner Seing they ground their belief that such and such things only are Fundamentalls only vpon Scripture and go about to proue their Assertion true only by Scripture then must they suppose the Scripture true absolutly and in all things or else the Scripture could not be a sufficient warrant to them to belieue this thing that these only Points are Fundamentall Which words seeme to signify that Protestants can proue out of Scripture that such and such things only are Fundamentalls and what is this but to giue a Catalogue so exact that they may not only say these Points are Fundamentall but also that these only are such that is these and neither more nor fewer than these are Fundamentall Articles And Pag 150. N. 40. You say They Protestants may learne of the Church that the Scripture is the word of God and from the Scripture that such Points are Fundamentall others are not so And Pag 408. N. 35. You tell Charity Maintayned that he overreaches in saying that Protestants cannot agree what Points are Fundamentall and yet you grant in the same place that they do not agree and what reason can be given of this their so constant and long continued disagreement except because they haue no assured meanes and rule how to do it Also Pag 160. N. 53. To these words of Charity Maintayned Part 1. Chap 3. N. 19. Scripture doth deliver divine Truths but seldome qualifyes them or declares whether they be or be not absolutly necessary to salvation You answer Yet not so seldome but that out of it I could giue you an abstract of the essentiall parts of Christianity if it were necessary What difference put you between an abstract of the Essentiall parts of Christianity and a Catalogue of Fundamentall Points And how agrees this with what we haue heard you say Pag 166. N. 59. We know not precisely just how much is Fundamentall And Pag 23. N. 27. You say He that will goe about to distinguish what was written because it was profitable from what was written because necessary shall find an intricate peece of businesse of it and almost impossible that he should be certaine he hath done it when he hath done it And Pag 22. N. 27. A little before the words I cited last treating whether it be possible and necessary to giue a Catalogue of Fundamentalls you say For my part I haue great reason to suspect it is neither the one nor the other What a confusion is here First It is possible it is not possible to giue a Catalogue of Fundamentalls 2. It is possible to giue an abstract of the Essentiall parts of Christianity 3. Pag 135. N. 14. Perhaps we cannot exactly destinguish in the Scripture what is revealed because it is necessary from what is necessary consequently and accidentally meerely because it is revealed 4. I suspect that it is neither necessary nor profitable to giue a Catalogue of Fundamentall Points 5. It is a business of extreame difficultie 6. it is an intricate peece of business and almost impossible that one should be certaine he hath done it when he hath done it By all which you can gather nothing but contradictions and ambiguityes an Affirmation a Negation a Perhaps a Suspicion an extreme Difficulty an intricate peece of businesse a Possibility an impossibility an almost Impossibility and finally nothing certaine but this that in this most important matter of Fundamentall Points Protestants neither haue nor can haue any certainty but that it may be so and so it may be neither so nor so as we see by experience that they do not only disagree in assigning what Points are Fundamentall but some affirme certaine Points to be FundameÌ„tall Truths which others belieue to be Fundamentall errours But now in an other respect also I oppose yourself to yourself 15. Seaventhly For I must vpon occasion still put you in mynd of your doctrine that it is not

most Fundamentall of all Articles in the Church that Iesus Christ the Son of God and the Son of Mary is the only Saviour of the world Surely one of you must be in such a most important and most Fundamentall errour that you cannot both be saved though you were inculpably ignorant of it as we haue seene out of Potter Pag 243. even concerning this particular Article And now I pray you consider this agreement of Protestants in the foresayd Articles of Repentance and Faith in Christ Iesus the Son of God and Saviour of the world which yet you confess to be simply necessary 24. Object 3. In the same Pag 159. N. 52. You say Suppose a man in some disease were prescribed a medicine consisting of twenty ingredients and he advising with Physitians should find them differing in opinion about it some of them telling hem that all the ingredients were absolutly necessary some that only some of them were necessary the rest only profitable and requisite ad melius esse lastly some that some only were necessary some profitable and the rest superfluous yet not hurtfull yet all with one accord agreeing in this that the whole receypt hid in it all things necessary for the recovery of his health and that if he made vse of it he should infallibly find it successfull what wise man would not thinke they agreed sufficiently for his direction to the recovery of his health I ust so these Protestant Doctours with whose discords you make such Tragedyes agreeing in Thesâ— thus far that the Scripture evidently containes all things necessary to salvation and that whosoever believes it and endeavours to find the true sense of it and to conforme his life vnto it shall certainly performe all things necessary to salvation and vndoubtedly be saved what matters it for the divection of men to salvation though they differ in opinion touching what Points are absolutly necessary and what not 25. Answer You Socinians who adore naturall reason and take pleasure in being esteemed considering men are much delighted in proposing similitudes which make a faire shew and may seduce the ignorant but being examined proue nothing against any except yoursel ves First This similitude can proue nothing vnless you begg the Question and suppose one receypt to haue in it all things necessary for the recovery of the diseased mans health that is Scripture to containe all Points necessary to salvation which you know we deny and say you erre in Thesi If with Scripture you would joyne the Tradition and Definitions of the Church your suppositions were true and your parity good Otherwise your receypt cannot haue all necessary ingredients 26. Secondly Suppose the sick man had great reason to belieue that the ground vpon which the Physitians build their opinion and agreement were not good nor such as he had any obligation at all to credit what sick man if he were also wise could judg their agreement to be sufficient for an vndoubted direction to the recovery of his health Heere then as in other severall occasions I must put you in mynd of your doctrine that we are not bound to belieue as an Object of our Faith Scripture to be the word of God but that we may reject it What then availes it me towards the belief of such or such Points that they are evident in Scripture if I do not belieue Scripture itself 27. Thirdly Suppose the ingredients were very soveraine and sufficient in themselves but that it were not in the sick mans power to procure them were the speculatiue agreement of the Physitians sufficient for his recovery So here It is impossible for most men to know all evideÌ„t texts of scripture which yet according to your grounds must make vp that number of Truths wherin one shall be sure to find all Fundamentall Points and so the agreement of Protestants that all necessary Truths are evidently contayned in Scripture is to little purpose since they cannot distinguish them from Points not necessary and for all men to know all Points evident in Scripture but not necessary is impossible and though it were possible yet being not of obligation for any man even though he be learned to know all such Texts defacto he might without sinne be ignorant of necessary Points which he can be certaine to know only by knowing absolutly all cleare places of Scripture and so be damned for want of believing some Point absolutly necessary necessitate medij which is a plaine contradiction that some Points should be necessary to salvation and yet that we are not bound to attaine the knowledg of them or that the End which is the knowledg of such Points should be necessary and the only meanes to attaine it be either impossible or at least not of obligation to any as certainly no man is obliged to know precisely all and every particular evident Text of Scripture which â—et in your way is the only meanes to know all Fundamentall Points as in your example if a sick man were obliged to procure the recovery of his health he must be obliged to make vse of that receypt which alone could be effectuall in order to that end 28. Fourthly Suppose I could not take such a receypt without danger of drinking poyson togeather with the wholsome ingredients your similitude which goes vpon the contrary supposition doth clearely proue nothing Thus it passes in our case Men left to themselves without the Direction and Traditions of the Church yea with direct opposition to her Definitions and Authority cannot chuse but by occasion of reading Scripture alone fall into many errours against some Divine Revelation delivered either in Scripture or by Tradition that is in the written or vnwritten word of God as we see by experience of old and new Heretikes and particularly by the dissensions of Protestants wherof some must needs contradict some Truth delivered in Gods Word either by detracting from or by adding to the true sense therof Now in divets places you affirme that every errour contrary to any revealed Truth is in its owne nature damnable without Repentance and you add Pag 158. N. 52. that for the most part men are betrayed into errours or kâ—â—t in them by their fault or vice or passion And therfore the true Conclusion will be that men presuming to reade and interpret Scripture by their owne wit without dependance on the Church ought to conceaue that they expose themselves to certaine danger of erring against some Divine Truth or Revelation that is to a thing in itself damnable Neither can they hope for any helpe from Sectaryes whom they see infinitly divided among themselves And if they take such men for their Physitians some of them will affirme some ingredients to be necessary or profitable which others will sweare to be ranke poyson and so every Protestant is left to himself and a particular Catalogne of Fundamentalls is necessary for every one All which is strongly confirmed by calling to mynd that even the most learned

whole company hath for essentiall Notes the true preaching of Gods Word and due administration of Sacraments This instance convinces ad hominem and vpon supposition that you will make good your owne inference which indeed is in it selfe of no force in regard that to sin or erre is not assentiall to every part of the Church as preaching of the word is essentiall to every particular and consequently to the whole Church and therfore God may giue his assistance to keepe men from sin and errour as he shall be pleased and having promised that the gates of Hell shall not prevaile against the whole Church and not having made any such generall promise to private persons which neither are nor do represent the whole Church you cannot inferr that the whole Church or a Generall Councell may fall into Errour because every particular private person taken apart may be deceived Your parity also between sin and errour is vnworthy of a Divine Faith externally professed or the exteriour profession of Faith is necessary to constitute one a member of the Church but justifying grace or sanctity or Charity is not Yourselfe grant that Errour in Fundamentall Points destroyes a Church and that every particular person ceases to be a member of the Church by every such errour I hope you will not say the same of every or any grievous sin You grant Pag 274. N. 57. that corruptions in manners yield no just cause to forsake a Church and yet you excuse your leaving the Communion of our Church vpon pretence of corruptions in Her doctrine even in Points not Fundamentall of themselves It appeares then that errours in Faith though not Fundamentall preponderate any or all most grievous corruptions in manners in order to the maintayning or breaking the Communion of the Church Do you not expressly say Pag 255. N. 6. Many members of the Visible Church haue no Charity Which could not happen if Charity were as necessary as Faith to constitute one a member of the Church This is also the Doctrine of other Protestants Field Of the Church Lib 2. Cap 2. saith Entire profession of those supernaturall verityes which God hath revealed in Christ is essentiall to the Church Fulke Joan 14. Not 5. The true Church of Christ can never fall into Heresy It is an impudent slander to say we say so Whitaker Contron 2. Quest 5. Cap 17. The Church cannot hold any hereticall doctrine and yet be a Church mark heere also that the and a are applied to the same Church Dr. Lawd Sect 10. Pag 36. Whatsoever is Fundamentall to Faith is Fundamentall to the Church which is one by vnity of Faith It is then apparent that there is great difference between Faith and charity for as much as concernes the constituting one a member of the Church and the contrary is of dangerous consequence as if by deadly sin every Bishop Prelate Pastour Priest Prince c. must necessarily cease to be members of Christs Church 86. But here I must obserue two things First If entire profession of those supernaturall verityes which God hath revealed in Christ be essentiall to the Church If the true Church cannot fall into Heresy and that it is an impudent slander to affirme that Protestants say so if the Church cannot hold any Hereticall Doctrine and yet be a Church as we haue heard out of Dr. Lawd Whitaker Fulke and Field respectivÃ¨ it followes that the Church cannot fall into errour against any Truth sufficiently propounded as revealed by God whether it be of itselfe FundameÌ„tall or not because every such errour is Heresy as contrarily we exercise a true Act of Faith by believing a Truth because it is testifyed by God though the thing of itselfe might seeme never so small And Pag 101. N. 127. you speake to this very purpose saying Heresy is nothing but a manifest deviation from and an oppoÌ„sition to the Faith And Potter Pag 97. saith The Catholique Church is carefull to ground all her declarations in matters of Faith vpon the Divine Authority of Gods written Word And therfore whosoever willfully opposeth a judgment so well grounded is justly esteemed an Heretikâ— not properly because he disobeyes the Church but because he yields not to Scripture sufficiently propounded or cleared vnto him And Pag 250. Where the revealed will or word of God is sufficiently propounded there he that opposeth is convinced of errour and he who is thus convinced is an Heretike And Pag 247. If a man by reading the Scriptures or hearing them read be convinced of the truth of any such Conclusion This is a sufficient proposition to proue him that gain-saieth any such truth to be an Heretike and obstinate opposer of the Faith Field Lib 2. of the Church Cap 3. sayth freedome from Fundament all errour may be found among Heretiks From whence it followes that errour against any Point of Faith though not Fundamentall is Heresy and yourselfe Pag 23. N. 27. say There is as matters now stand as great necessity of believing those Truths of Scripture which are not Fundamentall as those that are If then every errour against any Truth sufficiently propounded as revealed by God be Heresy and that according to Fulke the true Church of Christ can never fall into Heresy and that as Whitaker saith the Church cannot hold any Hereticall doctrine and yet be a Church it followes that either the Church cannot fall into any errour even not Fundamentall and so Protestants are Schismatiks for leaving Her vpon pretence of errours or that it is no impudent slander to say that Protestants say the Church may fall into Heresy as Fulke affirmes it to be seing she may fall into errours against Faith and all such errours are Heresyes Besides seing we haue heard Potter confesse Pag 97. that the Catholique Church is carefull to ground all Her declarations in matters of Faith vpon the Divine Authority of Gods written word how can they avoide the Note of Heresy by opposing Her Declarations or of Schisme by leaving Her Communion By all which it is manifest that Heretiks haue no constancy in their doctrine but are forced to affirme and deny and by perpetuall contradictions overthrow their owne grounds and Assertions Howsoever for our present purpose we haue proved even out of Protestants themselves that your parity between errours against Faith and sins against Charity is repugnant to all Divinity seing externall profession of Faith is necessary to constitute one a member of the Church but Charity is not and chiefly I inferr that the Catholique Church is not subject to any errour though not Fundamentall since it is confessed that shee cannot fall into Heresy and every errour against any revealed Truth is Heresy 87. The second thing I was to obserue breifly is this Charity Maintayned speaking expressly of errours in Faith which are incompatible with the being of a true Church you to disguise the matter aske why errour may not consist with the holyness of this Church as well as many

Point that I need not say one word to ponder your words or declare the force of them Pag 7. N. 3. You expressly approue the saying of Dr. Potter That both sides by the confession of both sides agree in more Points then are simply and indispensably necessary to salvation and differ only in such as are not precisely necessary Therfore do we inferr Catholikes belieue all that is necessary to salvation and more But we can never yield so much to you Pag. 85. N. 89. You confesse the Roman Church to be a Part of the Catholique Church And we haue heard you say Pag 16. N. 20. If she were a true Part of the Church then she retained those truths which were simply necessary to salvation and beld no errours which were inevitably and vnpardonably destructiue of it For this is precisely necessary to constitute any man or any Church a member of the Church Catholique This you say and make good the like inference which I made by occasion of Dr. Potters words that the Roman Church is a member of the Catholique and other like Assertions of his Pag 163. N. 56. You say From Scripture we collect our hope that the Truths she the Roman Church retaines and the practise of them may proue an Antiaote to her against the errours which she maintaines in such persons as in simplicity of hart follow this Absalon These Points of Christianity which haue in them the nature of Antidots against the poyson of all sins and errors the Church of Rome though otherwise much corrupted still retaines therfore we hope she erreh not Fundamentally but still remaines a Part of the Church But this can be no warrant to vs to thinke with her in all things Seeing the very same Scripture which puts vs in hope she errs not Fundamentally marke how you professe to learne even out of Scripture that we erre not Fundamentally assures vs that in many things and those of great moment she errs very grievously And these errors though to them that belieue them we hope they will not be pernicious yet the professing of them against conscience could not but bring to vs certaine damnation Therefore the Points in which we differ from Protestants being acknowledged not to be Fundamentall and in other Points professing nothing against our conscience we are safe by your owne Confession If we did not belieue as we profess we were no Roman Catholikes In the same place you say expressly De facto we hope the Roman Church does not erre in Fundamentalls yea you say Lin 33. Perhaps she does not erre damnably the contrary wherof you affirme so often You example of Absalon was very ill applyed to the Roman Church which did not rebell from you but you against the whole Church the Mother of all Christians more sacrilegiously than Absalon behaved himselfe wickedly to wards his father Pag 404. N. 29. you approue Dr. Potters saying Pag 79. which I cited aboue that the Roman Religion is safe that is not damnable to some such as beleeue what they professe And in the same place you say we may hope that she retaines those Truths which are simply absolutely and indispensably necessary to salvatioâ— Pag 401. N. 27 We approue those Fundamentall and simply necessary Truths which you retaine by which some good soules among you may be saved but abhorre your many superstitions and heresyes The Truths you retaine are good and as we hope sufficient to bring good ignorant soules among you to salvation yet are not to be sought for in the conventi le of Papists If any soule may be saved in our Religion it is cleare that we hold not any Fundamentall errour with which no soule can be saved Pag 277. N. 61. you say The simple defect of some Truths prositable only and not simply necessary may consist with salvation Seing therfore you haue so often confessed that we erre not in Fundamentall Points our errours in some Truths profitable only and not fundamentall may consist with salvation How then do you say to Catholiks Pag 401. N. 27. As for our freeing you from damnable Herely and yielding you salvation neither He Dr. Potter nor any other Protestant is guilty of it Pag 219. N. 50. speaking of Protestants you say They doe not disser at all â—n Matters of Faith if you take the word in the highest sense and mâ—ane by Matters of Faith such Doctrines as are adsolutely necessary to salvation to be believed or not to be dâ—â—believed Now you know well that in Points of greatest moment which Catholiks belieue against some Protestants other Protestants stand for vs against their pretended Brethren and therfore you must either say that we belieue all such Doctrines as are absolutely necessary to salvation or that many learned Protestants do not belieue all such Doctrines and consequently are not capable of Salvation Pag Pag 269. N. 45. A man may possibly leaue some opinion or practise of a Church formerly common to himselfe and others and continue still a member of that Church Provided that what he forsakes be not one af those things wherin the essence of the Church consists For this cause you say that although Protestants left the externall Communion of the Church yet they left not the Church because they left her not in any thing essentiall to a Church as Fundamentall Points are Therfore you suppose the Church before Luther did not erre in any Fundamentall Article Otherwise you had left her that is you had disagreed from her in a Fundamentall Point Pag 272. N. 52. and Pag 283. N. 73. You deny that Protestants divided themselves from the Church absolutely and simply in all things that is ceased to be a member of it which still supposes that the Church before Luther believed all essentiall and Fundamentall Points which Protestants also pretend to hold and for that cause say they left not the Church Pag 272. N. 52. You say In the reason of our separation from the externall Communion of your Church you are mistaken For it was not so much because she your Church as because your Churches externall Communion was corrupted and needed Reformation But if we erred in Fundamentall Points Protestants must haue forsaken vs chiefly for that reason that our Church was corrupted with Fundamentall errours of Faith Therfore you grant that we erred not in any such necessary Points Pag 401. N. 26. You confess that Dr Potter saith indeed that our not cutting of your Church from the Body of Christ and hope of salvation frees vs from the imputation of Schisme Pag 133. N. 12. You say expressly By Confession of both sides we agree in much more than is simply and indispensably necessary to salvation It is well you make so open a Confession that we belieue much more than is simply necessary to salvation But as I sayd aboue we will not because we cannot yield so much to you And here I must aske againe How you could say Pag 401. N. 27. As for

vniversall Why might not the Church of that tyme haue held some vniversall errour and yet haue beene still the Church You must answer your owne Argument which is easy for vs Catholikes to doe by saying 5. First No particular man or Church may hold any sinfull and damnable errour and yet be a member of the Church vniversall Which is a truth to be believed by all Protestants if they vnderstand themselves and as I haue often sayd Potter confesseth that it is Fundamentall to the Faith of a Christian not to disbelieue any point sufficiently knowne to be revealed by God and that he who does so is an heretike and that heresy being a worke of the flesh excludes from the kingdome of Heaven And what a Church would you haue that to be which consists of Heretikes 6. Secondly To put a parity between particular men or Churches and the Church vniversall may very well beseeme some Socinian who makes small esteeme of the Authority of the Church but resolves faith into every mans private judgment and reason and therfore no wonder if such a Church be subject to corruptions no lesse than private men whose naturall witts and reason must integrate as I may say the whole Authority of and certainty in such a Church and therfore if particular persons may fall into errours the Church cannot be free from them yea she must containe in her bosome or rather bowells such corruptions and errours and so many poysons contradictory one to another and yet not breake A noble latitude of hart and a vast kind of hellishlike Charity But for vs your Argument hath no force at all For we belieue the Church to be the Meanes wherby Divine Revelations are conveyed to our vnderstanding and to be the Judge of Controversyes as hath beene proved hertofore at large and this being supposed we must make vse of your owne words Pag 35. N. 7. That the meanes to decide Controversyes in faith and Religion must be endued with an vniversall Infallibility in whatsoever it propoundeth for a Divine Truth From whence it followes that every errour in Faith is destructiue of that infallibility which is required in the meanes to decide Controversyes in Faith and Religion Which is further confirmed by those words of yours Pag 9. N. 6. No consequence can be more palpable then this The Church of Rome doth erre in this or that therfore it is not infallible Therfore say I to affirme that the Church can erre is to say she is not infallible nor can be judge of Controversyes nor the meanes to convey Divine Revelations to our vnderstanding nor could she be a Guide even in matters Fundamentall as we haue proved els where and yourselfe grant this last sequele to be good And in a word she would cease to be that Church which we are sure she is 7. Thus you say that Scripture which alone you hold to be the Rule of Faith and decider of Controversyes must be vniversally infallible and that any the least errour were enough to blast the whole Authority therof As also if the Apostles who were appointed to teach Divine Truths could by word or writting haue taught any falshood we could not haue relyed on their Authority in any point of faith great or little 8. You say Pag 143. N. 30. There is not the same reason for the Churches absolute infalliblity as for the Apostles and Scriptures For if the Church fall into errour it may be reformed by comparing it with the Rule of the Apostles Doctrine and Scripture But if the Apostles haue erred in delivering the Doctrine of Christianity to whom shall we haue recourse for the discovering and correcting their errour These your words prompt vs a ready Answer and disparity between the Church and private persons who if they fall into errour the errour may be reformed by comparing it with the Decrees Traditions and Definitions of Gods Church But if the Church erre to whom shall we haue recourse for the discovering and correcting her errour Nay I do take a forcible Argument by inverting and retorting your owne words For supposing your Doctrine that we belieue Scripture to be true and the word of God for the Authority of the Church and another saying of yours that a proofe must be more knowne to vs than the thing proved otherwise say you it is no proofe I argue thus There is not the same reason for our beliefe of the absolute infallibility of the Apostles and Scripture as for the Church For if false Scripture be obtruded it may be discovered by comparing it with the Tradition and consent of the Church from which we receiue the Scripture as the word of God and consequently all the certainty we haue of the contents therof But if the Church may erre to whom shall we haue recourse for discovering and correcting her errours seing as I sayd to compare it with the Rule of the Apostles doctrine will be to no purpose because that very Rule caÌ„ be of no force with vs but for the Authority of the Church which therfore must be as great or greater with vs then Scripture it selfe according to your owne saying The proofe must be more knowne than the thing proved Our B. Saviour sayd Matt 5. Uos est is sal terrae you are the salt of the earth But if the salt leese his vertue wherwith shall it be salted Vpon which words S. Austine L. 1. de serm Domini in monte C. 6. saith Si vos c. If you by whom others are to be as it were seasoned forfeite the kingdome of heaven vpon feare of temporall persecution what other persons shall be found to free you from errour seing God hath chosen you to take away errours from others So we may say If the Church which God hath appointed to teach others and deliver them the Scripture should erre who could be found to discover and correct that errour Your Argument is no better than this If a man may be a man though he be deprived of some vnnecessary part of his Body as fingers feete c. why may he not remaine a man though he want some parts absolutly necessary for the conservation of him in Being as hart head braine c. For infallibility in the Church is a priviledge necessary and as I may say essentiall to her as she is the judge of Controversyes in Faith which office belonging to no private persons infallibility is not necessary for them 9. To your vaine subtility That we say It is nothing but opposing the Doctrine of the Church that makes an errour damnable and it is impossible that the Church should oppose the Church I meane that the present Church should oppose it selfe From whence you would collect that if the Church should erre yet her errour being not damnable as not opposite to the Church herselfe she might still remaine a Church I answer By the same reason you may say the Apostles might erre and yet remaine of the Church and their

and yet not to haue beene inspired by God himselfe against such men there were no disputing out of the Bible In which words you confess that one cannot gather that a writing is inspired by God even though he did belieue that the contents therof were all true You make him also contradict yourselfe who resolue the beliefe of Scripture into the tradition of all Churches aÌ„d C Ma specifies not the present Church but saith oÌ„ly that Hooker acknowledged that we belieue Scripture for the Authority of the Church He must also contradict himselfe who I suppose liking not the Puritans privat spirit and proving that it is not the word of God which doth or possibly can assure vs as may be seene in Charity Maintayned Pag 42. N. 7. citing the place of Hooker leaves nothing for our motiue to belieue it except the Church Yet no man denyes but what we first belieue for the Authority of the Church may afterward be illustrated and confirmed by Reason as Hooker saith The former inducement the Authority of Gods Church prevailing somwhat with vs before doth now much more prevaile when the very thing hath ministred farther reason And yourselfe in this Chapter N. 47. explicate some words of Potter in this very sense which now I haue declared And therfore consider whether you do well in relating Mookers words to leaue out these words which are immediatly joyned to those which you cite If I belieue the Gospell yet is reason of singular vse for that it confirmeth me in this my beliefe the more Is this to say that naturall reason as it is distinguished from tradition or Authority of the Church in which sense we now speake of it is the last thing into which our beliefe of Scripture is resolved seing such a confirmation by Reason comes after we haue believed You say that when Hooker saith When we know the whole Church of God hath that oâ—inion of the Scripture c the Church he speakes of seenes to be that particular Church wherin a man is bredd where I put you in mynd of what you sayd in another place that A Church signifyes a particular Church and The Church as Hooker speakes signifyes the vniversall How then do you say That by The Church he signifies a particular Church Or how is the Distinction of A and The Church such as you would haue men belieue But this I let passe and aske you what finally you will haue Hookers opinion to be concerning the meanes for which we belieue with certainty Scripture to be the word of God The private Spirit You know he was an Anti-Calvinist and the private spirit could not sute with his genius Naturall Reason That is evidently against reason as we haue shewed and you grant And when he speakes most of reason he speakes of infidells or Atheists calling in question the authority of Scripture who may be perswaded by Sanctity of Christian doctrine c So there remaines only the Authority of the Church if you will haue him to say anything Dr Covell in his defence of Hookers Bookes Art 4. Pag 31. saith clearly Doubtless it is a tolerable Ovinion in the Church of Rome if they goe no further as some of them do not he should haue sayd as none of them doe to affirme that the scriptures are holy and divine in themselves but so esteemed by vs for the Authority of the Church These words of Covell were cited by Cha Ma N. 26. but it seemes you would take no notice of them and who could better vnderstand Hookers mynd than this his Defendant By the way we may obserue how hard it is to agree about the sense of holy Scripture which is more sublime than humane Writings if we cannot agree about the meaning of men 2. And by this occasion I must turne backe to your N. 11. where you quarrel at some words of Charity Maintayned and giue them a meaning clearly contrary to his sense and words You speake thus You in saying here that scripture alone cannot be Iudge imply that it may bo called in some sense a Iudge though not abone yet to speake propâ—â—ly as men should speake when they write of Controversyes in Religion the scripture is not a Iudge of CoÌ„troversyes but a rule only aÌ„d the only rule for Christians to iudge theÌ„ by But in this imputation you haue no reason at all to interpret Charity Maintayned as you doe For He in saying Scripture alone cannot be judge in Controversyes tooke only the contradictory of that which even in this place you affirme Protestants to belieue Scripture alone is the judge of Controversyes and therfore it was necessary for Him to declare his mynd by the contradictory proposition that Scripture alone is not the judge of Controversyes which is very true though iâ— be not a judge of Controversyes either by itselfe alone or in any other sense and you know he doth expressly and purposely and largely proue that it is against the nature of any Writing whatsoever to be a Judge and therfore when you say men should speake properly when they write of Controversyes in Religion and yet confess that Protestants have called Scripture the. Judge of Controversyes and that to speake properly the Scripture is not a Judge of Controversyes you taxe Protestants only and cannot so much as touch Charity Maintaynâ— 3. Here also I may speake a word to your N. 15. as belonging to interpretation You say To execute the letter of the Law according to rigour would be many tymes vnjust and therfore there is need of a Iudge to moderate it wherof in Religion there is no vse at all I pray you would it not be many tymes vnjust to execute the letter of the Scripture taken without a true and moderate interpretation And for this very caÌ„use there is great vse of a Judge and Authenticall interpreter otherwise some miscreant might murder his mother and brother vpon some mistaken Text of Scripture that idolaters were to be taken out of the world subjects might rebell no warr would be judged lawfull no oathes to be taken in any case c And here I willingly take what you N. 17. giue me that in Civill Controversyes every honest vnderstanding man is sit to be a Iudge but in Religion none but he that is infallible This I take and inferr that you wholy enervate the vulgar Argument of Protestants that Judges are to be obeyed though they be not infallible and therfore that we cannot inferr the Church to be infallible because we are commanded to heare Her not considering this difference which here your selfe giue betweene a Judge in Civill Controversyes and a Judge in Religion wherin such a Iudge is required whom we should be obliged to belâ—â—ue to haue judged right Which are your owne words wheras in Civill matters we are bound to obey the sentence of the Iudge or not to resist it but not always to belieue it â—ust which are also your words 4. Neither will I omitt

an Eye togeather with the vnderstanding to see the Scripture Wherby it still appeares that not our vnderstanding alone but it with some other Helpe not produced by the Scripture must be compared to our corporall Eye The same may be sayd of Barons Criteria which cannot be seene without some particular light of the Holy Ghost and therfore our vnderstanding with that light is the Eye not produced by the Scripture but presupposed to the beliefe of Scripture And lastly you who teach that we belieue for the Authority of the Church must say that the eye wherby we see Scripture is our vnderstanding togeather with the Tradition of the Church Which Tradition therfore must be knowne and believed before we belieue Scripture and not be produced by Scripture 12. Wheras you say Transsubstantiation is fruitfull of such monsters contradictions but they that haue not sworne themselves to the defence of errour will easily perceiue that jam factum facere and factum infectum facere are equally impossible you speake wickedly and ignorantly We haue heard Dr. Taylor in his Liberty c Â§ 10. N. 16. confessing that Christians belieue the Mystery of the Trinity with as much violence to the Principles of naturall and supernatur all Philosophy as can be imagined to be in the Point of Transubstantiation And it is certaine that this sacred Mystery of the Trinity to any learned Philosopher containess farr greater dissiculty than any that can be objected against Transubstantiation And yourselfe vpon a certaine occasion could say to some Protestants Either deny the Trinity or admitt Transubstantiation and it was answered we will rather admitt this than deny that And with good reason For if we respect humane discourse there are as I sayd more difficult objections against that Mystery than against this And if we regard Revelation Scripture is more cleare for the reall Presence and Transubstantiation than for the Mystery of the B. Trinity And if regard were to be had of Heretikes more haue hertofore impugned the Doctrine of the Trinity than of the Reall Presence and Transubstantiation But no wonder if they who reduce all certainty of Christian Faith to the weight of naturall Reason taking hold of the present tyme are glad vnder the name of Transubstantiation to vndermine the Doctrine of the B. Trinity and all the prime verityes proper to Christian Faith The other part of your Affirmation That jam factum facere and factum infectum facere are equally impossible is extreme bold seing so many great learned men hold the first and no man the latter being betweene them as great difference as betweene Est Est and Fuit non fuit But I feare you do not vnderstand what learned men meane by a Reproduction of the same existent thing or jam factum facere which signifyes only that the same thing is and is wheras every body knowes that factum infectum facere is to say That which was was not A manifest Contradiction Yet withall I must add that no Doctrine of the Catholique Church doth necessarily depend on that Question Whether it be impossible jam factum facere But enough of this least others haue occasion to say of me as you say truly of yourselfe in the close of this N. 48. I digress 13. I know not well what to make of your long and distracted discourse N. 49. we do not deny but that Protestants and other Heretikes may assent to some Mystery of Faith by a humane opinion and perswasion but that assent of theirs is not true Divine supernaturall Faith God not giving his particular Grace for believing one Article of Faith to him who denyes another equally proposed as revealed by God wherby even the infused Habit of Faith is destroyed Vnlearned Catholikes may exercise a true Act of Faith because indeed their assent comes to rely vpon a firme ground that is Divine Revelation propounded by an infallible meanes Gods Church wheras Heretikes haue no such ground for the resolution of their Faith as hath beene shewed in severall occasions 14. For gaining tyme and saving vnnecessary paines I had omitted to take notice of your N. 51.52 vnless your proceeding had forced me to say at least thus much that whosoever will reade aÌ„d compare the words of Ch Ma. with your Answer shall find that he speakes clearly and that you do so involue and obscure and alter what he spoke plainly that I know not what to make of your words He tells you that the Scripture is not such a first principle in Christianity that it may not be proved by another belonging to Christians namely by the Authority of the Uisible Church of Christ as yourself grant and to say as you doe that the Church or Tradition of the Church is a Principle not in Christianity but in Reason nor proper to Christians but common to all men for ought I can judge is repugnant to Reason and Christianity For what hath naturall Reason alone to doe with the Church of Christ which cannot be knowne except by some supernaturall Arguments as Miracles Sanctity Scripture Revelation c. 15. I do not vnderstand these your words N. 52. addressed to C. Mâ— That one part of Scripture may proue another part Canenâ—all and need no proofe of its owne being so you haue produced diverse Protestants that deny it but who they are that affirme it nondum constat I pray you where did Ch Ma say that there is any part of Scripture which needs no proofe of its being Canonicall Doth he not proue the necessity of a Living guide even by this Argument that otherwise we cannot be assured what Booke and parts of Scripture are Canonicall And for discerning what Bookes be Canonicall or suppositious are not Protestants wont to proue that such or such a Booke which they are pleased to stile Apocryphall is not conforme to other parts of Scripture and therfore cannot be Canonicall Do not yourselfe say N. 27. The Question whether such or such a Booke be Canonicall Scripture may be decided negatively out of Scripture by she wing apparent and irreconciliable contradictions between it and some other Booke confessedly Canonicall And may we not proue affirmatively for example that those Texts of the old Testament which are cited in the New are Canonicall because they are cited for such in Bookes which we belieue to be Canonicall I beseech you to what purpose or vpon what occasion given do you N. 51. vtter these words As if the Scripture might not be the first and most knowne Principle in Christianity and yet not the most knowne in all sciences Or as if to be a first Principle in Christanity and in all sciences Were all one Charity Maintayned said if Potter meane that Scripture is one of those Principles which being the first and most know ne in all sciences cannot be demonstrated by other Principles he supposes that which is in Question whether there be not some Principle for example the Church wherby we may come to the

Gospell vnless the authority of the Church did moue me is easily confuted That which moved the Saint to belieue the Gospell was not the authority of any particular Church but of the vniversall which deserves as much credit and is as infallible in one age as in another For if the whole Church of this age could erre what Priviledge of infallibility could we yield to the age before this and so vpward from one to another more than to this present age and so we could not ground any certainty vpon the Tradition of the whole Churâ—â— of all ages vpon which even yourselfe pretend to rely for the beâ—â—ere of Scripture Your other saying The Christian Tradition being as fall against Manâ—â—haâ—â—s as it was for the Gospell He S. Austine did well to conclude that he had as much reason to disbetieue Mantchaeus as to belieue the Gospâ—ll overthrowes the maine ground of Protestants that all thinges necessary to salvation are contained in Scripture alone For now it seemes you admitt a Tradition against the Doctrine of Manichaeus distinct from that Tradition wherby the Church delivers the Gospell and yet in this second Chapter Pag 114. N. 155. You say Scripture alone and no vnwritten Doctrine having atteâ—â—ation from Tradition truly vniverfall for this reason we conceiue as the Apostles persons while they were living were the only Iudges of Controversyes so their writings now they are dead are the only Rule for vs to Iudge them by If being pressed you tell vs perforce that there was no other Tradition against the Doctrine of Manichaeus but the Tradition which delivered Scripture and that they might be convinced of errour by Scripture alone you manifestly contradict S. Austine Cont Ep Fund Chap 5. cited by Charity Maintayned N. 18. I would not â—elieue the Gospell vnless the Authority of the Church did moue me Them therfore whom I obeyed saying belieue the Gospell why should I not obey saying to me do not belieue Manichaeus Where we see S. Austine professes to disbelieue the Doctrine of Manichaeus vpon the same Authority for which he believed Scripture which he professes to haue beene for the Authority of the Church as you also pretend to receiue the Scripture from the Church and therfore both the Scripture and Doctrine or interpretation therof we must receiue from the Church Which appeares more by the immediatly following words of S. Austine alledged by Charity Maintayned in the same N. 18. Choose what thou pleasest If thou shalt say belieue the Catholikes They warne me not to giue any credit to you If therfore I belieue them I cannot belieue thee If thou say do not belieue the Catholikes thou shalt not do well in forcing me to the Faith of Manichaeus because by the preaching of Catholikes I believed the Gospell it selfe If thou say you did well to belieue them commending the Gospell but you did not well to belieue them discommeÌ„ding Manichaenâ— Dost thou thinke me so very foolish that without any reason at all I should belieue what thou wilt and not belieue what thou wilt not Thus far S. Austine From whose words Cha Ma makes this reflection Do not Protestants perfectly resemble these men to whom S. Austine spake when they would haue men belieue the Roman Church delivering Scripture but not to belieue Her condemning Luther and the rest Against whom when they first opposed themselves to the Roman Church S. Austine may seeme to haue spoken no less prophetically than doctrinally when he sayd Lib de Utilit cred Cap 14. Why should I not most diligently inquire what Christ commanded of them before all others by whose authority I was moved to belieue that Christ commanded any good thing Canst thou better declare to me what he sayd whom I would not haue thought to haue beene or to be if the beliefe therof had beene recommended by thee to me This therfore I believed by fame strengthened with celebrity consent antiquity But every one may see that you so few so turbulent so new can produce nothing deserving authority What madness is this Belieue them that we ought to belieue Christ But learne of vs what Christ said Why I beseech thee Surely if they were not at all and could not teach me anything I would more easily perswade my selfe that I were not to belieue Christ than that I should learne any thing concerning him from any other than them by whom I believed him If therfore saith Cha Ma we receiue the knowledg of Christ and Scripture from the Church from her also must we take his Doctrine and interpretation of Scripture 27. The application of S. Austines words in your N. 99. to any particular Church is impertinent and doth not infringe the strength of S. Austines Argument who as I haue sayd received the Gospell vpoÌ„ the credit of the vniversall Church aÌ„d not vpoÌ„ the Authority of any particular Church or private person and of the vniversall Church he had all reason to say that as for her Authority he believed the Gospell so for the same authority he disbelieved the Doctrine of Manichaeus which that vniversall Church condemned But you equivocate when you do not distinguish between all the Churches of All Ages and all the Churches or vniversall Church of every Age which must be no less infallible than all the Churches of all Ages and is distinguished from everie particular Church of every age vpon which mistake your whole objection goes N. 99. about an Arian or a Grecian that they may pretend to make vse of S. Austines argument But wheras you say the ancient Goths or Wandals were converted to Christianity by the Arians it is but to doe a secret favour to the Arians your brethren For the Goths were not converted by the Arians from Gentilisme to Christianity but being first converted were afterward perverted by the Arians as may be seene in Baronius Ann 370. This answer confutes your passionate bitter declamation vented in your N. 101. 28. Your N. 100. demands whether Charity Maintayned be well in his wits to say that Protestants would haue men beâ—eue the Roman Church delâ—vering Scripture wheras they accuse her to deliver many Bookes for Scripture which are not so And do not bid men to receiue any Booke which she delivers for that reason because she delivers it 29. Answer as aboue that either you received the Scripture vpon the credit of the Roman Church and such Churches as agreed with her or else you received it meerly vpon your owne fancy admitting and rejecting Bookes at your pleasure and to this day you can haue no certainty of the Bible vnles you receaue it for that Reason because the Church delivers it And your admitting some Bookes and rejecting others which the Church receives doth only proue that you are formall Heretikes 30. You say N. 103. As to be vndersiandible is a condition requisite to a Iudge so is not that alone sufficient to make a Iudge otherwise you might make yourselfe Iudge of Controversyes I wonder

tyme are not you true blasphemers by whose Doctrine Caiphas may be excused from blasphemy And Ã² impiety our Saviour had blasphemed in making himselfe the Son of God if your horrible Doctrine were true 39. Secondly you answer that Dr. Potter mght 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 But then how could the Doctor say that the high Priest had a certaine priviledge from errour wherby he had an absolutly infallible direction Is not that to be not only obeyed but of necessity believed which proceeds from an absolutly infallible derection Or how could the high Priests determination be of necessity obeyed if his determination had beene repugnant to any Point of Faith as it might haue happened if he had no infallible direction Or will you now grant that one may and must dissemble in matters of Religion If you grant this last the ground for which you excuse Protestants from schisme falls to the ground 40. Thirdly you answer It is one thing to say that the living judge in the Iewish Church had an infallible direction another that he was necessitated to follow this direction This is the Priviledge which you chalenge But it is that not this which the Doctor attributes to the Iewes As a man may truly say the wise men had an infallible direction to Christ without saying or thinking that they were constrained to follow it and could not doe otherwise This Answer is no more solid and no lesse repugnant to Dr. Potter than the former For he saith If any such promise from God to assiste the Pope could be produced his decisions might then justly passe for oracles without examination Now how could any mans decisions passe for oracles if the promise from God to assist him be not effectuall but that he may actually resist or reject such an assistance and so teach the contrary of that towards which he is assisted by God Therfore the Doctor must be vnderstood of such an assistance as it is certaine the party assisted will follow which is the very Priviledg which you say we chalenge though we say not that we are necessitated as you misreport vs for we know very well that there is a great difference betwixt an absolute necessity and infallibility of an effect as I haue declared hertofore And indeed to say that the high Priest had an infallible assistance which in fact might be resisted is to attribute no more to him than to every man for performing his Duty if he concurre with Gods inspirations and directions or sufficient Grace Yourselfe say N. 148. That the whole depositum of truth was commtted to every particular Church nay to every particular man which the Apostles converted And yet no man I thinke will say that there was any certainty that it should be kept whole inviolate by every man and euery Church Which words confirme my saying that by your interpretation the Doctor attributes no more to the high Priest than to every man which yet we haue seene to be directly against his words and meaning and that he ascribes that to the high Priest which he denyes to the Pope to whom he professes that if he granted as much as God promised to the high Priest his the Popes decisions might justly passe for oracles without examination Which surely is more than is granted to every man neither would either he or you deny to the Pope that sufficient Grace and assistance to performe his Duty which Assistance you grant to every man To your example of the wise men I answer if God did efficaciously decree that the birth of our B. Saviour should be published to the world by their eye-witnessing he gaue them such direction as in his infinite wisdome he saw they would follow de facto though without either constraint or necessity as you would not deny to be very possible if you had beene versed in solide Divinity or read and vnderstood our Catholike Authors vpon the matter of Grace 41. All that you haue from the N. 125. till 136. inclusiuÃ¨ is answered already Only I will say that we do not proue the Church to be infallible because so it seemes to vs most fitt as you doe who rely meerly vpon humane discourse but seing the Question between vs is whether the Church or Scripture alone be the infallible Rule or Judge of Faith if we proue that the Church is vsefull for such a purpose and that the Scripture alone cannot possibly be such a Rule it followes that not the Scripture can be such a Rule but that the Church must be a Judge of Controversyes Thus all your roving arguments through diverse numbers vanish into nothing 42. In the end of your N. 126. you say that Charity Maintayned inferred vainly that with monthes and yeares as new Canonicall Scriptures grew to be published the Church altered Her Rule of Faith and Iudge of Controversyes which yet is a true consequence if as Charity Maintayned expressly sayes as the Church by little and litle received holy Scripture she was by the like degrees devested of her possessed Infallibility Protestants grant that after the canon was perfited infallibility ceased to be in the Church and why must they not say that as Bookes of Scripture were written so she by degrees lost her infallibility as being needeless for those points which grewe to be evidently declared by those Bookes For which cause they teach that when the whole Scripture was written the Church wholy lost infallibility and heere enters your conceypt that to him to whom the way is cleare a guide is not necessary Therfore the evidence of Scripture made infallibility in the Church vnnecessary 43. In your N. 137. 138. you dissemble the force of Ch Ma his Argument which is the Church was once indued with infallibility therfore you cannot affirme that she lost it without alledging some evident Text of Scripture for your assertion which with you who rely vpon Scripture alone ought to be a convincing Argument Your fond instance about the King of Sweden with the rest of that N. 138. hath beene answered already 44. I need say little to your N. 139.140 having confuted at large your distinction between being infallible in Fundamentalls and an infallible Guide in Fundamentalls And to your words N. 140. directed to Charity Maintayned For the Churches being deprived by the Scripture of infallibility in some Points and not in others that is a wild notion of your owne which we haue nothing to doe with I Answer if you meane to defende the cause of Potter or other Protestants and not of Socininians only you must of necessity haue to doe with that wild notion For seing it must be granted that before Scripture was written the Church was infallible in all matters belonging to Faith both Fundamentall and not Fundamentall because otherwise we

consisted of the Apostles who determined not only what others but what themselves were to belieue if they had not believed it already as de facto they did belieue it before the Councell and so the Apostles had determined what the Apostles were to belieue The same may be applyed to Generall Councells who determine even what they themselves are to belieue and vniversally if we do conceiue any congregation to be infallibly assisted by God they may declare what themselves and others are to belieue though that congregation be nothing but an aggregation of such Believers Yourselfe confess that the Governers of the Church may determine Rites Ceremonies c for the whole Congregation and so for themselves according to your inference yea if you vnderstand the matter as you should in determining Rites c they determine what every one is not only to practise but to belieue also as I sayd aboue and so all believers may determine in this sense what they are to belieue But the truth is you erre even in Philosophy not considering that when a thing is determined by a Community endued with sufficient Authority to command and define the obligation falls not vpon the whole collectiuÃ¨ compared with the whole that is adaequate with it selfe but as the whole respects a particular member or part from which it is truly distinguished as includens ab incluso and the whole a singulis partibns in the manner that a mans soule is distinguished from a man Besides the precept of Faith or Believing is not a pure Ecclesiasticall precept but a Divine command obliging All and Every one to belieue whatsoever the Church propounds as revealed by God which therby becomes an Object of Faith And I hope you will not deny but that although it were granted that a man cannot oblige himself nor a community it self by their owne Authority or command yet God may and doth oblige all and every one to belieue whatsoever is propounded as a Divine truth by such an infallible Propounder as the Church is which in that sense may truly be sayed to determine what all are to belieue We may also add that by the Church are vnderstood the Pastours and Prelates therof who are not the whole Church collectiuÃ¨ but may command and define for the whole Church Lastly what doth this your answer belong to the Point of which Charity Maintayned spoke That there is a greater necessity of some infallible authority in the Church of Christ than in the Synagogue of the Jewes because the Lawes Rites c were more particularly and as I may say minutely determined in the Old then in the New Law which therfore stands in need of some Living Judge to determine for all the many varietyes and different occasions that may present themselves 48. Your N. 143. is answered in three words that when S. Paul 1. Cor. 16.11 sayd All these thinges chanced to them in figure Every body sees that he meant not of the temporall but of the Ecclesiasticall or spirituall state of the Jewes and so if they had one high Priest who was endued with infallibility much more ought we to belieue that there is such an infallibility in Gods Church And the Reader by comparing the words of Charity Maintayned with your Objection will of himselfe see that you labour to seeke but can find no solide matter against him Neither did he ever say that the Ecclesiasticall Government of the Jewes was a Patterne for the Ecclesiasticall Government to Christians as you would make him speake but expressly that the Synagogue was a type and figure of the Church of Christ for those are his words Now to be only a type and figure argues imperfection To be a Patterne expresses perfection as being a Rule modell and an idea of that in respect wherof it is a Patterne 49. You needed not in your N. 144. pretend to doubt what discourse Ch. Ma. meant when in the beginning of his N. 24. he sayd This discourse is excellently proved by ancient S. Irenaeus For it was easy to see that he spoke of that discourse which he held in his immediatly precedent N. 23. His discourse was that the Church of the Old and New Law did exist respectiuÃ¨ before any Scripture was written as there he shewes at large and consequently that Tradition and not scripturedid then beget faith which is also clearly confirmed by the place which Ch. Ma. cited N. 24. out of S. Irenaeus whose meaning you do pervert against himselfe and even against yourselfe The words of the Saint Lib 3. Cap 4. are What if the Apostles had not left Scriptures ought we not to haue followed the order of Tradition which they delivered to those to whom they committed the Churches To which order many Nations yield assent who belieue in Christ having salvation written in their harts by the spirit of God without letters or inke and diligently keeping ancient Tradition It is easy to receaue the truth from Gods Church seing the Apostles haue most fully deposited in her as in a rich storehouse all things belonging to truth For what If there should arise any contention of some small question ought we not to haue recourse to the most ancient Churches and from them to receiue what is certaine and cleare concerning the present question These be the words of S. Irenaeus cited by Charity Maintayned which declare that Tradition is sufficient and powerfull to produce Faith even with facility as S. Irenaeus expresses himselfe though no Scripture had beene written And this he affirmes not by way of conjecture or discourse what God would haue done if there had beene no Scriptures but that de facto there was existent such a powerfull Tradition as to it not one nor some nor few but many nations did yield assent without letters or inke that is without Scripture And in this Chapter N. 159. you say Irenaeus tells vs of some barbarous Nations that believed the doctrine of Christ and yet believed not the Scripture to be the word of God for they never heard of it and Faith comes by hearing From whence you inferr That a man may be saved though he should not know or not belieue Scripture to be the word of God if he belieue Christian ReligioÌ„ wholly and entirely and liue according to it If this be true doth it not follow that Scripture alone is not the only nor a necessary Rule of Faith seing by tradition alone men may be saved though they should not know or not belieue Scripture to be the word of God And that by this concession you directly blott out the very title of this Chapter which is Scripture the only Rule wherby to judge of controversyes 50. Now let vs heare what you can Object against Charity Maintayned in this matter You say N. 144. In saying what if the Apostles had not left Scripture ought we not to haue fellowed the order of Tradition And in saying that to this order many Nations yield assent who

belieue in Christ having salvation written in their harts by the spirit of God without letters or inke and diligently keeping ancient Tradition doth he S. Irenaeus not plainly shew that the Tradition he speakes of is nothing els but the very same that is written Nothing but to belieâ—e in Christ To which whether Scripture alone to them that belieue it be not a sufficient Guide I leaue to you to Iudge 51. Answer First this your Answer though it were never so true leaves Charity Maintayned in possession of what he endeavoured to proue out of S. Irenaeus against the Title of your Chapter Scripture the only Rule wherby to Iudge of Controversyes to witt that Tradition and therfore not only Scripture is such a Rule For dato non concesso that Scripture containes all Points necessary to be believed it followes not that the Church also may not be infallible and guide vs by Tradition as by Gods vnwritten Word You teach here N. 126. That all the necessary Parts of the Gospell are contained in every one of the foure Gospells And yet you say That they which had â—ll the Bookes of the New Testament had nothing superfluous For it was not superfluous but profitable that the same thing should be sayd diverse tymes and be testifyed by diverse witnesses So say I it had not beene superfluous but very profitable that the same truth should be revealed by God in Scripture and by the infallible Tradition of the Church which you must grant to haue happened in the tyme of the Apostles when the first Bookes of Scripture were Written For as Scripture was not superfluous though it found another infallible Rule before it which also even according to Protestants remained for some tyme with it namely till the Canon of Scripture was perfited so Tradition neither was nor is superfluous though there be another infallible Rule Scripture with it 52. Secondly When you say That the Tradition S. Irenaeus speakes of is nothing els but the very same what is written nothing but to belieue in Christ to which whether Scripture alone to them that belieue it you should add and vnderstand it be not a sufficient Guide I leaue to you to Iudge I must answer as you N. 142. speake to Charity Maintayned I pray walke not thus in generality but tell vs what you meane by believing Only in generall that he is the Messias and that without believing him none can be saved Or else do you vnderstand by believing in Christ all that hath beene taught by him If you meane the first only you say nothing to the purpose because other Articles are necessarily to be believed beside that of Christs being the Messias If you meane the second that is all Points taught by our Saviour and necessary to be believed as you N. 159. say S. Irenaeus tells vs of some babarus Nations that believed the Doctrine of Christ which certainly containes more than that one generall Article of his being Messias as even there you declare that it comprehends the Believing of Christian Religion wholly and entirely that is the matter of the Gospell you know we deny that for all such truths Scripture alone can be a sufficient Guide and to take the contrary without proofe is to begg the question Nay even for that of believing in Christ I wonder you would say that you leaue it to the judgment of Charity Maintayned that Scripture alone is a sufficient Guide in the Principles and proceedings of Protestants seing you know that He knowes and the whole world knowes how vastly they disagree about believing in Christ some believing him to be the Son of God and Consubstantiall to his Father Others denying it Some saying he satisfyed for our sins others denying it as you know the Socinians doe So that take away the Authority and infallibility of Gods Church the agreement of Christians in believing in Christ will terminate in the meere Name of Christ and the Title of Saviour with endless contentions about the Thing signifyed by that Name and Title Put then all your Assertions togeather the strength of them will end in this contradiction that the only Rule of Faith is Scripture and yet that a man may be saved without believing it to be the Word of God yea though he doubt or reject it being proposed by other Parts of the Church as you expressly say in the same N. 159. 53. But you say S. Irenaeus his words are just as if a man should say if God had not given vs the light of the Sun we must haue made vse of candles and torches If we had had no eyes we must haue felt out our way If we had no leggs we must haue vsed crutches And doth not this in effect import that while we haue the Sun we need no candles While we haue our eyes we need not feele out our way While we enjoy our leggs we need not crutches And by like reason Irenaeus in saying if we had had no Scripture we must haue followed Tradition and they that haue none do well to doe so doth he not plainly import that to them that haue Scripture and belicue it Tradition is vnnecessary Which could not be if the Scripture did not containe evidently the whole Tradition 54. Answer You may vnderstand the words of S. Irenaeus and moue others to vndestand them as you please if you will first suppose your owne doctrine to be true that is if to begg the question may passe for a good Rule to interpret Authors If I say you suppose or take as granted that Scripture is the only Rule of Faith and that it containes evidently all things necessary to salvation you may compare it to the Sun to Eyes to leggs and the Church to Candles to feeling out our way to crutches yea if she might erre to the Synagogue of Satan and lastly to Nothing because indeed every errour in Faith destroyes Faith and Church But if you conceaue as you ought that the Church gives Being to the Scripture in order to vs that by Her Eyes or Testimony we belieue Scripture to be the word of God as yourselfe grant that by Her subsistence as I may say it hath beene conserved and subsists you will be forced to invert your similitudes and interpretation of S. Irenaeus and say do not his words import that if candles should faile the Sun will last and as the Prophet David saith Psalm 18. Nec est qui se abscondat a calore ejus And that in Sole posuit tabernaculum suum that is in manifestatione Ecclesiam saith S. Austine If through the difficulty and obscurity of Scripture we cannot feele out our way as the disagreements of Protestants shew they cannot we may see by the eyes of the Church by which we did first see Scripture itselfe and then do not the words of S. Irenaeus plainly import the direct contrary of that which you inferr That to them who haue Tradition as all they must haue who belieue Scripture

which we receiue by Tradition Scripture is vnnecessary as you speak of Tradition and so is not to be the only Rule of Faith nor is there any necessity at all that it containe evidently the whole Tradition as you inferr which is most evidently false seing S. John writes that the world could not containe all that might haue been written of our B. Saviour To say nothing that one Tradition and that the chiefest of all other in the account of Protestants is that Scripture is the Word of God which you profess cannot be proved by Scripture itselfe 55. And now we haue a cleare Answer to your Objection out of S. Irenaeus as if he had taught that Scripture containes evidently the whole Tradition You cite not the place But it is Lib 3. Cap 1. where he saith We haue received the disposition of our salvation from no others but from them by whom the Gospell came vnto vs. VVhich Gospell truly the Apostles first preached and afterwards by the will of God delivered in writing to vs to be the Pillar and Foundation of our Faith These words you alledge and in your margent cite Bellarmine de Verbo Dei Lib 4. Cap 11. answering them much to your advantage as you pretend But you dissemble his first Answer which demonstrates that S. Irenaeus doth in no wise favour your pretence Bellarmine in Answer to Kemnitius who made this same Objection out of S. Irenaeus saith Respondeo Irenaeum non dicere nihil aliud Apostolos predicavisse quÃ m quod scripserunt sed solÃ¹m scripsisse Evangelium quod antea praedicaverant quod est verum non contra nos I answer that S. Irenaeus doth not assirme the Apostles to haue preached nothing els beside that which they wrote but only that they wrote the Gospell which they had preached before which is true and not against vs. Now how can you impugne this Answer of Bellarmine otherwise than by begging the question and supposing that the Evangelists cannot be sayd to haue Written the Gospell vnless they wrote all that the ApostlÃ¨s preached Which you know we deny and the contrary is evident out of S. John as I sayd even now and hertofore proved at large Though it be also most true that they wrote all that was necessary to be written but then you must proue that all that was necessary to be believed or was preached was necessary to be written and not delivered by Gods vnwritten Word or Tradition as it was before any Scripture was extant which you will never be able to proue out of S. Irenaeus or Holy Scripture This Answer to the words of S. Irenaeus is confirmed out of the same Chapter where he saith Marcus Discipulus c Marke the Disciple and interpreter of Peter did also deliver to vs in writing those things which were preached by Peter and Luke the follower of Paul set downe in a Booke the Gospell which was preached by him S. Paul And afterward John the Disciple of our Lord and who leaned vpon his brest did also write the Gospell while he remained at Ephesus in Asia Now it cannot be doubted but that S. Marke had many things from the mouth of S. Peter and S. Luke from S. Paul which they did not set downe in writing and yet you see it is sayd he S. Luke wrote Evangelium the Gospell and for S. John he professes that our Saviour did innumerable things which are not written and yet it is sayd edidi Evangelium he set forth the Gospell and the Apostles delivered interpretations of Scripture to the first Christians which are not set downe in writing as yourselfe confesse If any say S. Irenaeus calls Scripture the Pillar and Foundation of our Faith I answer Those words cannot be referred Scripturis to the Scriptures which is S. Irenaeus his word but to the Gospell as appeares by the Word futurum fundamentum columnam Fidei nostrae futurum seing we cannot say with congruity of Grammar Scripturis futurum aÌ„d therfore it must be referred to Evangelium Gospell Evangelium columnam Fidei nostrae futurum which Gospell is of a larger extent than Scripture though no man denyes Scripture to be in a good sense the Pillar and Fundation of truth Of the second answer which Bellar gives I haue spokeÌ„ largely Chap 2. and shewed how egregiously you abuse him against his direct intention meaning and words 56 Thus you haue an answer to your N. 145. Where you say that at the most we can inferr from S. Irenaeus but only a suppositiue necessity of having an infallble Guide and that grounded vpon a false supposition in case we had no Scripture but an absolute necessity herof and to them who haue and belieue the Scripture which is your assumption cannot with any colour from hence be concluded but rather the contrary The Answer I say to this is given already for as I sayd S. Irenaeus speakes not by way of discourse or conjecture or as it were of prophecy what God would haue done in case the Apostles had left no Scriptures but he speakes of Tradition really existing wherby the want of Scripture might haue beene supplyed and which he expressly saith the Apostles delivered to those to whom they committed the Churches Yea he affirmes that de facto many Nations were converted by yielding assent to it and so de facto there was in that and will be in the like case a necessity of an infallible Tradition and a Living Guide And although that or the like occasion had not happened yet the thing being contingent Yea and in your particular Doctrine the Scripture being not a materiall Object of Faith which all are bound to belieue which in effect is as if it were not at all the Church could not be to seeke whensoever the occasion might happen but must be indued with a permanent Authority and infallibility for all events as it is contingent that for example theft be committed in a Commonwealth yet there is not only a suppositiue but an absolute necessity that the Commonwealth be indued with an absolute constant power to punish theeves c Neither ought you to say absolutly for as much as belongs to our question that it is a false supposition to suppose that Scripture had not beene written For besides that the Church of Christ was in being some yeares before any part of the New Testament was written it is all one that there be no Scripture and that we haue it not or haue no reason to belieue it yea or may reject it as you saie seing therfore many Nations were saved without knowledge of Scripture or any obligation to know it as S. Irenaevs supposes it alone is in order to vse and vs as if it had never beene written and so as I sayd inferrs an absolute and not only a suppositiue necessity of some Living Guide And this it seemes you did perceiue when you sayd that Charity Maintayned did not well to inferr an absolute necessity of a

a small than in a great matter as your selfe here affirme expressly that Gods Revelation is an equall Motiue to induce vs to belieue all Objects revealed by him But you say this sense is impertinent which you must giue me leaue to deny For if it be alike damnable to reject Gods testimony whether the matter be in itselfe great or small it followes that whosoever dissents from the least Point sufficiently propounded to be revealed by God sins damnably and is not capable of salvation without repentance so that of two dissenting in an Object knowne to be a divine truth one of them cannot be saved without repentance And it is strang that still you will be altering the state of the Question notwithstanding that Cha Ma expressly declared that we speake of persons to whom the Divine Revelation is sufficiently propounded for such Where now are the false Propositions the disorder of forme the inconsequence of the Conclusion which you so contemptuously objected to Cha ma But chiefly where shall we find in all these your diversions and tergiversations a direct Answer to the discourse of Cha ma that the Essence and vnity or diuersity of Faith is chiefly to be attended in order to the Formall object which is Divine Revelation and not in respect of the matter of Fundamentall or not Fundamentall Points and consequently that it is impossible that when two disagree in matters sufficiently declared to them to be divine truths both can be saved Your N. 25. hath beene answered at large hertofore 27. For the answer which in your N. 26 you giue to the N. 9.10.11 of Ch Ma if the Reader will take the paines to peruse those numbers in Ch Ma he will find that there is a great difference to take things from the Originall itselfe and to receaue them from a Coppy drawne by a partiall hand of an vnsincere Adversary Cha Ma proves the Church Catholique to be vniversally infallible because otherwise she might either propose things contrary to divine Revelation or els propose for a revealed Truth that which is not such which were a damnable sin and Dr. Potter confesses that the Church cannot erre damnably 28. To this you answer that the Church may do these things by Ignorance or mistake and so without damnable sin But this answer is confuted by what hath beene sayd hertofore For if it be evident in Scripture that the Church may erre in some Points she cannot but know that she exposes Herselfe to danger of errour against the divine Testimony and consequently sins damnable vnless she hath evident Scripture for what she proposes which cannot happen when she proposes a falshood If it be not evident in Scripture that she may erre in some Points then you who take Scripture for the sole Rule of Faith cannot be sure that she may erre especially if we reflect that Scripture assures vs as Protestants grant that she is Infallible in some namely in Fundamentall Points and doth not tell vs what those Points in particular be Besides you teach Pag 277. N. 61. that there is promised to the Church not only an assistance not to erre in things absolutely necessary but a farther assistance is conditionally promised even such an Assistance as shall lead vs if we be not wanting to it and ourselves into all not only necessary but very profitable truth and guarde vs from all not only destructiue but also hurtfull errours And therfore to Char Maint saying that a Church not erring in Fundamentalls doth as much as our Saviour exacts at her hands as much as lyes in her power to doe you answer This is manifestly vntrue For Gods assistance is alwayes ready to promote Her farther It is ready I say but on condition the Church does implore it on condit on that when it is offered in the Divine directions of Scripture and reason the Church be not negligent to follow it Which words do not well agree with your answer that the Church may erre by Ignorance or Mistake and so without damnable sin seing on the one side every errour against Divine Revelation is of itselfe a damnable sin and on the other the Church wants not sufficient assistance not to erre and in fact shall be sure not to erre if she be not negligent to follow Gods Assistance when it is offered in the divine directions of Scriptuae and reason and therfore her Errours must needs be culpable as proceeding only from her owne negligence In this very N. 26. which I confute yourselfe assirme that she cannot be excused from headlong and pernicious temerity in proposing Points not Fundamentall to be believed by Christians as matters of Faith if it be vnderstood of such vnfundamentall Points as she is not warranted to propose by euident Text of Scripture Indeed if she propose such as matters of Faith certainly true she may well be questioned quo warranto She builds without a foundation and says Thus saith the Lord whâ—n the Lord doth not say so which cannot be excused froÌ„ rashnesse and high presumption But though she may erre in some pointe not Fundamentall yet may she haue certainty enough in proposing others evidently and vndeniably set downe in Scripture and consequently may be without all rashnesse proposed by the Church as certaine divine revelatioÌ„s These be your words which clearly overthrow your owne Answer For I argue thus If the Church proceed vpon evident Scripture she cannot erre in those things If not she always exposes herselfe to danger of errour for the matter which may proue false and to certaine actuall errour for the manner by proposing as a Point of Faith certainly true which yet is always vncertaine if she in such things may be deceaved as you say she may whensoever she is not warranted by evident Text of Scripture Thus by your owne grounds the Church is either certaine that she errs not as relying vpon evident Scripture or if she haue not such evidence she is certaine that she exposes herselfe and others to errour against Divine Revelation which cannot be excused from a great sin of rashnesse and high presumption And then when will your excuse of ignorance or mistake haue place which cannot happen when she hath evidence of Scripture and will not excuse when she wants such evidence And so there is no meane betweene certainty that she errs not and committing a sin by exposinge Herselfe to a knowne danger of errour against the Divine Revelation 29. By the way I would know how your Doctrine That God hath promised to the Church such an assistance as shall lead vs into all not only necessary but very prositable truth if we be not wanting to it agree with what you say in your Answer to the Direction N. 32. It is not absolutely necessary that God should assist his Church any farther then to bring her to salvation Is it not necessary that God keepe his promise And how do you find fault with Cha. Ma. for saying that if the Church

the Apostles and our B. Saviour were not absolutely infallible because they were built vpon another higher infallibility And I returne your owne words against you if but wise men or even men in their wits haue the ordering of the building they will make it as sure a thing that the building shall not fall from the Foundation as that the Foundation shall not faile the building if it be in their power to doe both these things with as much certainty and facility as to doe one of them And no wonder seing the stability of the Foundation is but a Meanes to the End that the Edifice which is builded vpon it be stable and every wise man hath greater regard to the End then to the Meanes in respect of which the End may be called the Foundation vpon which depends the Election of the Meanes and in vaine it is that the Foundation cannot faile the building if the building may fall from the Foundation And if for example to build high were a meanes to make the building not fall from the Foundation as digging deepe makes the Foundation not faile the building men would be as carefull to build high as now they make sure to digg low for better setling the Foundation and every one would ayme at a tower of Babel Now the Apostles received of the Holy Ghost infallibility not for themselves alone but for the good of the Church and it is no less easy for God to bestowe absolute infallibility vpon the Church than vpon the Apostles vpon the Edifice than vppon the Foundation and therfore no wonder if the Church partake of the same stability and infallibility with Her Foundation for the substance not for the manner that is as the Apostles were so the Church is free from all errour but so as the Church received Her Doctrine from the Apostles and not the Apostles from the Church You find fault with Charity Maintayned who making right vse of this metaphore argues that as a Foundation alone is not a house so to belieue Fundamentalls or the Foundation alone is not sufficient to constitute a Church or house of God without the beliefe of all Points sufficiently propounded as revealed by God and now yourselfe ground a matter of greatest moment the infallibility of the Church vpon the same metaphore very ill applyed towards any other purpose except to proue the contradictory of that for which you alledge it and to confute yourselfe as even now I haue demonstrated And besides all this seing in your Doctrine we belieue the Scriptures and the Doctrine of the Apostles or that there were any such men as the Apostles for the Authority of the Church or vniversall Tradition the Church to you is the Foundation of your beliefe that the Apostles were infallible and consequently if your deduction be good the infallibility of the Church must be greater than that of the Apostles because the Foundation must be stronger than the Edifice and so your owne argument directly overthrowes that which you would proue by it 36. By what I haue now sayd your other reason in the same place is answered That a dependent infallibility especially if the dependance be voluntary cannot be so certaine as that on which it depends But the infallibility of the Church depends vpon the infallibility of Apostles as the streightnesse of the thing regulated vpon the streightnesse of the Rule and besides this dependance is voluntary for it is in the power of the Church to deviate from this Rule being nothing els but an agregation of men of which every one has freewill and is subject to passions and errour Therfore the Churches infallibility is not so certaine as that of the Apostles 37. Answer How many flawes appeare in these not many words And to omit that of Dependance this Reason is not distinct from the former taken from the metaphor of a Foundation to which must be applied the Reason for which we assent to a thing and which therfore is the foundation on which our assent depends I say First Your conclusion is not contrary to the Assertion of your adversary A foule fault in Logicke which teaches that alwayes the conclusion of the disputant ought to be directly contradictory to that which the Defendant affirmes and not consistent with it Otherwise the Opponent would be discovered to fight with no-body You conclude Therfore the Churches infallibility is not so certaine as that of the Apostles Which is nothing against Charity Maintayned who proved only that the Church is so certaine and infallible in Her Definitions that they cannot be false forbearing to dispute whether one certainty may be greater then another and therfore secondly you mistake or wittingly alter the question passng from intension or degrees of certainty in order to the same Points to extension of infallibility to different kinds of objects as if though it were granted that the Apostles were more infallible than the Church intensiuÃ¨ or in respect of the same Points in which both she and the Apostles are infallible because she depends on the Apostles it must follow that the Church cannot be extensiuÃ¨ as infallible as they were that is cannot be infallible in Points both Fundamentall and not Fundamentall which is a very inconsequent consequence it being sufficient that the A postles be more infallible than the Church quoad modum seing she depends on them and they not on her as the Apostles were not so infallible intensiuÃ¨ as our Saviour and yet you will not inferr that their infallibility also must be so limited extensivÃ¨ as not to reach to vnfundamentall Points and as the Church for Fundamentall Points is builded and depends vpon the Apostles and so quoad modum not so infallible as they were yet Protestants grant that she is absolutly infallible in fuch Points though for them she depend on the Apostles and your reason is against this infallibility as well as against her infallibility in Points not Fundamentall and therfore proves in neither Thirdly according to this your discourse no naturall truth can be inferred with certainty from the most common and knowne Principles of naturall reason as Nothing can be and not be at the same tyme. Every whole is greater than any one part included therin and the like because whatsoever is inferred from such knowne Axiomes must depend on them and therfore not be certaine nor infallible If then your meaning be that the Church is not absolutely infallible because she depends on the infallibility of the Apostles your Reason is manifestly false If you meane that she may be absolutly infallible though not so infallible as the Apostles quoad modum you speake not to the purpose but grant as much as we desire 38. You say It is in the power of the Church to deviate from this Rule that is from the Doctrine and infallibility of the Apostles being nothing els out an aggregation of men of which every one has freewill and is subject to passions and errour And

cockle is to be suffered or as I may say tolerated to growe with the wheate least vntymely weeding the cockle spoile the good corne that is of two vnavoidable evills it is not only lawfull but laudable yea necessary to chuse the lesser which taken formally with comparison to the greater is in some sorte good as in some proportion I declared heretofore speaking of the case of invincible and inculpable Perplexity as heere the Church is necessitated without any fault of hers either to suffer a less or doe a greater evill by vntymely and fruiteless rigor Did not the Apostles and must not all Prelats permit many sinnes of diverse kinds which they cannot hinder without greater damage to the Christian Commonwealth vnless they were Omnipotent to rule the wills of men and effectually drawe them only to good But you speak very vnworthily of the vniversall Church of Christ when you would make the world belieue that the farre greater part of Christians in S. Austines tyme was guilty of vaine superstitions and avowed and practised them yea or even dissembled them in silence when prudent Charity and zeale could dictate the contrary As for your parity betwen the whole Church and particular members thereof it hath bene confuted heretofore infallibility being promised to the Church not to private persons and you might make the same Argument to proue that the Apostles might erre in matters which they delivered as Points of Faith and yet remaine parts of the Church as well as particular men might erre and remaine members of the Church if their errours were inculpable If you say the Apostles were to teach others and so could not erre even inculpably you know we say the same of the Church which is Judge of Controversyes and was before Scripture and from which we receyue true Tradition Scripture and the interpretation thereof But if we suppose that those superstitious persons chanced to erre in any Point against Faith and remained obstinate therein after sufficient Declaration of the Churches Doctrine to the contrary then they became formall Heretiques excluded from being members of the Church and so cannot be saied to be either the greater or lesser or any part thereof 60. In your N. 49. You say But now after all this adoe what if S. AustaneÌ„ sayes not this which is pretended of the Church viz that she neither approves nor dissembles nor practises any thing against Faith or good life but only of good men of the Church Certainly though some Copies read as you would haue it yet you should not haue dissembled that others read the place otherwise viz. Ecclesia multa tolerat tamen qÃ»ae sunâ— contra Fidem bonam vitam nec bonus approbat c The Church tolerater many things and yet what is against Faith or good life a good man will neither approue nor dissemble nor practise 61. Answer But who beside yourself hath made all this adoe Which certainly you would never haue made vnless you had believed that the Common Reading goes as Charity Maintayned cites it and for that cause you found it necessary to take so much paines spend so many words and make so much adoe to answer it If an English Protestant should cite the English Translation approved in England as the Text hath it were he obliged to take notice of every different Lection quoted in the Margin And were not such English Protestants obliged to answer according to the Reading which all things considered the Translators though fittest and securest to be placed in the Text itself If the Text condemne can the margent acquit him I haue procured to know what divers Editions haue and amongst the rest one of Basilea Anno 1556 and not one of them all hath in the Text nec bonus only the Edition of Lovaine hath it in the margin But you are much mistaken if you conceyue that our Argument looses its force though we should read nec bonus approbat For to omit your owne manner of arguing els where and even in this place that good men are part of the Church and therefore it is impossible that the whole Church can be saied to approue or dissemble or practise those things we ground our proofe on such considerations as I touched aboue that the Church is saied only to tolerate and is contradistinguished from those who approue or practise the saied abuses as also she is opposed to cockâ—e and chasse yea yourfelf confess that S. Austine affirmes that they were neither contained in Scripture deâ—reed by Councells nor corroborated by the Custome of the vniversall Church Which shewes how innocent she was from being obnoxious to that imputation of approving those presumptions Which also appeares by the whole drift of S. Austines discourse where still he makes a difference betwene the Church and those erring persons Besides when you would haue him say A good man will neither approue nor c by a good man you must not vnderstand every pious or devout or even holy person who may be subject to such abuses as S. Austine speaks of seing you cite him saying Multa hujusmodi propter nonnullarum vel sanctarum vel turbulentarum personarum scandala devitanda liberius improbare non audeo Many of these things for fear of scandalizing many holy persons or provoking those that are turbulent I dare not freely disollow But by good men you must of necessity vnderstand such as haue zeale with knowledg such as are of a right and settled true judgment in matters belonging to Faith and Religion and certainly such they cannot be in the opinyon of S. Augustine who could think that the Church can approue any errour or superstition seing we haue heard him say Ep 118. If the Church through the whole world practise any of these things to dispute whether that ought to be done is a most insolent madness Will you haue an vnderstanding good man to be guilty of most insolent madness If a good man cannot approue such things much less in truth and in the opinion of S. Austine the Church could doe it So that reade S. Austine as you please the sentence which Charity Maintayned alledged proves the infallibility of Gods Church neither can you finde any meanes to avoide this inference except by vnmasking yourself and saying as you doe here N. 44. To deal ingeniously with you and the world I am not such an idolater of S. Austine as to think a thing proved sufficiently because he saies it or that all his sentences ore oracles And so I may returne your owne words and say But now after all this adoe what if S. Austine saies what Charity Maintayned affirmes him to say seing you do not much regard what S. Austine saies 62. For answer to your N. 53. I say that Charity Maintayned had reason to affirme that seing no private persoÌ„s ought to presume that they are endued with greater infallibility than the Church which Protestants teach to be infallible only in Fundamentall Points they cannot

be sure that they attaine the true sense of Scripture vnless they first know what points in particular be Fundamentall because in other they may erte as they say the Church may Besides it hath bene shewed that in the Principles of Protestants it cannot be convinced that Scripture is infallible except only in fundamentall Points and so men cannot rely on Scripture vnless first they be sure what points be Fundamentall Neither is there the same reason for vnderstanding not the bare words but the sense of Scripture intended by the Holy Ghost as there is for vnderstanding som plain place in Aristotle or conceyving some evident naturall truths which are connaturall to humane reason and are not capable of different senses as the words of Scripture are Which may be proved even by the Examples which you bring as evident as I haue shewed hertofore that they are not so Neither can any Protestants learne them from Scripture alone with such certainty as is necessary to an Act of Faith which according to all good Christians must be infallible and therfore you say only Protestants may be certain enough of the Truth and certainty of one of the places which you alledg as evident but your enough is not enough for the absolute certainty of Divine Faith And therfore Charity Maintayned did you no wrong at all and much less a palpable injury as you speak in saying you cannot with certainty learne of Scripture fundamentall Points of Faith which is manifest by the examples which you say are Truths Fundamentall because they are necessary parts of the Gospell and yet it is evident that Protestents cannot agree about their meaning as I haue demonstrated about these sentences God is and is a rewarder of them that seek him that there is no salvation but by Faith in Christ That by Repentance and Faith in Christ Remission of sinnes may be obtained That there shall be a Resurrection of the Body Which are the Instances which here you giue as Truths both Fundamentall and evident 63. Your N. 51. hath bene answered in severall occasions And all that you say N. 52. is directly nothing to the purpose but passes from objects considered in themselves wherof Protestants confess some to be Fundamentall others not to accidentall circumstances as if Protestants did differ not in Fundamentall points or in assigning a particular Catalogue of them but only in accidentall circumstances of ignorance repentance and the like But of this I haue spoken hertofore as also I haue confuted your similitude about a medicine of twenty ingredients c which therfore I think needless to repeete 64. Your N. 53. I haue answered in diverse places Your N. 54. is nothing but a long digression to which the particular Answer would require a whole Booke or volume directly against the scope of this Work which is only to treate in generall of the Church and Scripture and you know very well that Catholik Writers haue fully answered all your Demands as also you know how many doubts might be proposed to Protestants abovt Scripture which to them is the only rule of Faith if I had a mynd to digrees Your N. 55.56.57.58.59.60.61.62.63.64.65 haue bene answered at large 95. I desire the Reader to peruse the N. 21. of Charity Maintayned and he will finde that you make an argument as his which is nothing like his discourse He saieth not as you N. 66. cited him in these words We may not depart from the Church absolutely and in all things Therfore we may not depart fram it in any thing which you call an Argument Ã dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid The Argument of Ch. Ma. is Dr. Potter teacheth Pag 75. That there neither was nor can be any just cause to depart from the Church of Christ no more than from Christ himself But if the Church could erre in any points of Faith they may and must forsake her in those and if such errours should fall out to be concerning the Churches Lyturgie Sacraments c. they must leaue her externall Communion which being essentiall to the Church they must divide themselves from her in that which isessentiall to make one a member of the same Church which I hope is more than to argue ad dictum secundum quid For what greater separation can there be from the Church than in that which is essentiall to make one be vnited to her Your saying that a man may leaue the vice of his friend or brother and yet not leaue his friend or brother is impertinent seing vices are not essentiall to men as externall Communion is to make one a member of the Church 66. You object what Dr. Potter saieth of the Catholique Church P. 75. he extends presently after to euery true though never so corrupted part of it And why do you not conclude from hence that no particular Church according to his judgement can fall into any ertour and call this a demonstration too 67. Answer If the Doctour will not contradict himself according to his judgment the Catholique Church cannot fall into errour against any Truth necessary to salvation as a particular Church may and therefore this may but that can never be forsaken or if he will affirme that no particular Church can be forsaken he must say that no such Church can erre in any point necessary to salvation For if she did so erre her Communion must be forsaken and I haue shewed externall Communion to be essentiall to the members of the Church Whereby is answered your N. 67. where you grant that we may not cease to be of the Church nor forsake it absolutely and totally no more than Christ himselfe Since therefore they absolutely forsake the Church who disagree from Her in profession of Faith and divide themselves from her externall Communion you must grant that they can no more doe so than they can divide themselves from Christ I know not to what purpose or vpon what occasion you say to Ch Ma In other places you confes his doctrine to be that even the Catholique Church may erre in Points not fundamentall which you do not pretend that he ever imputed to Christ himself 68. Your manner of alledging the words of Charity Maintayned in your N. 68. gives me still occasion to wish you had alledged them as you found them You make Charity Maintayned speak thus Dr. Potter either contradicts himself or els must grant the Church infallible because he saies if we did not differ from the Roman we could not agree with the Catholique which saying supposes the Catholique Church cannot erre And then you say with your vsuall modesty This Argument to giue it the right name is an obscure and intriate nothing I confess that reading the words which you impute to Charity Maintayned I found difficulty to penetrate the force of his Argument But the words of Charity Main are these If saith Dr. Potter we did not dissent in some opinions from the present Roman Church we could

not agree with the Church truly Catholique These words cannot be true vnless he presupposes that the Church truly Catholique caÌ„not erre in Points not fundameÌ„tall For if she may erre in such points the Roman Church which he affirmes to erre only in points not fundameÌ„tall may agree with the Church truly Catholique if she likewise may erre in points not fundameÌ„tall This is the ArgumeÌ„t of Ch Ma and is it not cleare that if the Church Catholique can erre for example in the Doctrines of Purgatory Invocations of Saynts reall presence and the like as de facto Luther and his followers pretend she did erre and that they were reformers of such errours seing the Roman Church may and doth hold the same Doctrines the Church vniversall and the Roman Church shall agree in the same pretended errours and so Potter saied not truly that if we agree with the Roman Church for example about Purgatory Praiers to saynts c we cannot agree with the Church Catholique Will you deny the Axiom Quae sunt eadem vni tertio sunt eadem inter se If then the vniversall and the Roman Church agree in the belief of errours as you falsly terme them do they not agree one with an other And so contrary to Potters affirmation it must be saied If we did dissent from these opinions of the present Roman Church we could not agree with the Church Catholique if once it be supposed that the Church holds those or the like vnfundamentall errours as you grant she may And further it would follow that seing Protestants dissent from the Roman Church they cannot agree with the Catholique Church But let vs heare how you make good your censure 69. You say let vs suppose either that the Catholique Church may erre but doth not but that the Roman actually doth or that the Catholique Church may erre in some few things but that the Roman errs in many more And is it not apparent in both these cases which yet both suppose the Churches infallibility a man may truly saie vnless I dissent in some opinions from the Roman Church I cannot agree with the Catholique Either therfore you must retract your imputation laied vpon Dr. Potter or doe that which you condemne in him and be driven to say that the same man may held some errours with the Church of Rome and at the same tyme with the Catholique Church not hold but condemne them For otherwise in neither of these cases it is possible for the same man at the same tyme to agree with the Roman and the Catholique 70. Answer Your conscience cannot but witness that the Doctor when he saied If we did not dissent in some opinions from the present Roman Church we could not agree with the Church truly Cathelique did not speak of accidentall cases or voluntary suppositions such as you put but meant and spoke absolutely that if we did not dissent from the Present Roman Church we could not agree with the Church truly Catholique For if he meant only of contingent cases without regard to any particular advantage or prerogatiue of the Church vniversall he might haue made suppositions directly contrary to yours that the Roman Church may erre but doth not but the vniversall actually doth or that the Roman Church doth erre in some few things but the Catholique errs in many more For if once it be granted the Catholique Church to erre to say she may erre in many or few is a voluntary vngrounded conjecture or divination and nothing to any purpose Nay seing if once the Catholik Church be supposed to erre she may multiply errours without end and so to day agree with to morrow disagree from the Roman Church and it must follow that according to your explication the Doctours words may be in a perpetuall alteration to day fals to morrow true which either was farre from his meaning or his meaning was not only impertinent but against his owne scope and Intention which was to make the vniversall Church as it were the Modell or Rule to judge of the necessity which Protestants had to forsake the Roman Church by reason of her dissenting from the Church Catholiques which had bene no good reason if the vniversall Church may erre and erre as much and more than the Roman or any other partioular Church Which appeares also by these words of the Doctor in the same Pag 97. The Catholique Church is carefull to ground all her declarations vpon the divine Authority of Gods written word And therfore whosoever wilfully opposed a judgement so well grounded is justly esteemed an Heretique And P 132. he saieth For vs the mistaker nor his he Masters will never prove that we oppose either any declaration of the Catholique Church or any Fundamentall or other truth of Scripture and therefore he doth vnjustly charge vs with Schisme or Herisie Do not these sayings attribute more to the vniversall than to particular Churches and more than a meerely casualty that either she doth not actually erre or els erres in fewer things than the present Roman Church And vpon the whole matter is not that true which Charity Maintayned N. 22. saied That D. Potter must either grant that the Catholique Church cannot erre in Points not Fundamentall or confess a plain contradiction to himself in the saied words If we did not dissent in some opinions from the present Roman Church we could not agree with the Church truly Catholique Would not Protestants take it in ill parte if one should say If we did not dissent in some opinions from Protestants we could not agree with the Church truly Catholique And yet according to your explication and suppositions it could not be ill taken because either the Church might be supposed not to erre actually or in some few things but that the Protestants erre in many more it being manifest that some of them erre By the way when Potter saieth For vs the Mistaker will never proue that we oppose any Declaration of the Catholique Church or any truth of Scripture I would know whom he vnderstand by vs Seing it is evident that of Protestants holding so many contrary Doctrines some must of necessity oppose some Declaration of the Church or truth of Scripture and since they haue no certaine Rule to know which of them be in the wrong and oppose some Declaration of the Church or Scripture we must conclude that no man desirous of his salvation can commit his soule to any of them all Your Conclusion Either therefore you must retract your imputation laid vpon Dr Potter or doe that c. is obscure but I am sure it is answered seing it goes vpon your fals explication of the Doctors words 71. Your proceding N. 69. puts me vpon a necessity of intreating the Reader to peruse the N. 23. of Charity Maintayned which evidently demonstrates that it was wholy impertinent for you to answer the places which He saieth are wont to be all edged out of Scripture for the infallibility of Gods

which is not vniversally or necessarily true it being in rigor sufficient that they be not disbelieved This was the scope of Charity Maintayned to shew that to alledg the Creed as containing all Fundamentall Points was nothing to the purPose for relief of Protestants who differ in such manner as what one believes to be revealed by God an other rejects and disbelieves and therfore though it were granted that Protestants did agree in all the articles of the Creed which thing I haue demonstrated not to be true nevertheless they could not all preteÌ„d to be saved because some of them must be convinced to reject Divine Revelations But now for the Point in hand you know all Christians belieue Every Text of Scripture to be revealed by God are they therfore obliged to be still exercising an explicite act of Faith concerning them Rather of the two and speaking in generall and perse loquendo or ex natura rei if they be not Fundamentall articles it may so fall out that you are never obliged to affoard them any such positiue Assent and so you remaine obliged never to dis belieue them and yet never obliged explicitely to belieue them which is a true proposition against your vniversall contradictory Doctrine that No point to any man at any time can be necessary not to be disbelieved but it is to the same man at the same tyme necessary to be believed 5. The rest of this Number as also your N. 12.13.13 for this Number is put twice 14.15.16 there is no N. 17. haue bene answered already C. Mist with all Divines supposes that no man can be obliged to belieue any point not sufficiently propounded as Dr. Potter also teaches and is evident to the very light of naturall Reason I beseech the Reader for confuting your N. 15. to peruse Ch. Ma. N. 3. And how do you tell vs in this N. 15. that the certainty you haue of the Cteed is from constant Tradition seing you profess that we haue no vniversall Tradition except that which delivers to vs the Scripture If you belief the Creed that it was from the Apostles and containes the principles of Faith as you say for vniversall Tradition and not for Scripture as you expresly confess you free men from obligation of reading or knowing the Scripture for all necessary points of belief which by this meanes they may find independently of Scripture and with as much certainty as you belieue Scripture which you profess to receiue from vniversall Tradition for which you also belieue the Creed And so you overthrow the most vniversall Doctrine of Protestants that Scripture is necessary and that not from Tradition but from it alone we must learne all things belonging to salvation And how did we heare you say Pag. 178. N. 80. that the Apostles did by their preaching while they lived and by their writings or Scripture after their death doe keepe men in vnity seing now you acknowledg a Tradition distinct from and independent of Scripture whereby we may be kept in vnity Now if we receiue the Creed from the Church we must belieue her to be infallible and that to oppose any proposall of hers is damnable though one belieue the whole Creed and therfore it is impertinent to alledg the Creed to assert vnity of Faith among Protestants while they differ in other points of Faith not contayned in the Creed and so Ch. Ma. saied truly that it was both fals and impertinent to say The Creed containes all necessary points of Faith But heere I must intreate you to consider how you can say as you doe in this place The certainty I haue of the Creed That it was from the Apostles and containes the principles of Faith I ground it not vpon Scripture Seing Pag. 149. N. 37. you say expresly Protestants ground their beliefe that such and such things only are fundamentalls only vpon Scripture and goe about to proue their assertion true only by Scripture Can Protestants ground their belief that such and such things only are fundamentalls only vpon Scripture and yet not ground vpon Scripture the certainty which they haue that the Creed containes all fundamentalls and so know all fundamentalls independently of Scripture 6. You say N. 18. That the last objection of Ch. Ma. stands vpon a false and dangerous supposition That new heresies may arise But with what conscience do you object this to Ch. Ma. who only repeats what Dr. Porter affirmed Pag. 126. about the arising of new Heresies which is so manifest that you expresly take notice of it and reject the Doctrine of the Doctor in that behalf I beseech the Reader to see Ch. Ma. where he demonstrates that seing the Doctor confesses that new Heresies may arise and that therefore the Creed was necessarily explained by other Creeds of Nyce c. so it will need particular explanation against other emergent Heresies and so is not nor ever will be of itself alone a sufficient Catalogue of all Points of Faith which deduction of Ch. Ma. is so cleare that you giue only this answer This explication of Dr. Potter and restriction of this doctrine that the Creed containes a Catalogue of all necessary Points of Faith whereof you make your advantage was to my vnderstanding vnnecessary And so you leaue your client and acknowledg the Argument of Ch. Ma. to be convincing As for the thing itself All that you object against D. Potter whom I now defend against you can receiue strength only from equivocation the thing itself being cleare That we admit no new Revelation but only new application or declaration of that which was revealed which application is certainly necessary before one can be obliged to belieue vnless you will haue men belieue they know not what Now whether you will call this application or declaration only a necessary condition sine qua not or parte of the formall object of Faith makes nothing to our present purpose but is learnedly handled by Catholique Divines Certaine we are that it is not the totall or principall but only a partiall and secondary object if it belong at all to the formall object of our Belief neither can any man imagine that the application to vs of Divine Revelations is the essentiall forme and last complement of an Article of Faith if by last complement and essentiall forme you meane that which is the chiefest and most principall which is only the Divine Testimony or Revelation and therefore you shew either ignorance or some worse thing in supposing that we make Divine Revelation to be the matter and sufficient declaration to be the forme of an Article of Faith No doubt but the Apostles declared what our Saviour had revealed to them but when inimicus homo superseminavit zizania and some began to doubt or broach errours against those revealed Truths a declaration was necessary to be made by that Meanes which God hath left to decide Controversyes in Religion as we saied hertofore about Canonicall Books of

that men may be of the same Church and hope for salvation for the only belief of fundamentall points though they differ in non-fundamentalls you contradict yourself and Dr. Potter who saieth it is infidelity and damnable and a Fundamentall error to disbelieve any point sufficiently propounded as revealed by God So that vpon the whole matter you perforce stand for Charity Maintayned whom you impugne and overthrow Potter Yourself and Protestants whom you vndertake to defend To all this I add that Charity Maintayned might haue saied not only that as the foundation of a House is not a House so the belief of only fundamentall points cannot make a Church but also that seing it is fundamentall to a Christians Faith not to deny any point revealed by God as we haue seene in Potters assertion it followes that they who disagree in such points want the foundation of Faith and of a Church and so cannot pretend to so much in order to a Church as a foundation is in respect of a House You say that Ch. Ma. Pag 131. takes notice that Dr. Potter by Fundamentall Articles meanes all those which are necessary But by your leaue in this you falsify both the Doctor and Ch. Ma. who cited the words of Potter as you acknowledg he doth that by fundamentall doctrines we vnderstand such as are necessary in ordinary course to be distinctly believed by every Christian that will be saved In which words you see the Doctor saieth not that all necessary Articles are fundamentall but only that all fundamentall Articles are necessary to be believed distinctly and explicitely and so he speaks Pag 213. Fundamentall properly is that which Christians are obliged to belieue by an express and actuall Faith Now I hope Protestants will not deny that it is necessary to belieue every Text of Scripture and yet will not affirme that every Text of Scripture is a Fundamentall point to be believed by an express and actuall Faith Therefore necessary and Fundamentall according to the explication of the Doctor doe not signify the same thing nor are of the same extent 44. In your N. 53.54.55.56.57.58.59.60.61.62.63 you shew so much choler bitterness and ill language that the best answer will be to apply my selfe only to the matter desiring the Reader to consider the points which I shall set downe and he will finde your objections answered by only applying my considerations to them as they come in order 45. First Before you can refer any considering man as you speake to the Scripture for his satisfaction you must assure him that it is the word of God which you confesse we can only learne from the Church and then if he be indeed a considering man it will instantly inferr that the Church must be infallible or else that he cannot be infallibly true that Scripture is the word of God nor of any one truth contained therin and as you say he may know that the Church holds such bookes to be canonicall so by the like Tradition he may know what she holds in points of Doctrine and either belieue her in them or not belieue her in delivering the canon of Scripture Besides of whom shall he learne the sense of Scripture or who will oblige him even to reade Scripture Seing in the principles of Protestants he cannot learne any such precept except from Scripture itselfe and he cannot be obliged to finde that precept in Scripture vnless aforehand he knowes independently of Scripture that there is such a precept which as I sayd is against the principles of Protestants Moreover yourself teach that the Scripture is a necessary introduction to Faith and therfor a man must first learne the Church and of the Church before you can in wisdome refer him to the Scripture Which is also conforme to Dr. Potters assertions if he will not contradict himselfe For Pag 139. he teaches that the Church works powerfully and probably as the highest humane Testimony and you say Faith is but probable in the highest degree and consequently the Church Works powerfully enough to settle an Act of your kinde of Faith vpon Nouices and we speake of such weakelings and doubters in the Faith to instruct and confirme them till they may acquaint themselves with and vnderstand the Scripture Therfore men must first be referred to the Church and not to the Scripture as Potter in the same place saieth expressly The Testimony of the present Church though it be not the last resolution of our Faith yet it is the first externall motiue to it 46. Secondly you say to Charity Maintayned To the next question cannot Generall Councells erre You pretend he answers Â§ 19. they may erre damnably Let the Reader see the place and he shall find damnably is your addition 47. Answer Amongst the Errata or faults of the Print Charity Maintayned notes this in the Pag 136. Lin. 22. Damnably Corrige damnably I meane it ought not to be in a different or Curciffe letter because it is not Dr. Potters word though it follow out of his doctrine All this saieth Charity Maintayned in the correction of the Errata where you see he was scrupulous not to adde one word which was not expressly the Doctors though it be most true that it doth not only follow out of his doctrine as Ch Ma saieth but his words in this very place at which you carp signify no lesse yea more For Ch Ma cites these words out of Potter Pag 167. Generall Councells may weakely or wilfully misapply or misvnderstand or neglect Scripture and so erre Now what difference is there to say a generall Councell may erre by wilfully misapplying or misvnderstanding or neglecting Scripture and a Councell may erre damnably Is it not damnable wilfully to misapply or misvnderstand or neglect Scripture Nay wilfully expresses more then damnably because one may erre damnably if his errour be culpable by reason of some weakeness which D. Potter distinguisheth from wilfullnes or for sloath humane respects of hope feare c. and yet not be so culpable as when it proceeds from wilfulness and therfor Charity Maintayned might haue sayd that in the doctrine of Potter Generall Councells may erre more than damnably Haue we not heard the Doctours words Pag. 212. whatsoever is Revealed in Scripture is such as can not be denied or Contradicted without infidelity And shall not a wilfull misapplying or neglect of Gods Word be damnable and more then simply damnable even infidelity The Doctour teaches that the vniversall Church cannot erre fundamentally but he neither doth nor can say according to the doctrine of Protestants that Councells cannot erre fundamentally and if Fundamentally surely damnably But why doe I spend tyme in this Yourselfe here N. 53. confesse that to say Prelats of Gods Church meeting in a Lawfull Councell may erre damnably is not false for the matter but only it is false that Dr. Potters sayes it A great wrong to say the Doctour speakes a truth which he himselfe teaches and so finally Charity

divided in externall communion one of the which true Churches did triumph over all errour and corruption in doctrine and practice but the other was stained with both For to finde this diversity of churches caÌ„not stand with reds of Histories which are silent of any such matter It is against Dr. Potters owne grounds that the Church may erre in points not fundamentall It contradicts the words in which he sayd Pag 155. The Church may not hope to triumph over all sinne and errour till she be in Heaven It evacuateth the brag of Protestants that Luther reformed the whole Church Of these last words you say Let it be so I see no harme will come of it What indeed Is it no harme that it may be sayd with truth that your Protestants are proved bragging false Lyars in saying Luther reformed the whole Church But to omit this these words declare that Ch. Ma. speakes of two Churches wherof one did triumph over all errour and then adds to find this diversity of two Churches cannot stand with records of Histories c where the particles this diversity are referred to two kinds of Churches wherof one did triumph over all sinne and errour and yourselfe explicating the Doctors words say To triumph over errour is to be secure from it to be out of danger of it not to be obnoxious to it This supposed the objection is clearly of no force wherin you say To suppose a visible Church before Luther which did not erre is not to contradict this ground of D. Potters that the Church may erre Vnless you will haue vs belieue that May be and Must be is all one which rule if it were true then sure all men would be honest because all men may be so And you would not make so bad Arguments vnless you will pretend you cannot make better But this whole objection is grounded vpon concealing the words of Ch. Ma. who spoke of a Church triumphing over all errour as we haue seene by his express words and therfor when in the very next consequent period he mentions a Church free from errour it cannot be otherwise vnderstood then of such a freedome as he spoke of immediatly before that is of a Church as indeed the true Church ought to be free from all danger of falling into any least errour against Faith Besides suppose he had spoken of a Church which defacto did not erre in any point fundamentall or not fundamentall from the Apostles time to Luther it had been no ill argument to inferr that she could not erre because morally speaking and without a miracle or particular assistance or infallible direction of the Holy Ghost it had been impossible for so many men in so many Ages of so different dispositions through the whole world to haue agreed in the same beliefe concerning matters not evident of themselves but farr exceeding the light of naturall reason and seeming contrarie to it and therfor if they had not been effectually preserved from errour no doubt but some would haue fallen into it which is so true that Dr. Potter sayth Pag 39. it is a great vanity to hope or expect that all learned men in this life should absolutely consent in all the pieces and partiticles of divine truth The rest of this Number hath been particularly answered heretofore and your weakning the strength of Historie and tradition serves only to call in question all Religion in your ground who belieue Scripture for tradition 17. In your N. 57. you say to those words of Ch. Ma. N. 18. Our Saviour foretold that there would be in the Church tares with choice ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ Looke again I pray and you shall see that the field he speaks of is not the Church but the world Answer Ch. Ma. doth not as interpreting our Saviours Parable Matth 31. saie that the field he speaks of is the Church but that he foretold that there would be in the Church tares with choise corne which is very true seing he expresly makes the parable of the kingdom of Heaven which is the Church saying The Kingdom of Heaven is resembled to a man c. and the amplitude of the word world doth not exclude the Church for which and her Pastours he gaue that wholesome Document Sinite vtraque crescere Let both grow vp and I pray where but in the Church can there be the wheat which our Saviour would not haue rooted out And because your owne guiltiness moves you in this occasion to tax Catholiques because they punish obstinate Heretiques you should reflect that the tares are not to be gathered when there is danger least by so doing the wheat may be rooted out and therfore a contrario sensu if there be no such danger yea that by sparing the cockle the good corne will suffer the cockle is rather to be taken away than the corne destroied In your N. 58. may be observed a strange kinde of saying that God is infinitly mercifull and therfor will not damne men for meer errours who desire to finde the truth and cannot Is it mercy not to damne men for that which is no fault And for which to damne one were injustice and therfor not to doe it is not mercy but justice 18. Your N. 59.60 haue bene answered at large in the Chap 7. about Schisme Neither can these propositions be defended from a contradiction The Church of Rome wants nothing necessary to salvation and yet it is necessary to salvation to forsake her For as I haue proved even he who believes she erred yet is supposed to belieue that notwithstanding that error still she wants nothing necessary to salvation and therefore the distinction of persons whereof one believes she errs and the other believes she does not erre cannot saue this contradiction 19. That which you say N. 61. is answered by these few lines Almighty God hath promised to giue his sufficient grace to avoyd all deadly sinne and consequently all damnable errour as you confesse every errour against any revealed Truth to be vnles ignoraÌ„ce excuse it which cannot happen if as you affirme such an assistance is promised to vs as shall lead vs if we be not wanting to it and ourselves into all not only necessary but very proficable truth and guard vs from all not only destructiue but also hurtfull errours because this assistance supposed the Church if she fall into errour must be wanting to herselfe and her ignorance can not be invincible but culpable and damnable both in it selfe and to her and if her errours be damnable she wants some thing necessary to salvation that is the true assent of Faith contrary to that damnable errour and she hath something incompatible with salvation namely that damnable errour and so indeed that truth which you call only profitable becomes necessary and that errour which you suppose to be only hurtfull is destructiue if your Doctrine be ttue that God gives sufficient Grace to avoyd all sortes of errour and to lead to all very profitable truths

schisme is a division fro that church with which one agrees in matters of faith they doe not distinguish betweene points fundameÌ„tall aÌ„d not fuÌ„dameÌ„ntall in order to the negatiue precept of not disbelieving any point sufficieÌ„tly proposed as revealed by God aÌ„d so in fact all points being fuÌ„dameÌ„tall in this sense as both you and Potter are forced to confesse more then once though in other occasions you contradict it as even in this place you make such a distinction and vpon it ground your objection whosoever agree truly in all Fundamentall points in this sense agree in all points of truths revealed by God and sufficiently proposed for such If Protestants will faine to themselves another kinde of points not fundamentall in order to the Negatiue precept of Faith Charity Maintayned is not obliged to side with them but may and ought to say that if Protestants pretend to agree with vs in fundamentall Points they must a parte rei agree with vs in all Points sufficiently proposed as divine Truths and that agreement supposed while they depart from our Communion they becocome most formall Schismatiks as Schisme is distinguished from heresy Thus your Sillogisme which you pretend to resemble the argument of Ch Ma is answered For when you say He that obeyes God in all things is innocent Titus obeys God in somethings Therefore he is innocent Your Minor should be Titus obeys God in all things as they who agree in fundamentall points of Faith must agree in all things that is they must not disagree in any revealed truth for to agree in that sense is fundamentall to the Faith of a Christian as Potter confesses By this also your N. 79. is answered Neither doe your N. 80. and 81. containe any difficulty which is not answered by a meere denyall I wish the Reader for his owne good to reade what you omitt in the N. 29. of C Ma where he shewes that Luther was farr enough from intending any reformation with some other points which you omitt or involue in darkness and which being read in him answer all your Objections 23. Your N. 82. gives as great a deadly blow to Protestant Religion as no adversary could haue giveÌ„ a greater C Ma sayd that Luther aÌ„d his Associates did wholy disagree in the particulars of their reformatioÌ„ which was a signe that the thing vpon which theyr thoughts first pitched was not any particular Modell or Idea of Relig oÌ„ but a settled resolution to forsake the Church of Rome This you not only grant but proue that it could not be otherwise saying to Ch Ma. Certainly it is no great marveile that ther was as you say disagreement between them in the particulars of their Reformation Nay morally speaking it was impossible it should be otherwise And why You giue the reason in these remarkable words the Declination from which originall purity of religioÌ„ some conceaving to haue begunne though secretly in the Apostles times the mystery of iniquity being then in worke and after their departure to haue shewed itselfe more openly others againe believing that the Church continued pure for some ages after the Apostles and then declined And consequently some ayming at an exact conformity with the Apostolique times others thinking they should doe God and men good service could they reduce the Church to the condition of the fourth and fift ages some taking their direction in this worke of Reformation only from Scripture others from the writings of Fathers and the decrees of Councells of the first fiue Ages certainly it is no great mervaile that ther was as you say disagreement between them in the particulars of their Reformation nay morally speaking it was impossible it should be otherwise Yet let me tell you the difference between them especially in comparison of your Church and Religion is not the difference between good and bad but between good and better And they did best that followed Scripture interpreted by Catholick written Tradition which Rule the reformers of the Church of England proposed to themselves to follow I know not whether the vncertainty or misery of Protestant religion could haue been described in more lively colours then you haue set it out For if they be vncertaine from whence to beginne their Reformation and for that cause you confesse it was impossible for them not to disagree in the particulars therof it followes that now they haue no certainty what Reformation is true or whether a Reformation aÌ„d not rather a Deformation or falshood And indeed the different heades even as you propose them are so confused that it is not easy to vnderstand what they meane and then how hard must it be to take them for a distinct rule how to proceed in the Reformation of the whole world If the principles be doubtfull the conclusion can not be certain You make your Progenitours to resemble perfectly the Genethliaci and judicarij Astrologers who not agreeing in their Principles proue vaine and ridiculous in their predictions You are like to a certaine man who not long a goe in a citty which I could name apprehending himselfe in his climactericall yeare could not be induced to eate as despayring to passe that Criticall time till he was told by a witty Physition that he must count his age from the time of his conception not of his nativity as he had done according to which rate finding as he thought his fatall yeare to be past was presently cured Truly whosoever advisedly and seriously considers this Number of yours can not but forsake Protestantisme if he meane not to forsake his owne soule You endeavoured to perswademen that by the ordinary meanes which are left vs a Church collapsed may be restored to purity which certainly you make impossible to be done by the Doctrine you deliver here Seing confessedly ther is no certainty vpon what Grounds or by what settled directions such a Reformation should proceed nor from whence it should beginne It is also strange to heare you say They did best that followed Scripture interpreted by Catholick written Tradition Which Rule the Reformers of the Church of England proposed to themselves to follow What doe you now tell vs that there be traditiue interpretations of Scripture A thing disclaymed by you through your whole booke denying all other Traditions except that wherby we accept Scripture as the word of God but not the interpretation of it it being as you saie evident of itselfe and ther being no infallible Judge to declare it or any points of Faith which are not contained in it Moreover by what commission or coherence to yourself say you Pag 375. N. 56. That the Bible I say the Bible only is the Religion of Protestants Seing you tell vs here that some of them tooke their direction in this work of Reformation only from Scripture others from the Writings of the Fathers and the Decrees of the Councells for the first fiue Ages and that they did best that followed Scripture interpreted by Catholick written

with Pelagius and free-will with Calvin c. 1 n. 65 p. 82 seq Many hideous Tenets of his concerninge Faith discovered in all the first Chap He holds that Charity may stand with deadly sinne I. n. â—1 p. 35 c 15 n. 45 p. 925 That the contents of Scripture are not more certaine then humane Histories I. n. 18 p. 13 14 That we are not bound to belieue Scripture to be of Divine authority c. 2 n. 58 p. 159 alibi And it is evident in his grounds that God is no more to be believed then man if God give no better reason for what he sayes then man doth c. 1 n. 101 p. 108 That it is no matter if controversies concerning truths only profitable be continued and increased c. 2 n. 78 p. 182 That Scripture is no materiall object of Taith and that there is no obligation to beleeue it c. 3 n. 4 p. 281 and in other numb before and after Also c. 13 n. 39 p 818 That the Apostles after the cominge of the Holy Ghost erred in a point clearly revealed c. 7 n. 24 p. 472. 473 c. 3 n. 28 p. 298 He brings all Christian Faith to a humane invention c. 3 n. 83 p. 344 seq He puts such a contrition for salvation which a sinner cannot possbly haue at the hower of death c. 4 n. 50 p. 384 That all Scripture is not divinely inspired c. 12 n. 38 p. 735 That our Saviours promise that the Holy Ghost should remaine with the Apostles was not for their successoâ—s but only for the terme of their lives nor that but conditionally c. 12 n. 83 p. 771 He revives VViclifs Heresie n. 85 p. 774. That contradictoryes may both be true with many horrid impietyes which strike at the roote of Christian Religion c. 13 n. 20 p. 802 seq His insolent treatie of S. Tho of Aqui c. 15 n. 45 46 47 p. 925 926 His little considence in his owne Religion c. 16 n. 11 p. 939 His absurdity in contending that it is all one to say Though such a thing be so and though it were so n. 21 p. 945 946 His impudent callinge God to witnesse of his sincerity in writing his Booke to confirme the infallible Religion of our Saviour which he strives in his whole Booke to prooue fallible c. 16 n. 23 p. 948 Many other of his pernitious Tenets appeare in this whole Booke and his errours against Scripture toto c. 3. His contradictions are so frequently shewed that no particular place needs be cited The like is of his continuall begging the question or asking impertinently in place of proofe why may not such athing be with out any proofe Church To follow the Church is to follow Scripture which recommends the Church vnto vs c. 2 n. 201 p. 270 To her recourse must be had not to be deceaved in interpreting Scripture Ibid Her vniversall practice is to be held an Apostolicall Tradition Ibid Many things are to be done for her authority without expresse Scripture n. 209 p. 274 She ceases not to be a Church for sinnes of Manners but of Faith c. 7 n. 85 p. 517 seq Vnity necessary to be members of one Church must be in all points sufficieÌ„tly proposed sundamentall or not fundamentall n. 74 p. 505 seq And in externall Communion Ibid which in divine service is vnlawfull with those of a different Faith n. 82 p. 511 It is all one to leaue the Church and to Ieaue her externall Communion nor can any separate from her and remaine a part of her n. 73 p. 503 sequen He not only separates from the Church who separates from her externall Communion but alsomorally from himselfe n. 110 p. 532 seq No Church no Schisme n. 93.94 p. 523 If the Church be infallible in fundamentalls she must also be so in vnfundamentalls n. 126 p. 547 548 He can be no member of the Church who disbeleeves any poynt sufficiently proposed as revealed by God c. 10 n. 5 p. 635 Nor can the Church remaine a Church with any such errour n. 6 p. 635 seq She beinge infallible it is damnable to oppose her n. 9 p. 637 638 She determines controversies as emergent occasions require and is for them eudued with infallibility n. 11 p. 639 640 Her fallibility for one age discredits her for all c. 11 n. 26 p. 667 The true Church easy to be found by her notes in every age n. 31 p. 670 seq Many disparityes between the Church and the Synagogue n. 38 p. 674 The Church having approved Scripture for Canonicall proves out of it particular truths concerning her selfe n. 67 p. 697 In what sense she is an infallible keeper of Scripture c. 3 n. 52 p. 320 seq She never questioned or rejected any thing of Scripture which the had once defined for Canonicall n. 54 p. 322 The true Church wanted not evident notes and proofes before Scripture was c. 4 n. 24 p. 365 toto c. 5 She is viÃ¢ ordinariÃ¢ the meanes for matter of Religion c. 4 n. 67 p. 396 seq The Church was before Scripture Ibid passim alibi She was never devested of infallibility c. 4 n. 72 p. 399 sequen She cannot perish nor be invisible nor deceaved in points belonging to Salvation She is the ordinary meanes to teach and therefore to be sought n. 79. p. 403 sequen Infallibility granted her for all points belonging to Religion but nor for curiosityes n. 95 p. 418 sequen She vsed disputations and discourse for her definitions n. 99 p. 424 42â— She essentially requires vnity in Faith and in in the externall worship of God Divivision from her in Faith is heresie in externall communion is Schisme c. 7 n. 2. 3 p. 458 459 460 If she be not infallible but falls into errour all must shun her communion n. 22 p. 471 472 She is indued by Christ with all requisits for the whole mysticall body for every degree for every particular person c. 2 n. 2 p. 122 seq She is recommended by him for the interpretation of Scripture and who refuses it resists him n. 28 p. 124 She must haue infallible meanes to declare with certainty things though only profitable n. 73 p. 176 seq It would be damnable in her to neglect truths only profitable n. 77 p. 181 If she should out of negligence mistake or be ignorant her errour would be damnable c. 14 n. 17 p. 724 seq She is extensiuÃ¨ of equall infallibility with the Apostles but not intensiuÃ¨ i.e. in the manner num 35 p. 731 seq If her authority be câ—â—taine for Scripture it must be the like for whatsoevet she proposes n. 52 p. 746 She being once prooved to be infallible may giue irrefragable testimony of her owne infallibility n. 107 p. 787 How the Church is alwayes visible c. 14 n. 4 p. 848. 849 VVhat right and power she had and for many ages had bene peaceable possessed of at Luthers cominge n.

n. 7 p. 462 seq Schisme vnlawfully begunn cannot be lawfully continued by others n. 96 p. 524. 525. Schisme may accidentally be more preiudiciall then Heresy n. 134 p. 555. It is ill defined by I hil n. 19 p. 470 and n. 23 p. 472. He falsly calls it a separation of some part of the Church n. 173 p. 589 seq Of Chill errours against Scripture toto c. 3. In his grounds it is of lesse assurance then prophane authours n. 44 p. 313. It is a materiall object of our Faith n. 2. p. 279 se even independently of its contents n. 20 p. 292. 293 seq with his contradictions Prorestants must beleeue it before they can beleeue the contents n. 21 p. 293. If they were not obliged to beleeue it they should not be obliged to beleeue the contents n. 4 p. 281. 282. Scripture affirmed by some Protestants to to be knowne by it selfe to be the word of God denyed by others c. 2. n. 88. p. 190. 191. It is hard to be vnderstood n. 27 p. 135 and n. 71 p. 174. where it is shewed by 2. Pet. 3.15.16 The reason why it is so touched n 71 p. 174. and declared in sequentibus Protestants would make men beleeue that it is cleare yet doe they assigne many rules necessary for the vnderstanding of it which few can possibly obserue n. 43 p 151. Nor are they sufficient as is demonstrated by the vnanswerable arguments of Dr. Hierome Taylour n 44 p. 152 seq and appeares by the irreconciliable disagreements amongst themselves n 91 P. 193 seq By their thinking that the ancient Fathers erred in holding Doctrine contrary to theirs by the agreeing of many chief Protestants with vs against their Brethren n 90. 91. p 192. 193. According to Chill every man though vnlearned must know every Text of Scripture yet he supposes that even the learned are not obliged to it n 26 p. 134. Out of his Tenets Scripture proved insufficient to be any Rule of Faith n 94 p 198 199 and c. 3 per totum In what sense it may be affirmed by Catholiques that Scripture containes evidently all things necessary c. 2 n 7. 8. 9. p. 124. 125. Scripture needs not be plaine to every privates mans capacity the Church being alwayes extant to interpret and direct c. 4 n. 9 p. 355. 356. The necessity of this Interpreter proved in the chief misteryes of Christianity c. 2. n. 30. 31 p. 136 seq The difference betwixt Scripture and the definitions of the Church c. 4 n. 99 P. 424. Scripture cannot be compared for matter of Faith to the corporall eye but the vnderstanding together with some supernaturall comprincipium of the act may c 11 n. 10 11 p 654 seq Sinne and indeliberation are inconsistent c 1 n 71 p 85. 86. It can neither be committed without knowledge nor repented whilst it is actually committing c 8 n 20 p 617 seq One sinne not repeÌ„ted drawes on others 1. n 35. 36 p 24. 25. God gives fewer helps to people in mortall sinne then in the stare of grace n 38 p 25. 26. A mortall sinne is worse then the torments of hell n 47 p 34 Sinne in a thing not necessary necessitate medij is avoyded by following a probable opinion c. 16 n 16 p 941 About the edition of Sixtus 5. his Bible c. 3 n 56 p 325 The Socinianisme of Chill the way to Atheisme c 1 n 100 p 107 D. Stapleron vindicated from Potters falsification c 4 n 95 p 418 seq His Doctrine about the Churches infallibility Jb and n 99 p 424 T Temptations may be overcome by the grace of God but not without it I. n. 26 p. 20. 21. Texts of Scripture answeared Many concerning the chief points of Christianity alleaged by Chill to proue the evideÌ„ce of Scripture in things necessary shewed even by the errours of old and new Heretiques to require a living infallible judge c 2 n 32 p 140 seq Deut 4.2 Yee shall not add to the word c. answered c 2 n 61 p 161. 162 Act 17.11 of the BereaÌ„s deaily searching the Scriptures answeared n 64 p 168 Apoc 24 v. 18. 19. If any man shall ad to these things c. n. 65 p 169. 170 seq S. Iohn 5.39 search the Scriptures n 62 p 162 seq S. Iohn 20.31 These are written that yee may beleeue n. 63 p. 166. seq and n. 168 p. 245 seq S. Luke 1. v. 1. 2. 3. Act 1. v. 1. 2. explicated n. 99 p. 203 seq S. Paule Rom 14 5. prophanely applyed by Chill c. 11 n. 31 p. 670. S. Paule 1. Tim 3.15 about the infallibility of the vniversall Church c. 12 n. 89 p. 777. S. Paul 2. Tim 3. v. 14. 15. 16. 17. All Scripture inspired of God is profitable to teach c c. 2 n. 66 p. 170 seq and n. 175 176 p. 250 seq How a Tipe or figure differs from a patterne c. 11 n. 48 p. 682 The Title of Chill Booke Protestant Religion a safe way to salvation proved not to agree to it and shewed what he should haue putt Pr. n. 12 p 6 seq Against Tradition no dispute c â— n 209 p 274 seq Tradition without Scripture but not Scripture wthout Tradition sufficient to begett Faith c 11 n 49 p 682. Tradition proved out of holy Fathers c 2 n 165 p 240 seq and n 202 p 270 seq Whitaker very angry with S. Chrysostome about Tradition n 202 p 271 Tradition wholy destroyed by Chill although he would seeme to rely vpon it c 3 n 80 p 341 seq and n 85. 86 p 345 seq Yet it is confessed by many Heteriques to be the only ground for many chief points of Christianity c 2 n 42 p 149 150. 151. Traditions vnwritten amongst the Iewes n 61 p 161 Transubstantiation is of lesse difficulty to naturall reason then the mistery of the B. Trinity c 11 n 12 p 657 V Pope Uictor was in the right c. 15. n 32. falsly put 33. p. 913. The Vnderstanding cannot dissenr from a truth represented with evidence yet the will may doe contrary to it c. 11. n. 65. 66. p. 694. seq Vniversall taken by Potter in a Logicall sense and ignorantly opposed to Catholique c. 7. n. 148. p. 565. W The difference betwixt a VVay evidently knowne by sense from that which is knowne by Scripture c. 4. n. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. p. 415. seq The VVill is not alwayes able to follow the vnderstanding without grace c. 1 n. 113 p. 118 Good works acknowledged by Chill to be required in Scripture for salvation c. 2 n. 36. 37 p. 144. 145 Holy VVriters doe no lesse deliver Counsells then commands by Divine inspiration c. 3. n. 38. p. 306. seq VVhy no one VVriting taken alone in its owne nature is sufficient to keepe from errour c. 2. n. 178. 179. 180. p. 252. 253. 254. and n. 181 p. 256 seq this shewed a fortiori of writings containing divine and sublime misteryes ' n. 184 p. 258 seq If writings by a singular miracle be alwayes and by all vneerstood a like it is not for the nature of the writings but by the Power of God supernaturally supplying what should be done by a liuing infallible interpreter or judge n. 186. 187. p. 261. 262. 263. X Xenaias a fugitiue slaue vnbaptized faining Christianity crept into a Bishoprique aÌ„d was the first that made wart against Images c. 7. n. 122. p. 543. ERRATA Many of which arÃ¨ left out but such as is hoped will not trouble the vnderstanding Reader No wonder if a stranger to our language did often mistake Where either Page or Â§ is put false it is corrected in the Index when any such place is cited Page Line Error Correction pr 8 3 this for for this pr 9 15 proue to so to do all proue to do so to all 13 19 othe other 39 21 Christians Christian 61 24 degree degrees 106 14 not be not to be 130 7 collectinei collectiuÃ¨ 173 5 of sared sayed of 187 38 every a very 192 11 on no 220 31 o of 222 11 of if 225 2 appeare your appeare by your 226 9 cae case 240 7 and necessity aÌ„d hold the necessity 267 10 Augustrana Augustana 267 34 A rist Christ 277 4 y by 282 1 het the 314 12 rihes no higher rises no higher 315 21 the exercising to aÌ„ act to the exercising aÌ„ act 365 34 Goind God in 377 38 wared waved 394 7 that that then that 438 34 avoide avoide not 458 9 ormall formall 468 0 About Fundamentall points c. 6. Protestants guilty of schisme c. 7 459 18 iust brande iustly branded 531 1 you yet 533 20 member number 539 13 Greg. Millius in Ar gumeÌ„ta Georg. Millius in Au gustana 556 24 officiously officious ly 557 38 his submit to to submit his 588 7 errors error 590 25 deest i.e. 590 28 deest 3. 602 38 afterfor their after sorrow 616 22 to obiect wherof his the object herof is 617 21 preceede proceede sinns 638 12 it he 619 4 pertinent penitent 627 15 is it 632 2 Chillingwort I. Chillingworth 639 4 proosd proposed 641 11 but wavering aÌ„d fear full assent a but a wavering aÌ„d fe arfull asseÌ„t 707 19 could would 716 17 hold cold 748 4 of Sections or or Sections of 766 1 if he will not so if he will not so 781 16 it is was it was 801 24 Seurrall severall 807 38 vrge it against vrge against 811 35 as thewed as I shewed 823 8 it will he will 823 9 he cannot it cannot 826 23 to soone so soone 828 38 is not it all one it not is all one 838 19 prencipuum praecipium 856 1.2 recs records 868 16 if Peter of Peter 876 1 ayme time 877 3-4 may another may not another 885 32 not dele 890 1 an any 920 36 and men and yet 935 5 It if If it

Charitie vvhich by the Apostle is preferrd before those other two vertues 1. Cor. 13.13 Now there remayne Faith Hope Charity these three but the greater of these is Charity Besides Charity being the fulfilling of the law if we cannot keepe the commandements without grace as we will proue in the next Section it followes that without grace we cannot Loue as we ought for attaining saluation But yet let vs alledge some places of Scripture wherin this truth is set downe 1. Ioan 4.7 Charity is of God and euery one that loueth is borne of God aÌ„d knoweth God Ioan. 14.23.24 If any loue me he will keepe my word and my Father will loue him and vve vvill come to him and will make aboad with him He that loueth me not keepeth not my words Who dare ascribe to a loue acquired by humane forces these priuiledges of keeping Gods word in so supernaturall a way as that the B. Trinitie will come and remaine vvith him Rom. 5.5 The charity of God is powred forth in our harts by the holy Ghost vvhich is giuen vs. Rom. 13.8 He that loueth his neighbour hath fulfilled the lavv V. 10. Loue therfor is the fulness of the lavv Galat. 5.22 The fruite of the spirit is charitie Ephes 6.23.24 Peace to the brethreÌ„ and charitie vvith faith from God the father and our Lord Iesus Christ Grace with all that loue our Lord Iesus Christ in incorruption XXIV Euen Chilling Pag. 20. saith what can hinder but that the consideration of Gods most infinite Goodness to them Protestants and their owne almost infinite wickedness against him Gods spirit cooperating with them may raise them to a true and syncere and a cordiall loue of God In vvhich vvords he may seeme to require the particular grace of the holy Ghost for exercising an Act of loue or charitie I say he may seeme because it is no nevves for him to dissemble or disguise his true meaning vnder some shew of words vsed by good Christians though it cost him a contradiction vvith himselfe and his ovvne Grounds Hovvsoeuer it be at least his manner of speach shevves hovv christians must not deny this truth SECTION V. The Necessity of Grace for keeping the Commandements and ouercoming temptations XXV THis point giues me againe iust occasion to obserue how they who deny a liuing jnfallible iudge of controuersies cannot auoyd running into pernitious extremes Some hold that Christians are not bound in conscience to keepe the Commandements a Vide Bellarm de justificatione l. 4. Cap. 1. in somuch as Luther is not afraid nor ashamed to say b In Commentario ad Cap 2 ad Galatas When it is taught that indeed faith in Christ iustifies but yet so as we ought to keepe the commandements because it is writteÌ„ if thou wilt enter into life keepe the coÌ„mandemeÌ„ts there Christ is instantly denyed aÌ„d faith abolished And elswhere c In Sermone de nouo Testamento siâ—e de Mâ—ssa Let vs take heed of sinnes but much more of lawes and good works Let vs attend only to the promise of God and faith I wonder how a man can take heed of sinne and ioyntly take heed of good workes Shall he be still doing and yet doe neither good nor badd Some teach that it is impossible to keepe the commandements euen with the assistance of diuine grace Others that they may be kept by the force of nature and that the assistance of Gods grace is not necessary except only to keepe them with greater ease or facility XXVI The true Catholike doctrine is that we may keepe the commandements and ouercome temptations by the grace of God not by our owne naturall forces which is manifestly declared in Holy Scripture EZechiel 36.26 I will giue you a new hart and put a new spirit in middest of you and I will take away the stony hart out of your flesh aÌ„d will giue you a fleshie hart And I will put my spirit in the middest of you and I will make that you walk in my precepts and keepe my iudgments and doe them 1. Ioan. 5.3 This is the charity of God that we keepe his commandements Ioan. 14.23.24 If any loue me he will keepe my word and my father will loue him and we will come to him and will make abode with him He that loueth me not keepeth not my words Behold louing or not louing keeping or not keeping the commandements goe togeather But we haue proued that Grace is necessary to loue God it is therfor necessary to keepe his commandements Rom. 8.3 For that which was impossible to the law in that it was weakned by the flesh God sending his son in the flesh of sinne euen of sinne damnes sinne in the flesh That the iustification of the Law might be fulfilled in vs. 1. Cor. 7.7 The Apostle teaches that not only the continency of virgins and widdowes but maried people also is the gift of God saying Euery one hath a proper guift of God one so and another so Sap. 8.21 And as I knew that I could not otherwise be continent vnless God gaue it this very thing also was wisdom to know whose this gift was I went to our Lord and besought him Rom. 2.13 Not the hearers of the Law are iust with God but the doers of the Law shall be iustifyed And yet the same Apostle sayth Galat 2 21. If iustice by the Law then Christ dyed in vaine And we may say in the same manner If iustice by nature and not by Grace Christ died in vaine S. Iames 3.8 The tong no man can tame Rom. 5.20.21 The Law entered in that sinne might abound and where sinne abounded grace did more abound that as sinne raigned to death so also grace may raigne by iustice to life euerlasting through Iesus Christ our Lord. Which words declare that grace is so necessary for fulfilling the Law that without it the Law was occasion of death by reason of humane frailty and corruption Rom. 4.15 The Law worketh wrath Rom. 7. V. 23.24.25 I see another Law in my members repugning to the law of my mynd and captiuing me in the law of sinne that is in my members Vnhappy man that I am who shall deliver me from the body of this death The grace of God by Iesus Christ our Lord. 1. Cor. 15.56 57. The power of sinne is the law But thankes be to God that hath giuen vs victory by our Lord Iesus Christ 1. Cor. 10.13 God is faithfull who will not suffer you to be tempted aboue that which you are able but will make also with teÌ„ptation issue that you may be able to sustaine Psalm 17.30 In thee I shall be deliuered from teÌ„ptation Psa 26.9 Be thou my helper forsake me not Psalm 29.7.8 I sayd in my aboundance I will not be moued for euer Thou hast turned away thy face from me and I became troubled Psalm 117.13 Being thrust I was ouerturned to fall and our Lord receyued me 1. Pet. 5. V. 8.9 Be sober

ground of ProtestaÌ„ts which being well pondered will make it a hard task for them to alledge any text of scripture to the purpose in hand They teach that only after the Canon of scripture was perfited it became a sufficient Rule of Faith and consequently before that tyme we could not be sure that all necessary points were expressed therin Therfor do I infer no scripture could affirme that scripture contaynes all necessary poynts except that book yea text which was written last and did make vp the whole Canon and all precedent parts of scripture could only speake in the future tense and as it were by way of prophecy that other books of scripture were to be written and that then the scripture would be sufficieÌ„t for all necessary points For which propheticall kind of meaning Protestants do not alledg scripture as for example that the old Testament did prophecy of every book of the New or that one part of the new contaynes a prophecy of the other parts that were to follow which to affirme were groundless and ridiculous And who can say that the scripture which was written last affirmes the sufficiency of scripture alone If Protestants haue any such assurance let them shew vs in that last booke or text the words which evidently contayne such a meaning and asseveration For on that last text alone they must rely for the reasons alledged that without that text the Canon was not complete Add yet further that it being not certaine what part of Canonicall scripture was the last they cannot with certainty alledg any one text of the whole Bible to proue their purpose And much will be added to their difficulty if we consider that Protestants do not agree whether some of those scriptures which were the last or among the last be Canonicall or no for example the Apocalips the second and third Epistle of S. John which by some Protestants are expressly put out of the Canon And then how can they so much as offer vs any proofe from the old Testament since it is impossible to be done out of the new as hath bene proved 60. Tenthly Although what I haue sayd were sufficient to stop all attempts of Protestants to alledg any text of scripture for their purpose yet for the greater satisfaction of the reader in a matter of such moment meÌ„t I will as I sayd aboue examine the texts vsually alledged aÌ„dshew that they are neither evideÌ„t nor probable nor pertinent Wherby I shall not only confute all their proofes but joyntly bring a convincing argument for vs against them whose Doctrine must needs fall if they be demonstrated to faile in their allegation of scripture for this maine poynt And it is to be observed that Chilling seemes in effect to acknowledg that it is hard to alledg any effectuall text for his purpose while he is very sparing in producing scripture but makes perpetually vse of Topicall arguments and discourses as for example if scripture were not evident in all things necessary we could not be obliged to belieue them aÌ„d the like being indeed conscious that the places of scripture commonly alledged by Protestants are of small force 61. To the words objected out of Deut 4.2 You shall not add to the word which I speak to you I answer they cannot signify that all things which the Iewes were obliged to belieue or practise were contayned evidently in scripture alone as if the writing of Moyses did exclude the ordinary living Rule permanent amongst the Iewes to witt the Definition of the Priest of which it is sayd Deut 17.8 If thou perceyue that the judgmeÌ„t with thee be hard and doubtfull c or as if it excluded Moyses himself or the rest of this veryfourth chapter out of which the objection is taken or other chapters which he wrote afterward even in that book of Deuteronomy which hath in all 34. Chapters or the last Chapter which could not be written by Moyses but Esdras or Iosue disciple aÌ„d successour to Moyses as appeares by the same Chapter V. 5.6 where the death and buriall of Moyses is described and it is sayd Deuter 34.6 no man hath knowne his sepulcre vntill this present day or the commaÌ„ds which the Prophets somtyme gaue as 1. Reg. 15. or some solemnityes or Feast instituted for thaÌ„ksgiving for some benefit or as if after those words of Moyses aÌ„d after his death no scripture could be written by Iosue and other Canonicall writers amongst the Iewes in the Old or Christians in the New Law for feare of transgressing You shall not add to the word which I speak vnto you Therfor ethose words You shall not add to the word c must haue some other meaning then these meÌ„ would violently giue them against the express words themselves which are not You shall not add to the writing which I write to you but to the word which I speak to you which if we respect the letter signifyes rather vnwritten tradition than any thing written in scripture And that the Jewes had vnwritten traditions see Brierly Tract 1. sect 4. subdivis 6. citing both ancient Fathers and Protestant writers and so this text makes for tradition against the objectours rhemselves Besides You shall not add to the word may signify contrary to it by declining to the right or left hand as is sayd Cap 5. V. 32. especially such as might bring men to the worship of Beelphegor as it followes V. 3. or of some other new Deity or Idoll For Moyses in all this Chapter and frequently in deuter intends to exclude new Gods and Rites Thus the Hebrew al that is ad is taken for contra Psalm 2.2 and numbers 14.2 so Gal. 1.8 S. Paul denounces an anathema to those who evangelize aliud praeter id quod ipse evangelizavit praeter beside that is contra against for he treates of those who went about to yoyne Christianity with judaisme This appeares in the words of the same verse you shall not add to the word which I speak to you neither shall you take away from it keepe the commandements of your God which I command you Which latter words signify that to add or take away from Gods word is to breake or doe somthing against his commaÌ„demeÌ„ts aÌ„d not to doe somthing which is not commaÌ„ded so it be not forbidden and otherwise may tend to Gods glory Otherwise the Iewes added many things to the Law of God as engravings the ornaments of the temple Dayes of lottes Esth 9.31 the Feast of fire given the Feast of the Dedication c. All which considered who doth not see what a strange Argument this is Moyses sayth to the Iewes thou shall not add to the word which I speake Therfor nothing must be believed or practised by Iewes or Christians which is not exprest in writing or scripture yea in the scripture of the old Law and what is this but to condemne the Law of Christ 63. Toar those words search the Scriptures spoken by

in figure only or only by Faith and Apprehension and to be really and substantially receaved was Christ as really exhibited to the Jewes by their figures of him as after his Incarnation by his reall existence No doubt can be moved concerning the manner of his presence vnless first he be supposed to be really present and not only in figure or bare Faith which must presuppose not make that presence which it believes and so the doubt and debate between Lutherans and Sacramentaryes is whether Christs Body be substantially present not how he is present of the substance not of the manner only To say his whole person is every where makes not to the purpose seing the question is not of his Divine Person but concerning his sacred Humanity Howsoever if this Reason be good it will serue for transubstantiation at least as well as for Consubstantiation or vbiquity of which the Protestant Hospinian in Praefat. de Vbiquitate Lutheranorum Anno 1602. sayth Hoc portentum c. This monster for it ought not be called a doctrine or assertion or opinion or even a single Heresy is repugnant to scripture contrary to the Fathers it overthrowes the whole Creed it confoundes the natures of Christ with Eutyches it rayses from out of Hell almost all the old Heresyes and lastly which is strange it destroyes the Sacrament for the maintayning wherof it was invented And yet this poynt is to Potter only a curious nicity Is it not intollerable partiality to excuse Vbiquity or Consubstantiation and yet condemne Transubstantiation but by these examples we see what command Passion hath over their vnderstandings and will And I must still conclude that by these enormous differences amongst Protestants it appeares that scripture in matters of great moment is not cleare 94. 18 You haue least reason of all other to defend the sufficiency of Scripture taken alone who deliver such Doctrines concerning the certainty and infallibility of Scripture it self that it could not be aÌ„y Rule at all although it were snpposed to containe evidently all necessary poynts Those Doctrines of yours I will only touch heer as much as belongs to my present purpose intending to speake of them more at large in the next Chapter First then you teach Pag. 62. N. 32. that Scripture is none of the materiall objects of our Faith or Divine verities which Christ revealed to his Apostles but only the meanes of conveying them vnto vs. And Pag. 116. N. 159. having spoken of some barbarous Nations that believed the Doctrine of Christ and yet believed not Scripture to be the word of God for they never heard of it and Faith comes by hearing you add these words Neither doubt I but if the Bookes of Scripture had been proposed to them by the other parts of the Church where they had bene before receyved and had bene doubted of or even rejected by those barbarous Nations but still by the bare belief and practise of Christianity they might be saved God requiring of vs vnder payne of damnation only to belieue the verityes therin contayned and not the divine authority of the Bookes wherin-they are contayned This Doctrine of yours being supposed togeather with that other principle of Protestants that after the Canon of Scripture was perfited the only meanes which Christians haue to know Divine Verityes revealed by Christ is the Scripture which for that very cause they say must containe evidently all things necessary to salvation it followes that if Scripture be not a materiall Object of Faith that is a thing revealed by God and which men are obliged to receyue and belieue as such men are not obliged to believe that meanes by which alone they can come to the knowledg of Divine revealed verityes aÌ„d then it clearly followes that they cannot be obliged to that End which they only know by that meanes to the knowledg of which meanes you say they are not bound Neither caÌ„ you say that because we are obliged to know those revealed Truths which can be knowen only by Scripture we are consequently obliged to know and belieue the Scripture because our supposition is that we haue no knowledg suspicion imagination or inkling of revealed Truths except by meanes of Scripture alone For if you grant any other meanes you overthrow your maine ground of relying vpon scripture alone and admitt Tradition And therfor antecedently to any possible obligation to know immediatly revealed Truths we must know that meanes which alone proposes them to vs who cannot belieue any necessity of knowing revealed truths but by believing aforehaÌ„d the scriprure which if we be not preobliged to belieue we cannot be obliged to belieue the verityes themselves which in respect of vs shall remayne as if they had never been revealed like to infinite other truths in the abyss of Gods wisdome which shall never be notifyed to Men or Angels This deduction of myne you cannot deny since it is the same with one of your owne Pag. 86. N. 93. where you say It was necessary that God by his Providence should preserue the Scripture from any indiscernable corruption in those things which he would haue knowen otherwise it is apparent it had not bene his will that these things should be knowen the only meanes of continuing the knowledg of them being perished Now is it not in effect all one to vs whether the scripture haue perished in it selfe or as I may say to vs while we are not obliged to belieue that is it the word of God And the same argument I take from your saying Pag 116. N. 159. that we are not bound to belieue scripture to be a Rule of Faith For since ProtestaÌ„ts hold it to be the only Rule of Faith if I be not obliged to belieue that it is such a Rule I cannot be obliged to any act of Faith But you say we are not obliged to belieue scripture antecedently or for it self Therfor we are not bound to belieue any revealed Truths vnless you graÌ„t some other meanes besides scripture for comming to the knowledg of them and consequeÌ„tly although we should suppose scripture to be evident in all poynts yet it alone cannot be sufficient for men who are not bound to take notice of it as of the word of God nor to receaue the contens therof as divine revealed truths In a word Either God hath revealed this truth scriprure is the word of God or he hath not revealed it If he haue reuealed it then it is one of the things which we are to belieue and is a materiall Object of Faith against your particular Tenet If God hath not revealed it then we haue no obligation to belieue it with certainty as a divine truth nor consequently the contents of it nor can it alone be sufficient to deliver all things necessary to salvation against the doctrine of all ProtestaÌ„ts And who can belieue scripture to be a perfect Rule if he do not belieue it to be any Rule of Faith Surely if he belieue

suppose your owne tenet that the scripture alone containeth all things necessary that is vnless you begg the Question you cannot so much as pretend that every one of the Gospells contaynes all such poynts 4. you hold it only probable that every one of the Evangelists hath written all necessary points therfor you belieue it cum formidine oppositi and must think it not impossible but that some good reason may be alledged and much more imagined which is your word for the contrary 142. Secondly I answer you ought to remember that as the Apostles and other Canonicall Writers wrote not their owne humane sense but were inspired and directed by the Holy Ghost of whom we must say Quis Consilarius ejus fuit Rom 11. V. 34. Who hath been his Counseller So you must not expect that we rely on your Topicall coÌ„gruityes for finding out what in particularâ— was fit for them to write that is what was the will of God that they should write What reason I pray you can be given why that Holy spirit did inspire foure Evangelists to write neither more nor fewer Why these men were chosen and not others Why they wrote no sooner and not all at once but at very different tymes Why they omitt millons of things and write others and those very few in comparison of those which they omitted and why rather these few in particular which they wrote than some few of those which they wrote not Why some things are written by all of them some only by some and some by one only VVhy other Canonicall VVriters write many profitable but not all necessary things and yet they were wise and honest men and wrote not in a negligent fashion And particularly what reason can be imagined according to your manner of discoursing why any of the Evangelists or other writers of scripture should leaue out any thing necessary for the whole Church as forme of Government Matter aÌ„d forme of Sacraments c and yet put in many things which they knew to be only profitable and not necessary either for the whole Church or every particular person or had they great care of what is necessary for particular men and regarded not what was necessary for the whole Church Of this we are very sure that they complyed with that end for which the Holy Ghost moved them to write and the conjectures of such considering men as you take pleasure to be styled cannot be of force with any religious mynd except to condemne you of presumption in prescribing to the Holy Ghost what he should haue moved the Apostles to write vnder payne of forfeiting the repute of vvise and honest men and of being censured of having done so great a worke of God after such a negligent fashion 143. Thirdly I Answer If you will needs haue reasons though we must not rely vpon our owne reason in matters of this nature jam sure betterreasons may be given to proue that the Evangelists were not obliged to write all things necessary then you can with any least ground bring them vnder any such burthen 144. First he who will impose an obligation vpon another in the first place obliges himself to a positiue proofe of what he sayes For till that be done every one by the law of nature enjoyeth the liberty of which he is possessed as on the other side he who denyes an obligation of performing this or that doth sufficiently acquitt himself by pleading that no such obligation can be proved And this is not a bare word or voluntary affirmation as if in that case both contrary parts had equall reasons because neither of them seemes to bring any positiue proofe but such a denyall of an obligation not sufficiently proved is a solid and convincing reason grounded vpon positiue Axiom Melior est conditio possidentis in vaine therfor do you aske what reason can be imagined why any of them should leaue out any thing which he knew to be necessary c it being a most sufficient proofe that they had no such obligation because you can bring no positiue proofe for the contrary and if they were not obliged to do it how can you accuse them for doing so great a work of God after such a negligent fashion meerly because they do not that which they had no obligation at all to doe 145. A second reason may be not only imagined but truly deduced both from your particular Assertion and from the generall doctrine of Protestants You teach that he who wrote the First Gospell S. Matthew delivered evidently all things necessary which to the other Euangelists might be a very sufficient reason to hold themselves free from obligation of repeeting those things which had bene delivered already with evidence and which they did certainly know if the thing were true to haue bene so delivered And this reason vrges yet more concerning S. Luke who vvrote his Gospell after S. Matthevv and S. Mark had vvritten theirs and as I sayd did knovv certainly that they had vvritten all necessary points if indeed they had done so Lastly S. John before he wrote his Gospell had seene the Gospels of the other three Evangelists beside other canonicall scriptures and therfor might with good reason think himself disobliged from doing that which had bene done by so many before him And that Holy Spirit which directed the first Writer of scripture S. Matthew foreseeing all future Canonicall writings in which many necessary points were to be expressed might even according to your humane discourse moue him to omitt so me necessary points which he saw would be delivered in other Scripture or tradition especially if we reflect that a truth once delivered in scripture beleeved to be Gods word is a much as a million of tymes Now from the generall doctrine of Protestants that all necessary things are contained in the vvhole scripture collectiuÃ¨ not in every part therof a cleare reason may be taken to disoblige the Evangelists from vvriting that vvhich they vvere sure could not but be vvritten in other parts or bookes of holy scripture because that Doctrine implyes that the sole-sufficiency of scripture is perfectly asserted and maintayned if all necessary Points be contained in the whole Bible though they be not all set downe in any one Part or booke therof 146. A third reason may be taken from the End which moved the Evangelists to write which as I haue often sayd being not to make a Cathechisme or a Summe of Christian Doctrine what reason can be imagined that any of them should think himself obliged to set downe in particular all necessary points 147. Will you haue a Fourth reason Let it be this which may also serue for a wholsome and necessary document for you and such as you are we haue good reason to belieue that the Holy Ghost thought not fitt to express either in the Gospells or other Parts of Scriptures all necessary things that we might be put vpon a wholsome and happy necessity

Having set downe these words of S. Irenaeus you vrge them thus Pag 211. N. 41. In which words of Irenaeus it is remarkable that they are spoken by him against some Heretikes that pretended as you know who do now a dayes that some necessary Doctrines of the Gospell were vnwritten and that out of the Scriptures truth he must meane sufficient truth cannot be found by those which know not tradition Against whom to say that part of the Gospell which was preached by Peter was written by S. Mark and some other necessary parts of it omitted had been to speak impertinently and rather to confirme than confute their errour It is plaine therfor that be must meane as I pretend that all the necessary doctrine of the Gospell which was preached by S. Peter was written by S. Mark Now you will not deny I persume that S. Peter preached all therfor you must not deny that S. Mark wrote all In your Margent you cite S. Irenaeus Lib. 3. Cap. 2. 162. Answer you set nor downe the Booke or Chapter for the first place which you cite out of S. Irenaeus I haue found it and find that your ill dealing is so very exorbitant and manifold that I scarcely know where to beginne the discovery or how to exaggerate sufficiently your fraude 163 First In those words which you cite they are Lib. 3. Cap. 1. adversus Haereses it is only sayd that the foure Evangelists wrote their severall Gospells but it is not so much as insinuated that every one or all of them wrote all things necessary to salvation nor any least thing that may seeme to looke that way or to be for your purpose in aÌ„y other respect as shall appeare anone But your misery is that still you suppose that all necessary things must be expressed in scripture and in vertue of that begging supposition you extend indefinite Propositions as if they were vniversall and yet did signify not absolutely all as vniversalls are wont to doe but determinately for your purpose all things necessary for salvation wheras S. Irenaeus hath neither the word all nor the words necessary Articles Your chief or only care should haue bene to proue positively a necessity that all things necessary should haue bene written in every one of the Gospells and then you might with some more shew of reason turne indefinite into vniversall propositions but your negatiue way or only asking questions what reason can be imagined that any of them should leaue out any thing which he knew to be necessary c will not satisfy S. Irenaeus teaches that S. Marke delivered to vs in writing those things which had been preached by Peter but doth he say all those things which had bene preached by Peter He neither did nor could say so the thing being in it self manifestly vntrue For S. Peter delivered many things by word of mouth which neither S. Mark nor any other of the Evangelists haue written as we may learne from S. John Chap. 21. and S. Mark omitts divers things which the other Evangelists and canonicall Writers haue written and can you affirme that S. Peter delivered none of those points And in particular could he be silent of the Incarnation and birth and other Mysteryes of our Saviour Christ till his baptisme which yet S. Mark omitts as we noted aboue It is therfor evident that S. Irenaeus could not meane that S. Mark wrote whatsoever S. Peter delivered and therfor he wrote only some and not all This then must be your Argument S. Peter preached all the necessary doctrine of the Gospell and much more but S. Mark wrote only some and not all that S. Peter preached therfor S. Mark wrote all the necessary doctrine of the Gospell and more An Argument like to this God knowes all things Mr Chillingworth knowes some but not all things that God knowes therfor Mr. Chillingworth knowes all things Eusebius Lib. 5. Hist C. 8. cites S. Irenaeus thus Mark the disciple and interpreter of Peter committed to writing those things which he had receaved from him where we see no vniversall but only an indefinite proposition Neither did it make any thing to S. Irenaeus his purpose to treate whether or no the Evangelists or other Canonical VVriters did set downe all necessary points For he wrote against certaine absurd Heretiques whe denyed that God created Heaven and earth or breached some other such pernicious fooleryes which might be confuted out of scripture though it do not containe all other necessary points of Faith And it is too much boldness another would call it impudency in you to say that in the words of Irenaeus it is remarkable that they are spoken by him against some Heretiques that pretended that some necessary Doctrines of the Gospell were vnwritten and that out of the Scriptures truth he must meane sufficient truth cannot be found by those which know not tradition and for this you cite S. Irenaeus Lib 3. Cap 2. and Pag 346. N. 30 you say Irenaeus had to do with Heretiques who somwhat like those who would be the only Catholiques declining a tryall by Scripture as not contayning the Truth of Christ perfectly and not fitt to decide Controversyes without recourse to Tradition c But in this your fraud is intolerable For those Heretiks of whom S. Irenaeus speakes when Catholikes did alledge scripture excepted not against it because it did not contayne all necessary truths or not the truth of Christ perfectly which exception could nothing availe them it being sufficient for confutation of their particular heresy if the scripture did containe as much as was contradictory to their errours supposing they did believe it to be the word of God but their exception was that it was not well written was false and not agreeing with it self as may be seene in that very third Booke and second Chapter which you alledg against vs in the words which now I haue cited out of you and therfor you cannot pretend ignorance for excuse of your want of sincerity Thus then S. Irenaeus in that Lib 3. Cap. 2. the title of which Chapter is Quod neque scripturis neque Traditionibus obsequantur haeretici That Heretiks obey neither Scripture nor Traditions beginns that Chapter with these words When they are convinced out of Scripture they fall vpon accusing the Scriptures themselves as if they were not right nor of sufficient authority and that they did varie from themselves and that truth could not be gathered from them by those who are ignorant of tradition These very words yourself Pag 361. N 40. alledg out of S. Irenaeus and say The Fathers vrged tradition against them who when they were confuted out of Scripture fell to accuse Scriptures themselves as if they were not right and came not from good authority as if they were various one from another and as if truth could not be found out of them by those who know not Tradition for that it was not delivered in writing they did meane say

you say Can we imagine that either they ommitted somthing necessary out of ignorance not knowing it to be necessary Or knowing it to be so maliciously concealed it or out of negligence did the work they had vndertaken by halfes If none of these things can without Blasphemy be imputed to them considering they were assisted by the Holy Ghost in this worke then certainly it most evidently followes that every one of them writt the whole Gospell of Christ I meane all the essentiall and necessary parts of it In which words you do nothing but begg the Question still supposing that the Evangelists were obliged to set downe in writing all necessary Points of Faith which though they knew to be necessary to be believed yet they neither did nor could know that they were necessary to be written which two things you ought to distinguish though it seemes you are resolved never to do so And here also you take vpon you to limit the Gospell to the essentiall and necessary parts of it of which your voluntary restriction I haue already sayd enough 172. But Sr. I cannot chuse but aske you vpon the occasion which here you giue how you can say that ignorance or negligence cannot without blasphemy be imputed to the Evangelists seing Pag. 144. N. 31. you affirme that the Apostles even after the sending of the Holy Ghost were and through inadvertence or prejudice continued for a tyme in an errour repugnant to a revealed truth and against our Saviours express warrant and injunction and Pag. 137. N. 2. you teach that the Church of the Apostles tyme did erre against a revealed truth through prejudice or inadvertence or some other cause which last generall reason gives scope to proceed in blasphemy if once we say that the Apostles were not in all things belonging to Faith directed by the Holy Ghost and for such as you to say that if they could erre by inadvertence prejudice or some other causes it was not impossible but at length one of those other causes might grow to be malice But more of this herafter Now I will only touch that which I noted before how little credit or authority your reasons ought to haue with any judicious person since you acknowledg it to be but probable that every one of the Evangelsts hath written all things necessary and yet you would needs haue your proofes therof to be certaine and evident Thus we haue heard you say Pag. 211.42 Take it as you will this conclusion will certainly follow that all that which S. Iohn wrote in his Gospell was sufficient to make them belieue that which being believed with lively Faith would certainly bring them to eternall life Vrceus institui coepit cur Amphora prodit A probability improved to a certainty by the only strength of confidence And Pag. 93. N. 105. you say that vnless we will blaspheme and accuse the Evangelists either or ignorance or malice or negligence certainly it most evidently follows that every one of them writt the whole Gospell of Christ I meane all the essentiall and necessary parts of it 173. Morover although you pretend to a certainty that S. Luke hath written all necessary Points which you hold only probable for the other three Evangelists yet your reason comes to be the same for all which is that the Evangelists were obliged to write all things necessary or els this which in effect is all one with the former what reasoÌ„n can be imagined that they should not write all things necessary and yet set downe many things only profitable For vnless you presuppose this reason which is common to all the Evangelists you haue no ground to affirme that the words of S. Luke all that Jesus began to doe and teach must signify determinately all necessary things as I haue often sayd and so vppon the matter you haue the same reason for all the foure Evangelists which is no more then the same begging of the Question 174. But what need we vse many reasons Our eyes can witness that the Evangelists haue not written all necessary Points of Faith For to omitt that they haue not set downe the matter and forme of Sacraments the forme of Government of the Church the power of inflicting censures and many such Points which cannot be evidently proved out of scripture alone without the assistance of tradition we do not find clearly expressed in S. Matthew the Eternall generation of the Son of God wherwith S. Iohn beginnes his Gospell In the beginning was the word c. S. Mark is silent of the Incarnation of our Lord in the wombe of the B. Virgin by vertue of the Holy Ghost His Birth and all other Mysteryes of his sacred life till his age of thirty yeares S Luke as also S Mark omits the giving power to forgiue sins Ioan. 20. V. 22.23 and Matth. 18. V. 18. which is a chief Article of our Creed I beleeue the remission of sinnes S. Iohn wrote nothing of the Annuntiation Nativity Circumcision Epiphany and Ascension of our Saviour Christ and according to Protestants he speakes not of the Eucharist For they deny that Cap. 6. he speakes of that Sacrament And consequently communion vnder both kinds which they hold to be a Divine precept and therfore necessary to salvation is omitted by him as also our Lords prayer All of them haue omitted in their Gospells that which is expressed Act. 2. about the sending of the Holy Ghost and the Decrees of the Councell of the Apostles Act. 15. wherin amongst other things they declare that it was not necessary to obserue the Mosaicall Law which is a most important and necessary point I haue bene longer in answering this objection as contayning many heads and divers Arguments of the same nature which I thought best not to divide Let vs now see what more you can object 175. Object 3. Pag 93. N. 105. If men cannot vnderstand by scripture enough for their salvation why then doth S. Paul say to Timothy the scriptures are able to make him wise vnto salvation 376. Answer First It is not sayd the scriptures alone are able to make one wise to salvation And if you had dealt honestly and not conceald what went before and after it would haue been cleare that S. Paul speakes not of scripture alone and of what scripture he speakes and how scripture may instruct to salvation which points being well considered it will appeare that this Text is so farr from proving what you intend that it makes against you S. Paul V 14. and 15. saith Tu vero permane c. But thou continue in those things which thou hast learned and are committed to thee knowing of whom thou hast learned and because from thy infancy thou hast knowen the holy scriptures which can instruct thee to salvation by the Faith that is in Christ Iesus In which words S. Paul speakes of things which Timothy had learned of him though out of humility aÌ„d modesty he concealed his owne name as

he doth 2. Cor. 12.2 scio hominem c I know a man in Christ aboue fourteen yeares agoe c. beside scriptures which Timothy had knowen from his infancy therfore he speakes not of scripture taken alone or without a Teacher and so it can only be inferred that scripture or the word written ioyned with the vnwritten word is sufficient to instruct vnto salvation But besides this of what scriptures doth S. Paul speake Of those in which S. Timothy had been conversant from his infancy which could be only the scriptures of the Old Testament and therfor that which S. Paule delivered by word of mouth must containe many more Points concerning Christian Religion than Timothy could learne evidently distinctly and in particular by the Old Testament alone Of that maine Point which one would think should be most cleare that Christ our Lord is the true Messias the Eunuch sayd and how can I vnderstand without an interpreter Which yet he might haue done if scripture in that fundamentall Point had bene evident according to the Axiom of the Socinians he needs no guide who clearly and certainly knowes the way No doubt but the Old Testament may help to belieue in Christ being rightly interpreted but it alone is not so evident as you pretend scripture to be The starre which appeared to the three Sages had not bene sufficient to call and direct them to Bethleem without some other helpe as that tradition (*) Vid S. Hieron Lib 1. Comment in Cap 2. Marth S. Ambrost Lib ã€ˆâ€¦ã€‰ 2. There shall arise a starr from Jacob Num. 24.17 And of Bethleem it self that Prophecy Mich. 5.3 And thou Bethleem the Land of Juda art not the least among the Princes of Juda for out of thee shall come forth a Captaine to governe my People Israel had not bene cleare without the declaration of the Clergy of that tyme which declaration they also received by tradition Wherby it appeares that when it is sayd The scriptures can instruct thee vnto salvation this being spoken of the Old Testament only can signify no more then that they may helpe to that effect but not that they alone are sufficient which is the thing you should proue Which may be confirmed by considering that S Paul doth as it were prevent an Objection or Demand which might be made why doth the Apostle exhort Timothy to be constant in those things which he had learned out of the scriptures of the Old Testament if they be not sufficient to make a man perfect To which S. Paul answers that although those scriptures alone be not sufficient yet they are profitable And this he proves in the next verse 16.17 because all scripture being inspired by God is profitable to teach c. And therfor nothing can be gathered from this place to proue the sufficiency of scripture alone Which appeares also by those words which the Apostle adds per Fidem c. by Faith which is in Christ Jesus declaring that the Old Testament may instruct to salvation not taken alone but with the helpe of a teacher expounding it according to the Analogy of Christian Religion and so this Text proves that besides scripture a Living Guide is necessary which is also proved by those words 2. Tim. 3.14 But thou continue in those things which thou hast learned and are committed to thee that is saith Cornel a Lapide vpon this place are committed to thee as a Bishop to be conserved and promulgated which interpretation he proves out of the Greeke And so it still appeares more and more even by this place of S. Paul that more is to be believed than is contayned particularly in scripture as also we learne out of the same Apostle 2. Tessalon 2.15 Observe the Traditions which you haue received from vs whether by word or by Epistle and 2. Tim. 1.13.14 Haue thou a forme of Sound words which thou hast heard from me in Faith and in the loue of Christ Jesus Mark he sayth which thou hast heard from me and not which haue bene written by me keep the good depositum by the holy Ghost which dwelleth in vs aÌ„d 2. Timoth. 2.2 The things which thou hast heard of me mark againe hast heard not hast redd in my words by many witnesses these commend to faithfull men which shal be fit to teach others also He taught and would haue others teach and this perpetuall course of Teaching is the Catholike Tradition 177. Object 4. Pag 179. N. 80. You aske Why may not the Apostles writings be as fit meanes to conserue vs in vnity and keep vs from errour as the Bishops that composed the Decrees of the Counsell of Trent or the Pope that confirmed them Or as the Decrees themselves Surely their intent was to conserve vnity of Faith and to keep vs from errour Was the Holy Ghost then vnwilling or vnable to direct them so that their writings should be fit and sufficient to attaine that end they aymed at in writing For if he were both able and willing to do so then certainly he did so And then their writings may be very sufficient meanes if we would vse them as we should doe to preserue vs in vnity in all necessary Points of Faith and to guard vs from all pernitious Error 178. Answer As you are still begging the Question so I may not faile to be putting you in mynd that you do so You should proue and not take as granted that the intent of the Apostles was to conserue vnity of Faith and to keepe vs from errour by their writings taken alone without any vnwritten word or Tradition Our Question is whether all necessary particular Points be evidently contayned in Scripture alone if they be not so contained then it followes that the scripture alone can neither conserue vs in vnity nor preserue vs froÌ„ errour in those points of which it sayes nothing but for such things all will proceed as if there were no scripture therfore you must suppose all necessary things to be contayned in scripture before you can affirme that the intent of the Apostles was to conserue vnity and to keep vs from errour by their writings alone that is you must begg that which you know is denyed The Holy Ghost was both able and willing so to direct the Apostles and all Canonicall Writers that their writings should be fit and sufficient to attaine that end they aymed at in writing and certainly he did doe so But you haue nor proved that they aymed at that end which not the Holy Ghost nor the Apostles moved by his inspiration aymed at but which you only presume to prescribe for making good your errour You say the scriptures may be very sufficient meanes if we would vse them as we should doe to preserue vs in vnity c. But experience teaching that by not following a Living Guide no vnity can be hoped for by scripture alone to vse them as we should doe is not for every one to follow his owne

interpretation but that of Gods Church And it is an injury to the insinite wisdom of our B. Saviour to imagine that he left that for a sufficient Meanes to conserue Vnity which hitherto neither hath had nor ever will nor ever can haue that effect without a perpetuall great and vnusuall Miracle by making men different in all other things agree in the sense of Scripture You will not deny but that while the Apostles and other Canonicall writers were aliue the scripture ioined with such explication as they could giue by word of mouth or by writing new bookes was sitter to conserue vnity then now it is and by not making vse of such help of some authenticall interpreter it is sayd of the Epistles of S. Paul 2. Pet. 3 V. 16. that there were in them some hard things to be vnderstood which vnlearned and inconstant persons did depraue to their owne perdition as they did also other Scriptures Now the Church supplyes that want of the Apostles personall presence And so we may say of all Controversyes in Faith as S. Austine de vnit Eccles C. 22. writes concerning the Question about Rebaptization of such as were baptized by Heretikes Seing we find not in Scripture that some pass to the Church from heretiks and were receyved as I say or as thou sayest I suppose that if there were any wise man of whom our Saviour had given testimony and that he should be consulted in this question we should make no doubt to performe what he should say least we might feeme to gainsay not him so much as Christ by whose testimony he was recommended Now Christ beares witness to his Church And a litle after Whosoever refuses to follow the practise of the Church doth resist our Saviour himself who by his testimony recommends the Church 179. To your demand Why may not the Apostles writings be as fit meanes to conserue vs in vnity and keep vs from errour as the Decrees of the Church The Answer is easy and cleare First If one Decree be obscure it may be declared by another seing the church caÌ„ never perish 2. If any new coÌ„troversy in faith arise the Church alwayes living and present caÌ„ determine it by some new Decree or Declaration These conditions are wanting in scripture which is alwayes the same and wil be no more cleare or of any larger extent for the contents therof to morrow than it is to day nor can ' it speake and declare it self by it selfe but only can be declared by some living Judg or Interpreter And you are in a great errour if you conceiue that we hold any one Writing or Decree to be sufficient for deciding all Controversyes But we say that the Church vpon severall exigents can declare her mynd either by explicating former Decrees or by promulgating new ones as necessity shall require And for this cause there are extant so many Decrees of Councells c If we did yield to any one writing the sufficiency of ending all emergent Controversyes God forbid we should deny it to hÃ²ly scripture Neither do we distinguish Tradition from the written word because Tradition is not written by any or in any booke or writing but because it is not written in the scripture or Bible For Tradition hath this advantage that it may be both written and delivered by word of mouth and so be certainly conserved By these considerations is answered an Objection which you make against some words of Cha Ma and it shall be 180. Object 5. Pag 54. N. 5. You are pleased to speak to your Adversary in this manner In the next words of Cha Ma Part 1. Chap 2. N. 1. we haue 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 vnwritten Tradition As if you should haue sayd 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 therfor you must revoke your acknowledgment or retract your retraction of it for both cannot possibly stand togeather For if you will stand to what you haue 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 needes no addition and so evident that it needs no interpretation Now that a writing is capable of both these perfections you say N. 7. is so plaine that I am even ashamed to proue it For he that denyes 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 Answer me Whether your Church can set downe in writing all these which she pretends to be Divine vnwritten Traditions and add them to the verityes already written And whether she can set vs downe such interpretations of all obscurityes in Faith as shall need no farther interpretations If shee can let her doe it and then we shall haue a writing not only capable of but actually endowed with both these perfections of being both so compleat as to need no Addition and so evident as to need no Interpretation Lastly no man can without Blasphemy deny that Christ Iesus if he had pleased could haue writ vs a rule of Faith so plaine and perfect as that it should haue wanted neither any part to make vp its integrity nor any clearness to make it sufficiently intelligible and then a writing there might haue been endowed with both these propertyes 181. Answer I haue had the patience to set downe your words much more at large than was needfull the answer having been given already that no one writing can without a great and vnvsuall miracle be capable of being a perfect Rule of Faith and your Arguments proue no such matter as will appeare anone But first I must tell you that you cite Cha Ma very disadvantagiously or rather falsely thus We acknowledg scripture to be a perfect Rule for as much as a writing can be a Rule only we deny that it excludes vnwritten Tradition and here you stopp wheras He added We only deny that it excludes either divine Tradition though it be vnwritten or an externall judge to keep to propose to interpret it in a true Orthodox and Catholique sense Now that no writing is able to propose or proue it self to be authentiall or true or to keep and conserue it self Cha Ma proved ibidem N. 3.4.5.6 and the thing is of it self so true and evident that Pag 61. N. 24. to the words of Cha Ma The scripture stands in need of some

watchfull and vnerring eye to guard it by meanes of whose assured vigilancy we may vndoubtedly receyue it sincere and pure you answer Very true and Pag 69. N. 46. to His saying That the divinity of a writing cannot be knowen from it self alone but by some extrinsecall authority you answer expressly that he nâ—ed not proue it for no wise man denyes it And Pag 62. N. 25. you confess that we belieue not the bookes of scripture to be Canonicall because they say so For say you other bookes that are not Canonicall may say they are and those that are so may say nothing of it All which acknowledgments of yours make good what Cha Ma sayd that no writing alone can propose itself to be Authenticall and much less infallible and divine or can keep and preserue it self from corruption Seing then you grant that no writing alone can performe these things it followes that scripture cannot do them Or if any one writing can do so I hope you and Protestants who pretend so much to reverence scripture will not hold it any great crime in Cha Ma to haue sayd that if any writing alone were capable of these propertyes to proue conserue and interpret it self we would acknowledg scripture to be endued with them 182. But here Pag 55. N. 8. you make an Objection against Cha Ma in these words You will say that though a writing be never so perfect a Rule of Faith yet it must be beholding to Tradition to giue 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 giue it the attestation of perpetuall miracles Secondly That it is one thing to be a perfect Rule of Faith another to be proved so vnto vs. And thus though a writing could not be proved to vs to be a perfect rule of Faith by its owne saying so for nothing is proved true by being sayd or written in a booke but only by Tradition which is a thing credible of it self yet it may be so in it self and containe all the materiall Objects all the particular Articles of our Faith without any dependance vpon Tradition even this also not excepted that this writing doth contayne the Rule of Faith Now when Protestants affirme against Papists that Scripture is a perfect Rule of Faith their meaning is not that by Scripture all things absolutely may be proved which are to be believed For it can never be proved by Scripture to a gainsayer that there is a God or that the booke called Scripture is the word of God For he that will deny these Assertion when they are speken will belieue them never a whitt the more because you can shew them written But their meaning is that the Scripture to them which presuppose it Divine and a Rule of Faith as Papists and Protestants doe contaynes all the materiall Objects of Faith is a compleat and totall and not only an imperfect and partiall Rule 183. I answer to your Objection and to your Answer that wheras you say to Cha Ma you will say that though a writing be never so perfect a Rule of Faith yet it miâ—st be beholding to Tradition to giue it this testimony that it is a Rule of Faith and the word of God If you had cited his words aright you could not haue sayd you will say that although a writing be never so perfect c For every one would haue seene that he had sayd it already But you had reason to dissemble those words which were both evidently true and did clearly by way of anticipation confute what you say now that a writing alone may haue all propertyes necessary to a perfect Rule of Faith of which none can be more essentially necessary then that such a writing be believed to be infallible and that it can conserue itself pure and incorrupt which two qualityes yourself grant that no writing can haue as hath been shewed out of your owne words though now in your First Answer you either contradict them and yourself or els speake wholly impertinently to the purpose in saying there is no absolute necessity that a writing be beholding to Tradition to giue it this Testimony that it is a Rule of Faith and the word of God For God might if he thought good giue it the attestation of perpetuall Miracles Good Sr. Reflect that the Question is whether any writing alone can giue to it self this testimony that it is a Rule of Faith and the word of God and remember your owne words which I cited aboue out of your Pag 69. N. 46. that we need not proue that the Divinity of a writing cannot be knowen from it self alone but by some extrinsecall authority For no wise man denyes it You must therfor vnless you will contradict yourself grant that no writing alone is sufficient for such an effect and if God should doe it by Miracles it were not done by a writing alone and so it makes not for our present purpose But you will say in that case it should not be done by Tradition I reply that seing de facto God vseth no such Miracles as we did suppose as a thing evident by experience and which your self doe also suppose and therforteach every where that we can know by Tradition only that Scripture is the word of God and even here N. 8. in this Objection which we answer you say expressly Nothing is proved true by being sayd or written in a Booke but only by Tradition which is a thing credible in it self Which according to you were not true if de facto God did give it the attestation of perpetuall Miracles It followeth that as things stand though a writing be never so perfect a Rule of Faith yet it must be beholding to tradition to giue it this Testimony that it is the word of God otherwise why do you teach that by Tradition alone we know Scripture to be the word of God Besides if you will fly to Gods Omnipotent Povver in vvorking Miracles for excluding the necessity of Tradition and a Living Judge you may ease men of all dispute about Scripture or necessity therof seing God can direct every man vvithout Scripture by perpetuall Miracles and make all as infallible in their Thoughts as the Apostles vvere in their words and writings We ought therfor to speake of things as they are and according to their natures and the way which God hath set downe without recourse to a meere possibility of Miracles against Experience teaching that He workes not such imaginary wonders Wherby I come now to proue that it is not only impossible for any writing alone to propose or proue and conserue it self but also to interpret its owne meaning because as Cha Ma saith Part 1. Chap 2. N. 3. It must be as all writings are deafe dumbe inanimate and being alwayes the same cannot declare it self any one tyme or vpon any occasion more

particularly than vpon any other and let it be redd over an hundred tymes it will be still the same and no more fit alone to terminate Controversyes in Faith than the Law would be to end suites if it were given over to the phansy and glosse of every single man 184. And this which hath bene sayd in generall of any one writing is in a particular manner to be affirmed of Holy Scripture or of any writing contayning Divine and sublime Mysteryes which seeme repugnant to naturall Reason For the height of such truthes moves the will and perswades the vnderstanding to seek out any sense of words though orherwise seeming cleare rather then to belieue things seeming evidently contrary to Reason Besides seing as I alledged out of Doctour Taylour in his Â§ 3. N. 2. words may be taken in a litterall or spirituall sense and both these senses are subdivided For the litterall sense is either naturall or figuratiue And the spirituall is sometymes allegoricall somtymes anagogicall nay somtymes there are divers litterall senses in the same sentence as appeares in divers quotations in the New Testament where the Apostles and Divine Writers bring the same Testimony to divers purposes Seing I say this is so how it is possible that any one writing can be so evident both for words and meaning that all men by only reading the same words must be necessitated to take them in the same sense literall spirituall naturall figuratiue allegoricall anagogicall and that even of divers literall senses of the same Text every person must see all which if he do not he may misse in one though he chance to hitt right in another since there cannor possibly be assigned any infallible Rule which yet is necessary for settling an Act of Faith to know in particular when and where words capable of so many and so different meanings are determinately to be vnderstood in this or that sense If you say God might put a remedy to this diversity of meanings by setling the indetermination or diversity of mens vnderstandings with perpetuall Miracles effectually keeping them all to the same judgment of all the same places or subtracting his concurse to all contrary assents I answer this would be a strang kind of proceeding or Miracle neither would it make any thing to your purpose because as I sayd we speake of a writing taken alone without Miracle or Tradition And seing de facto God workes no such Miracle as we see by Experience in the disagreements of Christians concerning places of Scripture which for the words seeme very evident it followes that both for the divinity and Interpretation or true meaning of Scripture we must depend on Tradition or a Living Judge And thus is answered your Argument that no man can without Blasphemy deny that Christ Iesus could haue writ vs a Rule of Faith so plaine and perfect as that it should haue wanted neither any part to make vp its integrity nor any clearness to make it sufficiently intelligible For I grant that our Saviour could by Miracle haue procured that all men should frame the same Judgment of the same words but deny that this could haue happened infallibly by meanes of any one writing alone which is our present Question and your having recourse to our Saviours extraordinary Power proves the very thing to be true which I affirme that it cannot be done by any one writing alone And when Charity Maintayned sayd we acknowledg Holy scripture to be a most perfect Rule for as much as a writing can be a Rule every one sees by the whole drift of his discovrse and plain words that he spoke of a writing alone and considered according to the nature therof and in that course which God de facto holds without dreaming of Metaphysicall suppositions of your imagination or of flying to such Miracles as God neither hath nor for ought we can vvith any shadow of reason imagine ever vvill worke vniversally in the vnderstandings of all men to belieue with certainty the particular dogmaticall sense of words for the vnderstanding wherof they haue no certaine vniversall Rule either evidently seene by Reason or certainly believeed by revelation It is also evident that when Cha Ma spoke the aforesayd words of Scripture He compared it not with all writings which successively and without end may interpret or declare one an other but with any one writing taken alone which as I haue proved can not possibly propose conserue or interpret itself For as Scripture or the Bible is one whole work or booke so it ought to be compared only with one other writing or booke as also He spoke of a writing as it is contradistinguished from Tradition or a perpetuall Living Judg. But if you will be supposing a multiplication or as it were successiue addition of a latter writing to extend or declare the former you are out of our case of a sole writing and joyne a writing with a Living Writer and Judg and so grant perforce the very thing which we affirme and you pretend to deny If the Apostles were still Living to declare their former writings by word of mouth or new Scriptures we needed no other Living Judg but seing they are deceased and no one writing is sufficient to interpret it selfe we must haue recourse to some present alwayes existent and Living Judg for determining Controversyes of Faith and interpreting Holy Scripture I belieue the vnpartiall Reader will Judge that which you call Boyes-play to haue turned in good earnest to a greater disadvantage to yourselfe and your cause than you imagined And that your Arguments are of no force to proue that any one writing can of it self be a perfect Rule of Faith 185. We grant that whatsoever is spoken may be written and affirme that as no one writing so no one speech can be a compleat Rule of Faith but both the one and the other stand in need of some other speach or writing to declare them as occasion shall require neither do we pretend that the Church can set downe in any one writing all traditions and Interpretations or Declarations of all things belonging to Faith but she can and will by severall writings declare Doubts as they shall occurre necessary to be determined You say Neither is that an Interpretation which needs againe to be interpreted as if a word or writing or Interpretation might not be cleare for some part and yet need a further Declaration in some other respect or point or purpose or for such as did not fully vnderstand the first Interpretation And as you say it is one thing to be a perfect Rule of Faith another to be proved so vnto vs so it is one thing to be a true yea a full Interpretation in it self another to appeare so without addition of some other declaration as also the first interpretation may giue some light yet to be further perfited by some subsequent exposition None can deny that the Canonicall Writers of the New Testament

alledging some passages of the Old and by alledging them to a certaine purpose they interpret and declare them to signify that for which they alledge them are not alwayes so cleare in every respect as that they may not require some Interpretation or Explication as we see performed by Holy Fathers and Interpreters of scripture who somtyme find difficulty even in fynding in the Old Testament what is cited out of it and we have heard out of a Protestant Doctour that The Apostles and divine Writers bring the same Testimony to divers purposes which shewes that every interpretation doth not adequate the sense yea since some Protestants hold that the same Text of Scripture cannot admit severall true and different senses as Fulk in his Confutation of Purgatory Pag 151. and Willet in his Synopsis Pag 26. they must aknowledg great difficulty in the interpretation of the same places to â—â—vers purposes as Divine Writers haue done and will be forced to giue some interpretation or declaration of those very different interpretations which Canonicall Writers gaue of those Texts of the Old Testament Thus your Arguments being clearly confuted I must put you in mynd of some Points on which I belieue you did not reflect and which will proue that it is not Char Main but yourself who giue a thing with one hand and take it away with the other 186. In your first Answer to an Objection which you make against yourself Pag 55 N. 8. you say God might giue a writing the attestation of perpetuall Miracles that it is a Rule of Faith and the word of God This you giue heer and yet you take it away in your Answer to your Third Motiue to be a Roman Catholike where you say the Bible hath bene confirmed with those supernaturall and divine Meracies which were wrought by our Saviour Christ and his Apostles and add It seemes to me no strang thing that God in his Iustice should permit sometrue Miracles to be wrought to delude them who haue forged so many as apparently the professours of the Roman Doctrine haue to abuse the world The same you expressly deliver Pag 379. N. 69 Now if even true Miracles may be wrought to delude any sort of people certainly they might haue been wrought to delude the Jewes who despised and impugned the Miracles of our Saviour Christ and his Apostles and denyed Christ to be the true Messias and forged false witnesses to put Him to death and discredit his Doctrine Nay what People or what single Person can be sure that their sinnes haue not deserved such a punishment Every deadly sinne vnrepented will certainly be punished with eternall torments which is the greatest evill that can be imagined or rather so great that it cannot be imagined by any mortall man and therfor much more may every such sinne be justly punished by permitting true Miracles to be wrought to delude the sinner if once that be granted which you affirme How then could our Saviour say John 10.38 If you will not belieue me belieue the workes Or doth not this open a way to affirme that the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles haue beene wrought to delude men And finally to come close to our purpose how could God giue any certaine attestation by any Miracle that Scripture is the word of God if true Miracles may be done to delude men And how do you say in your Answer to your sayd Third Motiue to be a Roman Catholike The Bible de facto hath bene confirmed with those Supernaturall and Divine Miracles which were wrought by our Saviour Christ and his Apostles Is not this with one hand to giue Scripture the prerogatiue of being the word of God and with the other to take it away In the meane tyme I challeng all the enemyes of the Roman Church to shew any one Miracle-forged and approved by Her and yourself know that she censures with excommunication broachers of false Miracles as Charity Maintayned Part 1. Chap. 3. N. 9. shewes and you in your Answer deny it not it being notorious to the whole world that such forgers are most severely punished in Catholique contryes 187. In another respect also you giue and take away Here you tell vs that God might giue scripture the Attestation of perpetuall Miracles that it is the word of God and in your Answer to your third Motiue as I sayd even now you say that the scripture hath bene confirmed with those innumerous supernaturall and Divine Miracles which were wrought by our Saviour Christ and his Apostles If this be so we must inferr that as the particular contents of scripture for example the Incarnation Life Death Resurtection and Ascension of our Saviour Christ c being confirmed by Miracles became materiall Objects of our Faith so seing you confesse this Truth The Bible is the word of God to be proved by the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles it followes evidently that it is a materiall Object of Faith no less then the particular Truths which it contaynes Andthis your selfe affirme in this very place in your Second Answer where you say by Scriptures not 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 Is not this to say that one of the things which cannot be proved by Scripture and yet are to be believed is that Scripture is the word of God Therfor we are to belieue that Scripture is the word of God and what is this but to be a materiall Object of our Faith This I say you teach here But in other places you affirme and take care to proue that Scripture is not one of the materiall Objects of our Faith as shall appeare in my next Chapter 188. You do also overthrow what we haue heard you say that Miracles may be wrought to delude men by the contrary doctrine delivered Pag 144. N. 31. in these words It is impossible that God should lye and that the Eternall Truth should set his hand and seale to the Confirmation of a falshood or of such Doctrine as is partly true and partly false The Apostles Doctrine was thus confirmed therfor it was intirely true and in no part either false or vncertaine But how is this true if the Apostles might haue bene permitted to worke even true Miracles to delude men or how is not their Doctrine vncertaine if you cannot be certaine but that their Miracles were wrought to such an end of deluding men How many wayes are you fallen into that which you objected to your Adversary as direct Boyes-play Giving taking away saying vnsaying and in a vvord contradicting yourself not in any by-point or incident speech as that was which without reason you taxed in Charity Mâ—â—tayned but in a matter of greatest moment as is the certainty and belief of Holy Scripture one of the prime Objects of Christian Faith 189. I knovv not

which is cleare by his words Quod horum sit faciendum Which of those things ought be done as also because he speakes vpon a supposition if the scripture did prescribe somthing and you will not deny but in that case we were obliged to belieue not only that it was or was not practised but also that the thing in it self was lawfull and then he sayth that beside scripture we ought to imbrace and not to dispute against the vniversall practise of the church The same Holy Father teaches that the custome of baptizing childreÌ„ cannot be proved by scriptute alone and yet that it is to be believed as derived from the Apostles The custome of our Mother the Church saith he Lib 10. de Gen ad Lit Cap 23. in baptizing infants is in no wise to be contemned nor to be accounted superfluous nor is it at all to be believed vnless it were an Apostolicall Tradition 201. Ponder first how the baptizing of infants is not to be contemned or accounted a vaine or vnprofitable thing and not only that we are to belieue there is such a practise 2. That seing what the Church practises is to be believed and yet that it were not at all to be bebelieved vnless it were an Apostolicall tradition it followes that what the vniversall Church practises is an Apostolicall Tradition and consequently certaine and infallible though it be not written in scripture And Serm 14. de Verbis Apostoli Chap 18. speaking of the same Point of baptizing children he sayth This the Authority of our Mother the Church hath against this strength against this invincible wall whosoever rusheth shall be crushed in peeces Which place is so cleare for vs that the Protestants in the Conference at Ratisbone could giue no answer but this Nos ab Augustine hac in parte libere dissentimus In this we freely disagree from Augustine But of this answer you take no notice though you redd it in Charity Maintayned and seeke to answer this very place of S Austine alledged by Him And of the Quesstion of not rebaptizing c Lib. 1. Cont Crescon Cap. 32. 33. He sayth we follow indeed in this matter even the most certaine authority of canonicall scriptures But how Doth he meane that the Question is in particular evidently delivered in scripture In no wise How then Heare his words Although verily there be brought no example for this Point out of the Canonicall scriptures yet even in this Point the truth of the same scripture is held by vs while we do that which the authority of scriptures doth recommend that so because the Holy scripture cannot deceiue vs whosoever is afrayd to be deceived by the obscurity of this Question must haue recourse to the same church concerning it which without any ambiguity the holy scripture doth demonstrate to vs. Consider that we are sayd to follow scripture while we follow the church even in a thing not expressed in scripture and that he speakes not only of examples not found in scripture but of that Question Doctrine and truth it selfe affirming that the truth of scripture is held while we follow the church and that because the scripture cannot deceiue vs the way not to be deceyved is to haue recourse to that church which the same scripture recommends which certainly were no good advise or direction if the church might be deceived neither could S. Austine referr vs to the church in stead of the scripture or as if the Question were defined by the scripture it self vnless the church be infallible as scripture is And de Baptismo cont Donat. Lib 5. C. 23. he hath these remarkable words The Apostles indeed haue prescribed nothing of this about not rebaptizing c but this custome ought to be believed to be originally taken from their Tradition as are many things which the vniversall church observeth which are therfor with good reason believed to haue bene commanded by the Apostles although they be not written Could any thing haue bene spoken more clearly to shew that the vniversall church is an infallible Proposer not only of examples matters of fact or practise but also of Precepts Commands and Doctrine And the same glorious Saint saith vniversally Lib. 7. de Baptismo Cap. 53. It is safe for vs to avouch with confident and secure words that which in the Government of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is strengthned by the consent of the vniversall church 202. By what we haue sayd in confutation of this your fift answer the Reader will of himself see the weakness of your chief answeres Pag. 151. N. 42.43.44 to these and other places alledged out of S. Austine by Charity Maintayned Part 1. Chap. 3. N. 16. as also out of S. Chrysostome who treating these words 2. Thess. 2. Stand and hold the traditions which you haue learned whether by speach or by our epistle saith Homil. 4. Hence it is manifest that they delivered delivered not all things by letter but many things also without writing and these also are worthy of belief Let vs therfor account the Tradition of the church worthy of belief It is a Tradition seeke no more Which words are so plaine against Protestants that Whitaker de sacra scrip Pag 678. is as plaine with S. Chrisostome and sayes I Answer that this is an inconsiderate speech vnworthy so great a Father These words of Whitaker were alledged in the same place by Charity Maintayned but are dissembled by you who Pag. 153. N. 45.46 giue two slight answers to the sayd words of S. Chrisostome the first is like to that which in the first place you gaue to the words of S. Austine that I was to proue the Church infallible not in her Traditions but in all her decrees and difinitions of Controversyes Which answer I haue confuted already and it is directly contrary to S. Chrisostome who not only sayth that we are to belieue the church affirming such or such a thing to haue bene delivered but also that the things so delivered are worthy of belief as he sayd of things delivered by the Apostles without Writing and to be believed in such manner as we are to seek no more Therfor we are to rely on the churches Tradition as vpon a sure and certaine ground or Rule of Faith It was not without cause that Whitaker a man of so great note in England was so angry with S. Chrisosstome 203. Your second Answer is That the things Which the Apostles delivered without writing are worthy of belief if we know what they were Which is not to answer but to deride S. Chrysostome as if he spoke of a Chimera and not of any thing of vse or existent and applicable to practise and in stead of saying as he doth It is a Tradition seeke no more it is worthy of belief He should haue sayd There is no such thing as Tradition seeke it not nor belieue it Besides in this very conditionall grant that we were to belieue Tradition of

which I am bound to belieue the belief of both is necessary the one for it selfe the other for that other which is supposed to be necessary of it self as you say the belief of scripture is only for the belief of the contents Secondly if the reason for which I belieue a thing be not only true but also by the nature therof necessarily obliges me to belieue that thing which it proves in that event whersoever I find that reason I shall remaine obliged to belieue that Object which it proves This is our case For no Christian yea no man indued with reason can deny but that if I belieue an Object as testifyed by God I am obliged to belieue all other Truths so testifyed Now I pray you tell vs the reason for which at this tyme you hold yourself obliged to belieue the contents of scripture You must answer because they are revealed by God testifying the truth of them by many and great miracles Then I aske for what reason do you belieue Scripture to be the word of God If you answer because God hath testifyed it to be such by those Miracles which the Apostles wrought to proue their words and writings to be infallible and inspired by the Holy Ghost then I inferr that as you are bound to belieue the contents of Scripture so you are also obliged to belieue Scripture it self seing you haue the same reason to belieue that God hath testifyed both the Scripture and the contents therof If you belieue Scripture to be the word of God not for the Divine Testimony for which you belieue the contents but for some other Reason then your saying There is not alwayes an equall necessity for the belief of those things for the belief wherof there is an equall Reason was impertinent because for the belief of Scripture there is not the same reason for which you belieue the verityes therin contained and your other saying Pag. 218. N. 49 must be false that no man at this tyme can haue reason to belieue in Christ but he must haue the same to belieue the Scripture if it be true that you belieue not scripture for the same reason for which you belieue Christ and other mysteryes contained in it But let vs know indeed for what reasoÌ„ you belieue Scripture to be the word of God It seemes one may answer for you out of your Answer to your Third Motiue where you teach that the Bible hath bene confirmed with those supernaturall and Divine Miracles which were wrought by our Saviour Christ and the Apostles And Pag. 379. N. 69. you say following the Scripture I shall belieue that which vniversall never-failing Tradition assures me that it was by the admirable supernaturall worke of God confirmed to be the word of God If this be true how are not men obliged to belieue that which hath bene so confirmed Or for what other reason do you belieue the Truths contayned in Scripture as our Saviour His Incarnation Life Death Resurrection and other Mysteryes of Christian Faith but because they were confirmed by the admirable supernaturall workes of God wherby you expressly grant Scripture to haue bene confirmed to be the word of God You must therfor either grant that there is a necessity to belieue Scripture to be the word of God or deny that there is a necessity to belieue the contents therof And then further for our present Question you must either grant that Scripture is a materiall Object of Faith or deny that the verityes therin contayned are such an Object vnless you will confess yourself to be a very strang and vnreasonable man to belieue the matter of the bookes of Scripture and not the Authority of the bookes and therfor since you profess not to be obliged to belieue these may not one haue reason to vse your owne words to feare that you do not thinke yourself obliged to belieue that Nay is it not apparent still I vse your owne words that you at this tyme cannot without hypocrisy pretend an obligation to belieue in Christ but of necessity you must acknowledg an obligation to belieue the Bookes of scripture seing you can haue no reason to thinke you are obliged to belieue in Christ but must haue the same to belieue the scripture and if your belief of the contents of scripture or of obligation to belieue them be vnreasonable it cannot proceed from the particular motion of the Holy Ghost nor be an Act of divine Faith And I beseech you reflect that here there is not only the same reason for the truth of things in themselves but also for our obligation to belieue them namely the divine Testimony which Point if you obserue you cannot but see how impertinent your example was about believing there was such a man as King Henry which you say one is not bound to belieue and that Iesus Christ suffered vnder Pontius Pilate which is a Truth set downe in a writing confirmed by Miracles to be the word of God and consequently to deny the Mysteryes contained in that booke were to reject a thing confessed to be witnessed by God And is not a man obliged to belieue whatsoever he knowes to be witnessed by God I sayd your example is impertinent but I must add that it is also false vnchristian and blasphemous to say as you doe We haue I belieue as great reason to belieue there was such a man as Henry the eight King of England as that Iesus Christ suffered vnder Pontius Pilate Haue you as great reason to belieue the Chronicles of England and the Testimony of men as to belieue the word of God 10. Morover though it import nothing to our present Question whether or no you speake true in saying there is not alwayes an equall necessity for the belief of those things for the belief wherof there is an equall reason yet perhaps you will not easily make it good if there be perfectly and entirely the same reason and of the same kind for both of them For if I conceaue the same reason for both if I belieue the one I may belieue the other nay I haue a necessity to belieue it so far as I cannot belieue the contrary as it is impossible from the same premises belieued to be the same to inferr contrary or contradictory conclusions If perhaps you answer that when one believes a thing for a reason which he sees to be the self same for another he cannot dissent from that other yet he may suspend his vnderstanding from any positiue assent to it which he cannot doe when there is a command to belieue it This answer will not serue your turne but first it is against your self who Pag. 195. N. 11. say to Cha Ma your distinction between Points necessary to be believed and necessary not to be disbelieved is a distinction without a difference there being no point to any man at any tyme in any circumstances necessary not to be dâ—sbelieved but it is to the same man at

that nothing but Gods word or Revelation can erect or qualify an Act of Faith and consequently only Gods infallible Word can be a Rule of Faith 14. But it is tyme that we come to the matter it self aÌ„d coÌ„fute this errour which in effect I haue done already by occasion of examining some sayings of yours 15 First then I oppose yourself to yourself And beside the places which I haue alledged aboue out of your Answer to your Third Motiue where you confess scripture to haue bene confirmed with those supernaturall and Divine Miracles which were wrought by our Saviour Christ and his Apostles and out of your Pag 55. N. 8. That By Scriptures not all things absolutely may be proued which are to be believed For it can never be proved by Scripture to againsayer that there is a God or that the Booke called Scripture is the word of God c In which words you ranke scriptures among those things which are to be believed which is to be a materiall Object of Faith as the existence of God is such an object besides I say the places which I haue produced already I must not omit what you say Pag 141. N. 28. where you suppose that the Apostles revealed what Books are Canonicall and that what they delivered in that kind is an Article of Faith and if an Article of Faith then it is a materiall object of Faith and Pag 142. N. 29. where you expressly say of some Bookes that if they were approâ—ed by the Apostles this ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ hope was a sufficient definition and I hope that the definition of the Apostles is sufficient to make a thing an Object of Faith and induce an obligation for vs to belieue it Also Pag 90. N. 101. speaking in the person of an English Protestant you say Scripture evidently containeth or rather is our Religion and the sole and adequate object of our Faith If scripture be the sole and adequate object of Faith certainly it is an object of Faith or a thing believed by Faith How then do you teach that it is not an object of Faith Besides into what extremes do you fall teaching on the one syde that scripture is not a materiall object of Faith and yet affirme that it aÌ„d it only is the Object of Faith by being the sole aÌ„d adequate object therof And thus as somtyme you teach that not scripture it self but only the contents therof are the object of Faith so now you must say that not the contents but only scripture it self is the object thereof because having begun to say that scripture containeth the objects of Faith by way of correcting that speach you say it is rather the sole aÌ„d adequate object of it giving to vnderstaÌ„d that at least rather scripture then the contents therof are the object of Faith and that you had spoken more truly or more exactly if you had sayd scripture is the sole and adequate object of Faith theÌ„ in saying it containeth the objects of Faith To this I add what you write Pag 115. N. 156. Nothing can challeng our belief but what hath desceÌ„ded to vs from Christ by originall and vniversall Tradition now nothing but Scripture hath thus dâ—sceÌ„ded to vs therfore nothing but Scripture can challenge our belief Doth not this clearly declare that scripture challenges our belief You say also Pag 377. N. 58. All Christians in the world those I meane that in truth deserue this name do now aÌ„d alwayes haue believed the Scripture to be the word of God Therfor say I the belief of all Christians that in truth deserue that name is that scripture is the word of God or an object of their belief which since you deny how will men say do you deserue the name of Christian Also if meÌ„ may be saved by believing the mysteryes of ChristiaÌ„ religion though they be ignoraÌ„t of scripture yea and deny it how can you say they deserue not the name of Christians Or if they do not deserue that name surely they caÌ„not be saved And how caÌ„ you say all Christians in the world do now and aâ—wâ—yes haue believed Scripture to be the word of God since P. 116. N. 159. you affirme out of S. Irenaeus that some barbarous nations believed the doctâ—inâ— of Christ and yet belieued not the Scripture and you say expresly these barbarous people might be saved How theÌ„ is it true that all Christians haue alwayes believed scripture to be the word of God Lastly you speake home wheÌ„ P. 337. N. 19. you say The Church may yet moâ—e truly be said to perish when she Apostates from Christ absolutely or rejects even those Truths out of which her heresies may be reformed as if she should directly deny Iesus to be the Christ or the Scripture to be the word of God If the Church must perish by denying Scripture to be the word of God you must grant that the contrary Truth Scripture is the word of God must be a matter of Faith as it is a matter of Faith that Jesus is the Christ But because it is no newes for you to cotradict your self I coÌ„fute your doctrine by other argumeÌ„ts 16. Secondly it is impossible to belieue the matters contayned in Scripture to be revealed by God vpon the Authority of Scripture vnless we belieue the Authority of Scripture it self to be revealed For how can I belieue a thing because such a man affirmes it vnless I belieue both that he affirmes it and that his word deserves credit But Protestants belieue the contents of scripture for the Authority of scripture or as we haue heard Potter speaking Pag. 143. For divine revelation made in scripture Therfor they must belieue the Authority of scripture and so scripture it self is no less a materiall Object of Faith than the contents of it which are confessed to be a materiall object of Faith because they are believed 17. Thirdly If Trismegistus Plato or any other of fallible Authority had casvally delivered the same Mysteryes which Christians belieue he who should haue taken them only vpon such Authority could not haue believed by a firme infallible Divine Faith Therfor it is not sufficient to belieue the Matters contayned in scripture vnless they be believed for some firme and infallible Authority Therfor if we belieue the Mysteryes of Christian Faith for scripture we must beliue scripture itself to be of infallible Authority And Protestants in particular can haue no Faith at all who pretend to belieue all the Mysteryes of our Faith for the Authority of scripture alone if scriptur be not believed to be infallible 18. Fourtly I take an Argument from your reason to the contrary For those people of whom S. Irenaeus speakes had not bene obliged to belieue the Mysteryes of Christian Faith vnless they had bene confirmed aÌ„d made credible by Arguments which proved them to proceed from God but you graÌ„t that the scripture is proved to proceed froÌ„ God by those very Miracles which were wrought by Christ aÌ„d

his Apostles therfor if these people were theÌ„ obliged to belieue the coÌ„teÌ„ts of scripture christiaÌ„s now are for the same reasoÌ„ obliged to belieue scripture it self 19. Fiftly Not vnlike to this Reason is that which I tooke from your owne words Pag 115. N. 156. where you teach that nothing can chalenge our belief but what hath descended to vs by originall and vniversall Tradition and that scripture alone is such therfor scripture doth chaleng our belief and is an object of Christian Faith 20 From these two last Arguments I deduce that this Truth Sctipture is the word of God is an object to be believed by Faith though we should suppose that it were proposed to one whom God would not oblige to know the particular Mysteryes contained therin because independently of any such obligation it is sufficieÌ„tly proposed as a thing revealed by God and consequently as an Article of Faith abstracting from any relation to a further end Which consideration overthrowes the ground of your assertion that the belief of scripture is referred to the end of believing the contents of it and therfore itself is not an object of Faith 21. Sixtly If we be not obliged to belieue the scripture Protestants are not bound to belieue the contents therof as I haue often sayd vpon severall occasions because they haue no notice of the contents but by scripture it self Neither can you answer that we are obliged to belieue scripture as a meanes to lead vs to the verityes contayned in it For this answer supposes that I haue some notice and belief of being obliged to belieue the matter of scripture before I belieue the scripture wheras Protestants must say the direct contrary to wit that all their belief or any apprehension of the particular Truth of scripture proceeds from and is grounded in scripture which therfor must be believed before we can be obliged to the belief of those particular Truths So that if we haue no antecedent obligation to belieue scripture we cannot possibly in the grounds of Protestants be obliged to belieue the contents therof Besides this Answer overthrowes your owne Assertion and grants that we are obliged to belieue the scripture at least as a meanes de facto necessary to attayne the belief of the contents therof it being cleare that if I be obliged to attayne an End I am necessarily obliged to vse the Meanes which is necessary to attaine that End and consequently this Answer doth not excuse you but strongly proves that you haue a strict obligation to belieue scripture since you are obliged to compasse that End of the belief of those Divine Truths which it containes Neither is our Question whether scripture be a materiall Object believed for itself alone as I sayd aboue but whether it be an Object which I am obliged to belieue which this very Answer is forced to grant This discourse is clearly confirmed by your words Pag. 86. N. 93. It was necessary that God by his Providence should preserve the scripture from any vndiscernable corruption in those things which he would haue knowen otherwise it is apparent it had not bene his will that these things should be knowen the only meanes of coÌ„tinuing the knowledg of theÌ„ heing perished Much more you must say it is appareÌ„t it had not bene Gods will that the conteÌ„ts of scripture should be knowne if we need not knowe yea if we may reject the only meanes of begetting or continuing the knowledg of them which you in this very particular acknowledg to be scripture and thence you inferr that God could not but preserue it from any vndiscernable corruption 22. Seventhly They who believed these Articles of Christian Faith because the Apostles and Apostolicall men did preach them believed not only the Mysteryes or Matters which they preached but also the Authority of those Preachers as of persons worthy of credit so that it was a materiall object of Faith that the Apostles spoke in the name of God and inspired by him yea the matters proposed were believed for the Authority of the proposers which therfor must be believed at least as much as the things believed yourself saying Pag 377. N. 59. VVe must be surer of the proofe then of the thing proved otherwise it is no proofâ— Therfor as their words so their writings must be believed as an object of faith at least as much as the truths which they spoke or wrote neither doth speaking or writing make any difference at all in this point And as you say their writings were referred to the belief of the things which they wrote or were taken as Meanes for that End so their speaking or preaching was ordained to beget a belief of the things which they spoke and so there is a most exact parity neither caÌ„ you exclude the authority of scripture from being a materiall Object of Faith but you must likewise say that meÌ„ were not bound to belieue the Authority of the Apostles when they preached and consequently that they were not obliged to belieue the Truths which they preached and which they could belieue only in vertue of the belief of such an authority And further although it were supposed that some one or more believed the Articles of Christian Faith by an extraordinary Motion and light of the Holy Ghost without the Preaching or writing of the Apostles and lived according to their belief and were saved In that case although those men could not be obliged to belieue the preaching or writing of the Apostles precisely as a meanes for attaining the belief of those Articles which they believed already yet they would remayne obliged to belieue the authority of the Apostles if at any tyme it came to be sufficieÌ„tly propounded and proved by miracles or other argumeÌ„ts of credibility and could no more reject it theÌ„ they could disbelieue the articles of Christian Faith sufficiently proposed Therfor the authority of the Apostles and the infallibility of their preaching aÌ„d writing is sufficient to terminate an act of faith that is to be a materiall object therof even of it self or takeÌ„ alone because so taken it may be proved to be revealed by God which is the formall motiue for which we belieue all the materiall object of faith Since therfor you teach as I haue often put you in mynd that scripture had bene confirmed by Miracles you caÌ„not deny it to be a materiall object of Faith And this argument is stronger against you theÌ„ the case I put doth declare wherin it was supposed that the articles of our faith were knowne by some other meanes then by the preaching or writing of the Apostles wheras de facto you profess to know those articles only by scripture which therfor you are obliged to belieue vpoÌ„ a double title or account that is both as it is credible in itself by divine argumeÌ„ts abstracting froÌ„ any further end aÌ„d also as a meanes to attaine the sayd end of believing the articles therin contayned 23. Eightly You confess

a confused aggregatum per accidens of truths different in nature and kind and as I may say to incorporate with Gods word Apocryphall Writings which are so called not because they may not be true but because they are not Divine as the dictates of humane prudence are not and do you not cosen people who belieue that all is scripture which is contayned in S. Paules Epistles You say the Bible hath bene confirmed by Miracles I aske whether all truths coÌ„tayned in it haue beene so coÌ„firmed or no If they haue seing you say here N. 31. it is impossible God should set his hand and seaâ—e to the confirmation of a falshood at least now all the words of S. Paul are attested by God and growne to be matters of Faith though we should falfly suppose they were not such in vertue of his teaching theÌ„ as our Saviour sayd If yee will not belieue me beleeue the workes Joa 10.38 If you say all Truths in scripture were not confirmed by Miracles it is as good in order to vs as if none had bene so confirmed since the Miracles themselves do not specify what in particular they confirme and what not and so we can only belieue in generall that some Points contayned in the Bible are Truths but this is not enough to belieue with certainty any one in particular Besides all this S. Paul in counselling virginity counsells the same which our B. Saviour had done before as is recorded Matth 12.12 and therfor he delivers a Divine Revelation which he knew to be such and spoke not out of humane prudence as you would haue him If it be objected how then doth he say I speak not but our Lord Ianswer It cannot be sayd I speak not by inspiration but our Lord for what an incongruous speach were that But I speak signifyes I counsell advise command or permit by antithesis to those other words V 10. Not I giue command but our Lord. You know Catholiques are wont to alledg this Chapter of S. Paul to proue as a Point of Faith the counsell of perperuall virginity and yet never any of our Adversaryes haue excepted against this Argument by saying S. Paul professes to deliver that matter only as a dictate of humane reason and not as a Divine Revelation which had been a cleare and vnanswerable reply that we could not proue by that place perpetuall virginity to be more perfect as a Point of Faith if they had bene of your mynd and they might easily haue told vs that we could not proue an Article of Faith by words which the Apostle himself professes to containe but a humane dictamen But so it is They who once forsake Gods Church learne only and practise and teach others this lesson Evill men and seduce â—s shall prosper to the worse erring and driving into errours 2 â—â—noth 3. V. 32. 42. I would gladly make an end of this matter But first I must aske how you can say N. 32. If we will pretend that the Lord did certainly speak what S. Paul speakes and that his judgment was Gods commandment shall we not plainly contradict S. Paul and that spirit by which he wrote For who ever pretended that S. Paules judgment was Gods command Contrarily when his judgment is that such a thing is no command of God we do most firmely belieue that it is no command because we are sure that he was no less assisted by Inspiration in saying V. 12. it was no command speake I not our Lord than when V. 10. he declared a command not I but our Lord. 43. Now vpon the whole matter it followes out of this your Errour that although all things necessary to be believed were contayned in scripture yet that were not enough to make it a sufficient Rule or any Rule at all for Christian Faith seing we cannot be absolutely certaine when the writers therof set downe divine Revelations or only dictates of humane reason yea and as you say S. Paul was not inspired by God when he Counselled virginity and consequently might haue erred therin so we cannot be sure that indeed he gaue any such judgment or counsell but that as in counselling so in writing and setting downe that counsell he was no more assisted by Inspiration thaÌ„ in giving it And I will end with these words of Christanity Maintayned about the sayd Texts of S. Paul Chap 4. N. 9. Pag 44. Certainly if the Apostles did sometymes write out of their owne private judgment or spirit though it were granted that themselves could discerne the diversity of those motions or spirits which one may easily deny if their vniversall infallibility be once impeached yet it is cleare that others to whom they spake or wrote could not discerne the diversity of those spirits in the Apostles For which cause learned Protestants acknowledge that although each mans private spirit were admitted for direction of himself yet it were not vse full for teaching others Thus you say P. â—41 N. 27 A supernaturall assurance of the incorruption of scriptures may be an assurance to ones selfe but no argument to another And as you affirme Pag. 62. N. 25 that Bookes that are not Canonicall may say they are and those that are so may say nothing of it so we cannot be assured that the Apostles deliver Divine Revelations though they should say they doe nor that they deliver not such Revelations though they say nothing therof if once we deny their vniversall infallibility A fourth Errour is set downe in your Pag 62. N. 24. and Pag 141. N. 27. where you profess to know no other meanes to be assured of the scriptures incorruption then you haue that any other Booke is incorrupted and that your assurance of both is of the same kind and condition though this for scripture be farre greater for the degree both Morall assurances and neither physicall or Matematicall 44. If this Doctrine may pass for true it will necessarily follow that the assurance which we haue of scripture must not only be of the same kind but be farr less for the degree of it seing the bookes of prophane Authors haue a more full testimony and tradition of all sorts of men Atheists Pagans Jewes Turkes and Christians wheras the Bible was either vnknowen or impugned or not much regarded by all except Christians and by some also who pretended to the name of Christian Tymes stood so with the Jewes that the Old scripture was once lost as some say or at least lay hid and Christians had not those commodityes to transcribe faithfully Copyes of the new Testament which pagans had for publishing their Bookes Whence it comes to pass that we find not so many divers readings in Cicero Virgill and other prophane bookes as vve find in scripture To which if we add the many vulgar Translations and Editions to what vncertainty shall we be brought if we proceed only by humane morall assurance of scripture without any living visible Guide the Church so directed by

the holy Ghost as we may be most certainly assured that she will either neuer permit such corruptions to happen or will never make vse of them As we were assured the Apostles could never approue any corruption in scripture though in their tymes it could not be avoyded but that Errours might be committed by the diversity of transcribers so many centuryes of yeares before Printing was in vse And in vaine do you Pag. 62. N. 24. alledg that Divine providence will never suffer the way to Heaven to be blocked vp or made invisible which no man denyes but seing his holy Providence cannot be contrary to itself and disposes of all things sweetly by Meanes proportionable to his Ends we must even from hence gather that he hath left Meanes to beget a true divine supernaturall Faith more firme than we yield to humane storyes which cannot be done by scripture alone if we neither be certaine that it is not corrupted nor haue any other infallible Guide to rely on besides the bare written word and so this your Assertion proves that which you seeke most to avoyd that scripture alone even though it were falsly supposed to contayne all things necessary to be believed cannot be sufficient to erect an Act of Faith for want of strength of an infallible authority because still we remayne vncertaine and vnsatisfyed whether perhaps it be not corrupted in that part vpon which we build our assent 54. Your sift Errour not vnlike to this I touched aboue out of your Pag. 116. N. 159. where you say We haue I belieue as great reason to belieue there was such a man as Henry the eight King of England as that Iesus Christ suffered Vnder Pontius Pilate You should haue sayd we haue farr greater reason to belieue that there was such a man as Henry the eight or Alexander Caesar Pompey c if your false Assertion were true that Christian Faith rihes no higser than humane Tradition and story can raise it For we haue a more full and vniversall Tradition and Consent of all sorts of Persons that there were such men as Caesar c and that they fought such battailes obtained such victoryes and the like than that there was one called Jesus Christ that he had Disciples c And what Christian can heare this without detestation Your saying that we haue as great reason to belieue there was such a man as Henry the eight as that Jesus Christ suffered c seemes to signify that we haue as great reason to belieue what is delivered by humane History or Tradition as that which is testifyed or revealed by God since you pretend to belieue that scripture which gives witness to Christ Jesus is the word of God and yet affirme that we haue as great reason to belieue there was such a man as Henry the eight which we know only by humane tradition as that Jesus Christ suffered Vnder Pontius Pilate which we learne from scripture If you grant this as it seemes you expressly doe I suppose your ground must be that which you express Pag 36. N. 8. that the Conclusion alwayes followes the worser part as if a message be brought me from a man of absolute credit with me but by a messenger that is not so my considence of the truth of the relation cannot but be rebated and lessened by my diffidence in the Relatour and therfor because we know only by morall certainty as you speake in the same place that scripture is the word of God and that the contents therof were revealed by God and confirmed by Miracles our belief can be proportionable only to those morall inducements or humane tradition which being as great that there was such a man as Henry the eight as that Jesus Christ suffered c we haue as great reason to belieue that as this If this be your meaning aÌ„d vpoÌ„ this ground theÌ„ I inferr which hither to I haue not so absolutely done that Christian Faith with you is not only fallible and not absolutely certaine but also is no more yea as I haue proved less certaine though it be testifyed by God than if it had bene testifyed or affirmed to be true by men only because all must depend on and be exactly measured not by the difference of Humane and divine testimony but wholy and only by the meanes or probability by which such a Testimony is conveyed to our vnderstanding And this must be the cause which moves you to say that we haue as great reason to belieue there was such a man as Henry the eight as that Jesus Christ suffered Vnder Pontius Pilate because the Motives are a like though the testimony of God and of men be different Or if you say that when we haue the same motiues to belieue that God testifyes a thing and that man doth testify it we haue greater reason to belieue what is testifyed by God than what is testifyed by man then you contradict what yourself say that we haue as great reason to belieue there was such a man as Henry the eight as that Jesus Christ suffered Vnder Pontius Pilate Howsoever I must still conclude that seing according to your Principles and express words we haue as great yea as I haue proved greater reason to belieue there was a Caesar Pompey c than Jesus Christ what will it availe vs in order the exercising to an Act of true Christian Faith that all Points necessary to be believed are contayned in Scripture if in the meane tyme we haue as great reason to belieue what is related in prophane Storyes as what is revealed in scripture 46. A sixt Errour you teach Pag. 67. N. 38. I may beliâ—ue even those questioned Bookes to haue been written by the Apostles and to be Canonicall but I cannot in reason belieue this of them so vndoubtedly as â—f those Books which were never quâ—stioned At least I haue no warrant to damne any man that shall doubt of them or deny them now having the examples of Saints in Heaven either to justify or excise such their doubting or denyall And Pag. 69. N. 45. The Canon of Scripture as we râ—â—eyue it is builded vpon Vniversall Tradition For we do not profess ourselves so absolutely and vndoubtedly certaine neither do we vrge others to be so of those Books which haue been doubted as of those that never haue But this is not all For to the words of Cha. Ma. Part. 1. Chap. 2. N. 9. That according to the sixt Article of the English Protestants which sayth In the name of Holy Scripture we do vnderstand those Canonicall Books of the Old and New Testament of whose Authority was never any doubt in the Church the whole Booke of Esther must quit the Canon and divers Books of the New Testament must be discanonized to wit all those of which some Ancients haue doubted and those which divers Lutherans haue of late denied You answer Pag. 68. N. 43. When they say Of whose Authority there was never any doubt

practicÃ¨ and effectually we judg the Articles of Christian Faith to deserue and require of vs vnder payne of damnation a most certaine infallible belief beyond all precedent Motives of credibility which judgment being the beginning of supernaturall Faith and of it self an Act of great difficulty to humane Reason requires a particular assistance of Divine Grace 72. 4. If we receyue Scripture vpon this your fallible Tradition we shall haue greater certainty of the Bookes of prophane Authours that they were written by such men than that the Books of Scripture were written by those whom we belieue to haue written them because the Tradition is more full for those than for these as I sayd aboue as also there are many works of those men which never any Christian or other called in question wheras scarcely any Book of Scripture hath not bene questioned even by Christians as they are despised and denyed by all the enemyes of Christian Religion It will also follow for the like reason that we are more certaine that there was such a man as Henry the eight King of England Coesar Pompey c. Then that there was such a man as Jesus Christ as I haue shewed already and yet what Christian can heare such blasphemyes without just indignation and horrour 73. 5. Protestants are wont to object that we giue greater credit to men than to the word of God because we belieue the scripture for the authority of Gods church This is of no force against vs who belieue the church to be infallibly assisted and inspired by the Holy Ghost and that God speakes by the church and consequently that the voyce of the church is the voice of God and so we belieue the word of God for the authority and Testimony of God as all must acknowledg the Primitiue of Christians to haue receyved and believed the Scriptures vpon the authority of the Apostles who yet were men but men inspired and infallibly directed by the Holy Ghost But the Objection turned against you is vnanswerable because you ground the belief of scripture and all the contents therof vpon men expressly as they are fallible and subject to Errour whose words you must belieue more than the word of God according to your owne Rule Pag. 377. N. 59. we must be surerof the Proofe than of the thing proved otherwise it is no Proofe 74. This Argument I confirme by your words Pag. 143. N. 30. There is not the same reason for the Churches absolute infallibility as for the Apostles and Scriptures For if the church fall into Errour it may be reformed by comparing it with the rule of the Apostles Doctrine and scripture But if the Apostles haue erred in delivering the Doctrine of Christianity to whom shall we haue recourse for the discovering and correcting their errour Againe there is not so much strength required in the Edifice as in the Foundation and if but wise men haue the ordering of the building they will make it much a surer thing that the Foundation shall not fail the building then that the building shall not fall from the Foundation Now the Apostles and Prophets and Canonicall writers are the foundation of the Church therfor their stability in Reason ought to be greater then the Churches which is built vpon them Again a dependent infallibility cannot be so certaine as that on which it depends But the infallibility of the Church depends vpon the infallibility of the Apostles as the streightness of the thing regulated vpon the streigness of the Rule Therfor the Churches infallibility is not so certaine as that of the Apostles This is your discourse which I pray you apply to our present purpose in this manner There is not the same reason for the Scriptures infallibility as for Tradition For if some Apocryphall Scripture be obtruded for Canonicall it may be reformed by comparing it with vniversall Tradition But if vniversall Tradition hath erred in delivering the Canon of Scripture to whom or to what shall we haue recourse for the discovering and correcting that errour of proposing Apocryphall Scripture Againe if but wise men haue the ordering of a building they will make it a much surer thing that the Foundation shall not faile the building then that the building shall not fall from the foundation Now vniversall Tradition of men subject to errour is to you the Foundation of Scripture therfor their authority in your reason ought to be greater then the Scripture which is built vpon them Againe a dependent infallibility cannot be so certaine as that on which it depends But the infallibility of Scripture depends vpon the infallibility of vniversall Tradition of men Therfor the Scriptures infallibility is not so certaine as that of the Tradition of men that is neither the one nor the other is certaine What say you to this application and to your Doctrine which forces vs to make it But this application rests not here For as you haue told vs that the infallibility of the Apostles must be greater then that of the Church so for the same reasons the infallibility of the Church must be to vs greater then that of the Apostles yea of Christ himself seing you belieue the Apostles and our Saviour Christ to haue bene infallible and to haue proved their infallibility with Miracles only by your vniversall Tradition of the Church which therfor is the foundation on which your belief concerning the Apostles and our Saviour depends and consequently their infallibility is not so certaine to you as the fallible Tradition of men For we must examine and measure our knwledg of the words and workes of the Apostles and our Saviour by Tradition and not Tradition by them because Tradition to you is a Principle in nature and precedent to our belief of Christ the Apostles and Scripture which depend on it as the streightness of the thing regulated vpon the streightness of the Rule 75. 6. Before we belieue Scripture in your way there is no Principle but Reason placed between Motives which you confess make it only probable that Scripture is the Word of God and Arguments which seeme very strong and convincing that the Mysteries contained in Scripture are contrary to the sayd only Principle Reason besides the difficultyes which to the same Reason seeme great and insuperable in answering seeming contradictions of Scripture to it self which are so many and so intricate as certainly they will appeare to any judicious Man vnanswerable without submission to some infallible Authority as a support for humane Reason against the strength of them as appeares by the great paynes taken by learned men and the difference of wayes in satisfying such difficultyes and finally by a true confession that when they haue done their vttermost the last and best refuge is to captivate their vnderstanding to the Obedience of Faith and one thing is most certaine and evident that Protestants reject divers Bookes of Scripture receyved by Catholikes for Canonicall vpon incomparably less seeming difficultyes or

say in your Answer to the Direction where having first set downe your nynth Motive to be a Catholique in these words Because the Protestant cause is now and hath been from the beginning mayntayned with grosse falsifications and calumnyes wherof their prime controversy Writers are notoriously and in high degree guilty Your answer is this N. 43. To the 9. Iliacos intra muros peccatur extra Papists are more guilty of this fault then Protestants Which though it be very false as it touches vs and not so much as offered to be proved by you yet it clearly destroyes your owne kind of Tradition For if both Protestants and Catholiks be notoriously and in high degree guilty of gross falsifications in these tymes why may not the same be sayd to Heretiks in former Ages according to your deduction from the six Ages last past to the six last Ages before them and vpward till we come to Christ himself And so neither Catholikes nor Protestants need now corrupt Authors or Historyes but will find it done to their hands vnless your meaning be that Protestants maintayne their cause with more gross falsifications and Calumnyes and are more notoriously and in a higher degree guilty therof than any Heretiks before them But why do I speak by Inferences and argue by parity of reason Since you also expressly directly and immediatly assirme what I inferred while you say to vs If you take this Authority vpon you vpon the six Ages last how shall we know that the Church of that tyme did not vsurpe the same Authority vpoÌ„ the Authors of the six last Ages before theÌ„ and so vpwards till we come to Christ himself In which words you say much more then I inferrd that by your reasoÌ„ we could not be sure but that as ProtestaÌ„ts are by your owne confession notoriously guilty of gross falsifications in a high degree so former heretiks haue bene For you speake even of the Church and aske how shall we know that the Church of that tyme did not Vsurpe the same Authority of corrupting vpon the Authors of the last six Ages before them and so vpwards till c And this will appeare more easy to haue bene done in the tymes nearest our Saviour and the Apostles when fewer Authors did write in so much as some Protestants affirme S. Justine to be the first whose Writings are not spurious and that helived AÂº 140. And if the first writings and storyes be once corrupted what certainty can we haue of the rest And then Good Sr. If we cannot know but that the Church hath done this what is become of your tradition which for ought you proofess to know will deliver only fained Authors corrupted Storyes forged Miracles Apocriphall Scriptures But in this lyes a mystery not knowen to every one vnless he haue some acquaintance with Socinian Writers who press Protestants with this Argument If the Church might erre and is belieued by you to haue erred in the Ages next precedent to Luther and so vpwards from Age to Age till the first six hundred yeares after Christ which you say were pure what certainty or solid Reason can you alledg why the Church might not also erre in those yeares since you do not hold Her to haue bene Infallible An Argument vnanswerable by Protestants who ther for must either admit the Church in all Ages to be infallible or els can haue no certainty that she did not erre or corrupt or permitted the corruption of Authors and Storyes and Scriptures and forging of Miracles in any Age farr from or neere to the Apostles 83. 3. If the motives of Honour and profit which you Object against the Roman Church Would be very apt to make suspicious men belieue that Christian Religion was a humane invention taught by some cunning Impostors to make themselves rich and powerfull if there were no difference between the Christian and Roman Church I beseech you either informe vs what Christian Church distinct from the Roman or such as agreed with Her against Protestants was there before Luther to wipe away this your cause of suspition Or els giue vs leaue to inferr that you grant there was indeed cause of that suspotion You say Pag 14. N. 14. I know no Protestants that hold it necessary to be able to proue a perpetuall visible Church distinct from yours If this be not necessary it remaynes either that it is not necessary to free Christian Religion from being esteemed a humane invention taught by some cunning Impostors or that you are highly and even ridiculously injurious against the Roman Church as if she a one though not distinct from the Protestant Church could give occasion of any such wicked suspicion and finally that if still you will say there is any thing which would be apt to make suspicious men belieue that Christian Religion is a humane inveÌ„tion it must be the Christian church herself which is a blasphemy fit for such as you are who reduce our belief of Scripture and the assent of Christian Faith to Probability Opinion and meere humane Tradition and such as being according to your Principles for ought you know corrupted is no better than a humane invention 84. 4. What you say of vs Whose questioned Doctrines none of them came from the fountaine of Apostolike Tradition but haue insinuated themselselves into the streames by litle and litle some in one Age and some in another some more Anciently and some more lately makes as I touched aboue a faire way to say the same of some Bookes or parcells or clauses of Scripture and of any Point of Christian Faith which some insidel or Heretike or other enemy of Christian Religion will say came not from the fountaine of Truth but haue insinuated themselves into the streames by litle and litle c which being once granted as possible to happen and we are not sure but in fact that happened if we deny a Living watchfull Guide assisted infallibly by the Direction of the Holy Ghost Your Tradition will also loose all credit as being subject to the like danger of not coming from the fountaine of Apostolike Tradition but of being corrupted forged and having insinuated itself by litle and litle c For if this may happen so easily to Authors Historyes Tradition and Doctrine your Tradition being confessedly no other but humane Historye is manifestly subject to the same exception and totall vncertainty 85. 5. You say of vs who make a profession of corrupting all sorts of Authors a ready course to make it justly questionable whether any remaine incorrupted I beseech you where or when made we profession of corrupting all sorts of Authors Yourself know this to be a vast vntruth But if it were true and were a ready course to make it justly questionable whether any remaine incorrupted it seemes by this your owne saying you caÌ„not haue your TraditioÌ„ froÌ„ any sort of Authors which may not be justly questioned whether or no they remaine vncorrupted And is

regeneration Tit 3. And Baptisme is a meane or instrument by which is made the communication of Christs benefits For by Baptisme Christ cleanseth and sanctifyeth Ephes 5. Yea he saith expressly The testimonyes of Scripture are manifest which as they cannot be denyed so they ought not to be shifted of Ephes 5. Clensing her with the laver of water in the Word Joan 3. Vnless one he borne againe of water c. Act 22. Be Baptized and wash away thy sinnes 1. Pet 3. Speaknig of water c He sayth Baptisme being of the like forme of the Arke of NoÃ« saveth vs. And he concludes These being most manifest tectimonyes which expressly ascribe Efficacy to Sacraments and declare what that Efficacy is are not to be perverted by tropes from their simple and native signisication which the proper signification of the words giveth and so the ancient Fathers haue vnderstood these testimonyes simply as they sound Behold the Doctrine of a chiefest Protestant proved out of Scripture and confessed to be the Doctrine of the Ancient Fathers interpreting Scriptures so as our Catholike Doctrine comes to be approved by Protestants by Scripture and by the Ancient Fathers and by Protestants interpreting Scripture all which Poynts are further taught by the Protestant Urbanus Regius In 1. Part Operum in Cathechismo minori Folio 105. confessing that the Scripture and the Authority of the ancient Church constraine him to belieue that children dying vnbaptized are damned The same Doctrine is delivered by Sarcerius aÌ„d by Confess Augustana The Protestants of Saxony and sundry other Protestant Writers as may be seene in the Tripl Cord Chap 20. Sect 4. Pag 456. 61. Now we may reflect First seing these Protestants for their Doctrine of the necessity of Baptisme rely vpon Scripture as indeed the words of Scripture are as cleare for this Point as any can be I would gladly know what certaine Ground you or any man can haue that so many learned Protestants to say nothing of all Fathers Antiquity and moderne Catholike Writters haue erred in this their Interpretation of Scripture Is it not your owne Rule That when men truly desirous to know the truth and of vpright meaning I hope you belieue Protestants to be such at least most of them differ about the sense of Scripture it is a signe that such places are not evident And seing we now treat of a Point which at least is necessary to be knowen whether or no it be necessary otherwise we cannot be assured that we want nothing necessary to salvation it followes that Scripture is not evident in all things necessary to be knowen and therfor we must haue recourse to a Living Judg. 2. Seing so many of those whom you call brethren teach our Catholique Doctrine whatsoever you object against vs makes no less against them 3. Your saying That Baptisme is a casuall thing and in the power of man to conferr though yet many learned Protestants hold Baptisme to be necessary is a prophane speech as if God had not a most particular Providence in disposing all rhings for the good of his Elect particularly in things necessary to salvation Why do you not likewise object against all Christians their making the salvation of every one depend on the preaching of the Gospell of which our Saviour spoke when he also commanded his Apostles to conferr Baptisme Matth 28.19 which you may also say is a casuall thing and in the power of man to doe or omitt as if God could not be sure how to order infallibly all events or effects vnless they fall out by necessity Nay I say more Our God is so good and desirous that all be saved that if men did strictly concurre and cooperate with his holy Providence and Grace in all occasions things would so fall out as that mediatÃ¨ or immediatÃ¨ proximÃ¨ or remotÃ¨ one way or other there would never want sufficient Meanes for infants to be baptized So farr is this matter from being a casuall thing And still we must consider that infants dying without baptisme are deprived of salvation not for the fault of those who omitted to Baptize them nor properly for want of Baptisme itself but for Originall sin once contracted and never abolished by that meanes and instrument which God hath appointed for that End and Effect as he might in his Justice haue left all Mankind in their sins without providing for them a Redeemer according to the proceeding which he held with the apostating Angells and therfore this Doctrine That children dying without Baptisme cannot be saved implyes no cruelty absurdity or strangeness to those who believe other Poynts of Christian Faith Especially if we consider that although they shall not enjoy felicity in Heaven yet they shall lead their life with much content by contemplation and also by considering that perhaps if their Creatour had granted them longer life yea and procured them to be baptized they might haue dyed in actuall deadly sinne and haue bene damned in Hell with Poena Damni Sensus both of being deprived of the beatificall Vision and of insufferable torments of sense and what greater absurdity is it that infants should Misse of salvation for want of intention in the Minister then if they had not bene in the occasion of not being baptized at all by reason of some other impediment And therfor I see no reason why we should for such cases of want of Intention in the Minister or of due Forme or Matter haue recourse to any extraordinary Meanes which should not be extraordinary but ordinary if God did provide it whensoever the infant is not baptized vpon whatsoever occasion or impediment and so indeed Baptisme should never be absolutely necessary to salvation Besides seing there can be no certainty of extraordinary meanes the matter will still remaine doubtfull and objections must be answered some other waie 62. But you will object That at least we differ from Protestants in suspending the salvation of infants on the Baptizers Intention 63. Answer I haue shewed that some learned Protestants of chief note require the same intention which we doe and also that every iudicious man will certainly judg that there is no danger of invalidity in Baptisme for want of intention but rather in respect of the Matter or Forme and yet not only the Protestant Church of England teaches that the Matter and Forme are necessary for Baptisme but also divers other Protestants deliver the same Doctrine as may be seene in The Triple Cord Pag 457. and the thing is evident of it self to every one who vnderstands the termes of Matter and Forme If men may be damned for their Actuall sinnes though they be supposed to be invincibly ignorant of necessary or fundamentall points of Faith as Potter confesses why may not infants be deprived of Heaven for originall sinne though theire want of Baptisme be not immediatly voluntary to any 64. Your last Objection N. 69. is against Our making he Reall Presence of Christ in

composito as I may say That is vpon supposition that once they be desined he expressly declares as we haue seene that that belongs to the Fundation of Faith whatsoever the Church vniversally holds either in Doctrine or worship When therfore he sayth Princip Doctrin Controv 4. Lib 8. Chap 15. for God as also nature as he is not wanting in things necessary so is he not lavish in superflnityes He speakes not of points of Faith not Fundamentall which being once defined he professes to belong to the Fundation of Faith but in the next precedent words he expressly declares that when he saith the Church is not infallible he vnderstands only that infallibility was not granted to her Propter aut invtiles curiositates explendas aut subtilitates non necessarias investigandas Either for satisfying idle curiosityes or finding out vnnecessary subtiltyes and proves it because God and nature as they are not wanting in things necessary so are they not lavish in superfluityes And therfore Potter did wrong the learned Stapleton alledging those his words as if he had ever dreamed that the Church is not vniversally infallible in all Points of Faith whether the matters of themselves be great or small 96. And you also wrong Charity Maintayned in saying Pag 144. N. 32. That he wrongs Dr. Potter when Part 1. Pag 91. he writes thus Dr. Potter Sect 5. Pag 150. speakes very dangerously toward this purpose of limiting the infallibility of the Apostles and Scripture to necessary Points only as he restraines the Promises made by Christ to his Church where he endeavoureth to proue that the infallibility of the Church is limited to Points Fundamentall because as nature so God is neither defectiue in necessaryes nor lavish in superfluityes Which Reason doth likewise proue that the infallibility of Scripture and of the Apostles must be restrained to points necessary to salvation that so God be not accused as defective in necessaryes or lavish in superfluityes In which words you say Charity Maintayned wrongs Dr. Potter Because it is not he but Dr. Stapleton in him that speakes the words Charity Maintayned cavills at Answer If Charity Maintayned had absolutely assirmed those to be the very words of Dr. Potter the Doctour might blame himself only who having first cited the immediatly precedent words of Dr. Stapleton in a different or cursiue letter declaring that they were Dr. Stapletons and not his owne the words immediatly following for as nature so God is neither defectiue c. he sets downe in the ordinary letter of his Booke both in his first and second Edition 2. Seing Potter accepts and approves those words he must be answerable for all consequences that are truly deduced from them as if they were his owne 3. The truth is Dr. Stapleton brings those words for a purpose not only different but contrary to that for which Dr. Potter alledges them and therfore not Stapleton but Potter must be lyable to all bad consequences which follow out of them For Potter would proue out of them that infallibility was given to the Church not for all but only for Fundamentall points of Faith which we haue seene to be directly contrary to the Doctrine of Stapleton who out of the sayd words proves only that infallibility was not granted for deciding idle curiosityes or vnprofitable subtiltyes And therfor 4. seing the life and essence of words is their signification this being wholy different in those words as they are spoken by Stapleton and vnderstood misapplyed and misalledged by Potter Charity Maintayned did not wrong him but he did wrong Dr. Stapleton in applying the sound and as I may say carcasse of his words against the true meaning and life of them intended and fully declared by Stapleton as you also do wrong Stapleton in approving Potters allegation of those words and Charity Maintayned as if he had wronged Potter Who can deny this to be a good consequence God is neither defectiue in necessaryes nor lavish in superfluityes Therfor he hath not induced the Church with infallibility for deciding of vnprofitable questions which is Stapletons Argument As contrarily this other is of no force God is not lavish in superfluityes Therfore he hath not conferred infallibility vpon his Church for any other Points of Faith and revealed Truths except such as are of themselves necessary to salvation as if all points which are not Fundamentall were curious or vnprofitable matters Which Potter doth inferr directly against the consequence which Stapleton drawes from those very same words affirming that every thing defined by the Church belongs to the Foundation of Faith Besides since Potter alledgeth those words to proue that the promises of our Saviour made to his Church must be restrained to Points Fundamentall least he might seeme lavish in superfluityes Charity Maintayned had reason to inferr that for the same Reason of not being lavish in superfluityes the Doctour might limite the infallibility of the Apostles to necessary and Fundamentall Points Neither is it sufficient for you to say Pag 143. N. 30. that we read in Scripture All Scripture is divinely inspired and therfore All Scripture whether it deliver Fundamentall or not Fundamentall Points is true For Charity Maintayned in this very place and about this very Text of Scripture which you cite out of him and endeavour to answer by way of prevention had confuted this your instance in these words If it be vrged That All Scripture is divinely inspired that it is the word of God c Dr. Potter hath affoarded you a ready answer to say That Scripture is inspired c Only in those parts or parcells wherin it delivereth Fundamentall points Thus Charity Maintayned But you thought safest to dissemble these words And I pray if those vnlimited words concerning the Church that the gates of hell shall not privaile against her Matth 16.18 and that the holy Ghost shall lead her into all truth c which texts are alledged by Potter must be limited to Fundamentall points why may not those other words all scripture is divinely inspired signify only that all scripture is inspired for what belongs to points fundamentall or necessary to salvation as Cha Ma doth vrge in the same place 97. Now then vpon the whole matter it is manifest that the learned Dr. Stapleton teaches neither more nor lesse concerning the Infallibility of the Church than all other Catholikes doe For besides that which we haue sayd already Relect Controv 4. Quest 2. He expressly declares That she is infallible in the Conclusion or Doctrine and definition though it be not necessary that she be Infallible in the Arguments or proofes or manner of teaching Est saith he in ipsa Doctrina infalliblis etsi in forma ratione docendi non ita and therfore he puts no difference between the certainty of her Definitions though the Reasons or proofes which she vse chance to haue of themselves more or less certainty whether they be taken from Scripture or Tradition or otherwise

in regard that these may chance not to be so cleare as of themselves alone to convince 2. He teaches That the objects of Her certainty are not Questions vnnecessary but such as belong to the substance of Faith publike Doctrine and things necessary to salvation and we haue heard him say ad fundamentum Fidei pertinere quidquid Ecclesia tenet sive in Doctrina sive in cultu That whatsoever the Church holds either in Doctrine or in worship belongs to the fundation of Faith and that all things defined by the Church are as if they were primary principles of Faith and so according to him all things defined by the Church belong to the substance of Faith and are necessary to salvation 98. But here is not an end of Potters taxing Dr. Stapleton without ground and against truth For Pag 161. he saith Stapleton hath a new pretty devise that the Church though she be fallible and discursiue in the Meanes is yet Propheticall and depends vpon immediate Revelation and so infallible in delivering the Conclusion And Pag 169. he saith Bellarmin leaves his companion Stapleton to walke alone in this dangerous path and avoweh to the contrary De Concil Lib 1 Chap Â§ Dicuntur igitur that Councells neither haue nor write immediate Revelations But Mr. Doctour to speake truth Bellarmin leaves Stapleton just as you leaue your art of citing Authors against their meaning Bellarmin teaches That Councells neither haue nor write immediate Revelations And does not Stapleton purposely teach and carefully proue the same And does he not doe it even in the first and Third Notabili which immediatly precede that fourth Notabile out of which you pretend to draw that which you call a new pretty devise How then can you say that Stapleton teaches that the Church is Propheticall and depends vpon immediate Reuelation in delivering the Conclusion seing he teaches expressly the contrary Nay doth he not in that very fourth Notabili which you cite expressly say Ecclesiae Doctrina non est simpliciter Prophetica aut ex Revelationibus immediatis dependens The doctrine of the Church is not simply Propheticall or depending vpon immediate Revelations Who would haue believed that in matters of so great consequence you could vse so litle sincerity Dr. Stapleton teaches the same and proves very learnedly Princip Doctrin Contr 4. Lib 8. C. 15. Which very Chapter you also cite and yet make no conscience to tell vs that Bellarmin in this leaues Stapleton But how then doth Stapleton say the Doctrine of the Church is discursiue in the Meanes but is Propheticall and divine in the Conclusion Answer We haue shewed that Stapleton sayes expressly in the same place That the Doctrine of the Church is not Propheticall And besides he explicates the word Prophetica by the word Divina which you leaue out and sayth it is divina propter ea quae in tertio quarto Argumentis produximus for the causes which we alledged in the Third and Fourth Arguments In which Arguments he proved that the Church is infallible and cannot erre because she is guided and taught by an infallible maister the Holy Ghost as the Prophets were and in this agrees with Prophets though as I sayd out of Stapletons express words with this difference that the Prophets had immediate Revelations which the Church pretends not to haue but is infallibly directed by the Holy Ghost to imbrace and declare former revelations made to the Apostles vppon which assistance the certainty and infallibility of her definitions rely and not vpon discourses or inducements 99. Potters falsification will appeare more by these words of Stapleton The Doctrine of the Church is discursiue in the meanes but is propheticall and Divine in the Conclusion which Potter cites thus the the Church though she be fallible and discursiue in the Meanes is yet Propheticall and depends vpon immediate Revelation and so infallible in delivering the conclusion What a mixture is here of Potters words with the words of Stapleton Which say not that the Church depends vpon immediate Revelation but the direct contrary as we haue sayd and his Parenthesis and so infallible is also a falsificarion as if Stapleton had grounded the infallibility of the conclusion vpon immediate revelation wheras he groundes it vpon an other principle as we haue seene This being supposed that Stapleton teaches the Church to haue no immediate Revelations and the certainty of her Definitions to depend on the assistance of the Holy Ghost not vpon humane disceâ—â—se and inducements or Premises the Doctour had no Reason to say that Stapletons doctrine is a fansie repugnant to Reason and to itself He Objects pag 168. A conclusion followes the disposition of the Meanes and results from them But this is not to the purpose seing the Definitions of the Church are called by Stapleton Conclusions only because they are that which the Church determines and concludes not because they are formall Conclusions essentially as such depending on Premises Neither doth it follow that there can be no vse of diligence and discourse if the Church be infallible in the sense I haue declared Thus the Apostles in their Councell Act. 15. did vse diligence and as the Scripture saith there was made a great disputation and they alledged the working of Miracles aÌ„d other Arguments of Credibility and yet no Christian will deny but that the Apostles were infallible So the Church must on her behalfe vse diligence and discourse that all things on her parte may be done more sweetly in order to the perswading of others but the absolute certainty of her definitions and conclusions must rely vpon those words which the Apostles vsed Visum est Spiritui Sancto nobis It hath seemed good to the holy Ghost and vs. Neither likwise doth it follow that the Canons of Councells are of equall authority with holy Scriptures in which every reason discourse Text and word are infallible which we need not say of Councells though they be certaine and infallible for the substance of their definition Wherof more may be seene in Catholique Writers and particularly in Bellarmine whom even Potter doth cite de Concill Lib 2. Chap 12. and yet as if he had seene no such matter in Bellarmine inferrs against Stapleton who fully agrees with Bellarmine that if the canons of Councells be divinely inspired they must be of equall Authority with the Holy Scriptures 100. Many other Arguments might be brought to proue the necessity of an infallible Living Guide and Ecclesiasticall Traditions from Scriptures Fathers Theologicall Reasons which I omitt referring the Reader to Charity Maintayned Part. 1. Chap 2. and 3. and in this whole Worke I haue vpon many occasions proved the same For this point is so transcâ—â—dent and necessary that we must meete with it almost in all Controversyes concerning Faith and Religion This I must not omitt that I having answered and confuted all the Objections which you could make against the Arguments and Reasons alledged by Charity

and reall necessity therof You perceaving the impossibility are necessitated to say it is not of importance but needless They in actu exercito you in actu signato shew it impossible to be done You I say teach it to be needless because you find it to be impossible as Protestants would make the world belieue that Miracles are ceased because they can worke none which if they had hope to do they would soone chang their Doctrine as you and they would quickly teach a Catalogue to be profitable and necessary if you could make one The truth is such a Catalogue is necessary in the principles of Protestants who deny the Authority of the Church and yet being indeed impossible to them as we see by experience in their differences and your express confession it shewes in what desperate case they and you are But heere I must by the way note a contradictioÌ„ of yours We haue heard you say Pag 134. N. 13. that may be Fundamentall and necessary to one which to an other is not so Which is repugnant to what you say Pag 13â— N. 20. Points Fundamentall be those only which are revealed by God and commanded to be preached to all and believed by all For if Fundamentall Points be such only as must be believed by all it is cleare that they which are necessary to be believed not by all but by some only cannot be Fundametall You also contradict Potter who Pag 21â— teaches that by Fundamentall Doctrines we meane such Catholique verities as are necessary to be distinctly believed by every mark every Christian that will be saved 7 Now That such a Catalogue is needless you would shew as I sayd because who soever believes the Scripture which is evident in all necessary Points and in many which are not necessary shall be sure to belieue all that is necessary and more 8. This evasion I haue confuted allready yet in this particular fit occasion I must not omitt to say somthing 9. First then in saying a Catalogue is needless you contradict other Protestants to whom I suppose you will deferr so much as to thinke their opinion not voyd of all probability and consequently your owne not to be certaine which were only to any purpose For if the contrary chance to be true and a Catalogue be really necessary your Doctrine denying both that it is necessary or that it can be given must be very pernicious to soules deceaving them with an opinion that that is neither necessary nor possible which yet is absolutely necessary for their salvation In the very sentence or Motto before your Booke you alledg Casaubon saying Existimat ejus Majestas c. His Majesty judges that the number of things absolutely necessary to salvation is not great and therfore that there is not any more compendious way to make an agreement than carefully to distinguish between necessary and vnnecessary things and that all endeavour be vsed to procure an agreement in things necessary Do not these words signify both a possibility and necessity of distinguishing between necessary and vnnecessary Points And yet we haue heard you say that it is both impossible and vnnecessary in direct opposition to your Motto And you say in your Epistle Dedicatory to the King that your Booke is in a manner nothing else but a superstruction vpon that blessed Doctrine where with you haue adorned and armed the frontispice of your Book and which was recommended by King James as the only hopefull meanes of healing the breaches of Christendome A strang cure by that meanes only which you hold to be vnnecessary and impossible And here by occasion of mentioning Casaubon I cannot omit to declare for a warning to others that I haue it vnder the hand of a person of great quality and integrity that that vnhappy man finding himselfe in danger of death dealt with the sayd worthy person to procure the presence and help of a Catholick Priest but his intention being discouered or suspected he was so besieged by his wife and a Protestant English Minister that it was not possible to be effected A fearfull example for all such as check or choak the Inspirations of the holy Ghost and procrastinate their conversion till they finde that common but terrible saying when it concerns Eternity to be true He who will not when he may shall not when he will 10. ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ by this reason of yours there is no necessity of giv ã€ˆâ€¦ã€‰ even a Definition or Description of Points Fundamentall and not Fundamentall or of even mentioning such a distinction seing in practise you cannot by any such description or distinction know when they offer themselves in particular and you are sure not to misse of them by believing all that is cleare in Scripture Especially if we adde your words Pag 23. N. 27. That Protestants giue you not a Catalogue of Fundamentalls it is not from Tergiversation but from Wisdome and Necessity And when they had done it it had been to no purpose There being as Matters now stand as great necessity of believing those Truths of Scripture which are not Fundamentall as those that are And yet all learned Protestants harpe vpon nothing more than vpon this distinction of Points Fundamentall and vpon the definitions or descriptions of them as particularly may be seene in your client Potter Pag 211.213.214.215 which is a needless paynes if this your evasion be good and solid 11. Thirdly Though one be obliged not to disbelieue any Truth revealed in Scripture when it is knowne to be such yet he is not bound to belieue explicitly all such Truths For by this Fundamentall and not fundamentall points are distinguished as Potter P 213. saith Fundamentall properly is that which Christians are obliged to belieue by an express and actuall Faith In other Points that Faith which the Card Perron Replique Liur 1. Chap 10. calls the Faith of adherence or non-repugnance may suffice to wit an humble preparation of mynd to belieue all or any thing revealed in Scripture when it is sufficiently cleared Now if I cannot sever or distinguish these two kinds of Points I shall either be obliged to know absolutely all and every Truth contained in Scripture which is a voluntary and intollerable obligation or none seing I cannot tell in particular what they be which I am obliged to know and so be in danger to be ignorant of fundamentall Articles without the actuall and express knowledg wherof I cannot be saved And this difficulty is encreased by the doctrine which you deliver Pag 195. N. 11. That there is no Point to any man at any tyme in any circumstances necessary not to be disbelieved but it is to the same man at the same tyme in the same circumstances necessary to be believed Seing then no point of Scripture can at any tyme in any circumstances be disbelieved it is necessary at all tymes in all circumstances to be believed And much more this must follow if we cannot know what points be Fundamentall except

externall communion in Sacraments Liturgy c. vpon pretence of Errours in the Faith and corruptions in the discipline of the Church and were so farr from repenting themselves of such their proceedings or admitting any votum or desire to be vnited with the Church that they held all such repentance to be a sin wherby they certainly exclude themselves from Gods Grace and Charity and so it appeares that by meere Excommunication one is not separated from the Church as a Schismatike is nor is a Schismatike first separated because he is excomunicated but is excommunicated because he is a Schismatike and had been divided from the Church though he had never been excommunicated or though the excommunication were taken away Besides as I touched already it is ridiculous to say that the Church requires as a condition of her Communion the profession of her errours in Faith and externall Communion in Sacraments Liturgy and other publike worship of God For profession of the same Faith and communion in Sacraments c. is the very thing wherin Communion consists or rather is the Communion itselfe and therfore is not an extrinsecall or accidentall condition voluntarily required by the Church or to be conceived as a thing separable from her communion and so you speake as if one should say Profession of the same Faith is a condition required for Communion in profession of the same Faith It was therfore no condition required by vs that made Protestants leaue our Communion but they first left our Communion by their Voluntary proper Act of leaving vs which essentially is incompatible with our Communion This whole matter will appeare more clearly by the next Reason 95. Fourthly Either there was just cause for your separation from the Communion of the Church or there was not If not then by your owne confession you are Schismatiks seing you define Schisme to be a causeless separation in which case the Church may justly impose vnder paine of Excommunication a necessity of your returne and then your Memorandum cannot haue place nor can excuse you from Schisme since such an imposing a necessity would vpon that supposition be both lawfull and necessary If there were just cause for your separation then you had been excused from Schisme though the Church had never imposed vnder payne of Excommunication a necessity of professing knowne errours because you say Schisme is a Causless separation and surely that separation is not causelesse for which there is just cause Wherfore your Memorandum about imposing vpon men a necessity c is both impertinent and incoherent with your first Memordium That not every separation but a causeless separation is the sin of Schisme And yet P. 282. N. 71. you say expressly It is to be observed that the chief part of our defence that you deny your Communion to all that deny or doubt of any part of your doctrine cannot with any colour be imployed against Protestants who graÌ„t their communion to all who hold with them not all things but things necessary that is such as are in Scripture plainly delivered So still you vtter contradictions Wherfore the confessed chife part of your defense being confuted both by evident reason and out of your owne sayings it remaines that you will never be able to acquit yourselfe of Schisme 66. Fiftly How can you maintayne this your Memorandum and not giue full scope to all other Protestants who belieue not all the 39. Articles of the Church of England to be true of whom I am sure you are one to forsake her communion seing she excommunicates all whosoever shall affirme that the 39 Articles are in any parte superstitious or erroneous Is not this the very thing which you say is the cheef part of your defence for your separation from vs O Approbators Is it conforme to the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England to say Her communion may and must be forsaken And with what conscience could you Mr. Chillingworth communicate with English and other Protestants in their publike service corrupted with errours about the Trinity the Creed of S. AthaÌ„ c as you belieue it is Or why could you not communicate with vs Or how will you excuse Luther who left vs 67. Yet I must not here omitt to obserue some Points First what a thing your Religion is which can so well agree and hold communion with innumerable Sects infinitly differing one from another and yet you conceiue yourselfe to be obliged to parte from vs Catholiks But so it is The false Gods of the Heathens and their Idolaters could handsomly agree amongst themselves but in no wise with the true God and his true worshippers An evident signe that the Catholique Roman Religion is only true and teaches the right worship of God and way to salvation Falshoods may stand togeather but cannot consist with truth 68. Secondly If as you tell vs things necessary be such as are in Scripture plainly deliuered points not Fundamentall of themselves become Fundamentall because they are revealed in Scripture and it is Fundamentall to the Faith of a Christian to belieue all Truths sufficiently proposed as revealed by God as Potter expressly grants Seing then Protestants differ in points which one part verily believes to be plainly delivered in Scripture and consequently in things necessary according to your assertion they cannot grant their communion to those who hold not with them in such necessary points that is in effect in all things wherin they disagree For every one judges his opinions to be plainly delivered in Scripture How then can they be excused from Schisme in their separation from vs while they hold Communion with other Protestants and thinke they may and ought to do so and that in doing otherwise they should be Schismatiks Which Argument still presses them more forcibly if we reflect that many of the most learned Protestants in divers chiefe Articles of Faith stand with vs Catholiks against their pretended Brethren and therfore they must either parte from them or not parte from vs 69. Thirdly it appeares by your express words that they who differ in Points necessary must divide from one another though neither part impose vpon the other a necessity of professing known Errours and since every one thinks his Doctrine to be necessary that is plainly dedelivered in Scripture he cannot communicate with any of a contrary Faith though they do not pretend to impose a necessity c And so your memorandum about imposing a necessity c Which you say is the chiefe part of your defense comes to nothing even by your owne grounds and therfore you haue indeed no defense at all to free yourselves from Schisme 70. Fourthly When we speake of Points of Faith not Fundamentall it is alwayes vnderstood that they be sufficiently proposed and therfore are alwayes Fundamentall per accidens and the contrary Errours certainly damnable and consequently a necessary cause of separation no lesse then Errours against Points Fundamentall of themselves and seing

Protestants teach that the Roman Church doth not erre in any Point Fundamentall or necessary to salvation and this you say diverse tymes is not true 147. Answer I will not say as you Pag. 76. N. 63. speake to Charity Maintayned I feare you will repent the tyme that ever you vrged this Point against Charity Maintayned but contrarily I hope that the Reader if he be not a Protestant will find just occasion to prayse God that the Answer to this your Objection will demonstrate to him in how safe a way we Catholikes are even by the confession of our Adversaryes and how much it imports him to place his soule in the like safety 148. I haue already vpon severall occasions mentioned some passages wherin you and Dr. Potter confesse that the Roman Church wants nothing necessary to salvation Now I will doe it more at large Potter Pag 63. saith The most necessary and fundamentall Truths which constitute a Church are on both sides vnquestioned And for that reason learned Protestants yield them Romanisis as he calls vs the name and substance of a Christian Church Where we see that he saith in generall learued Protestants yield them c. In proofe wherof he cites in his margent Junius D. Reinolds and sayes See the juagment of many other writers in the Advertisement annexed to the Old Religion by the Reverend Bishop of Exeter and adds The very Anabaotists grant it Fr. Ichnson in his Christian plea Pa 123. So that with this one Testimony of Potter we haue many other even of our greatest Adversaryes And I desire the reader to obserue well that here P 62 he saith To those twelue Articles which the Apostles in their Creed esteâ—med a sufficient Summary of wholsome Doctrine they Catholikes haue added many more Such are for instance their Apocryphall Scriptures and vnwrâ—ten dogmaticall Traditions their Transsubstantiation and dry Communion their Purgatory Invocation of Saints Worship of Images Latine service trafficke of Indulgences and shortly the other new Doctrines and Decrees canonized in their late Synode of Trent Vpon these and the like new Articles is all the contestation between the Romanists and Protestants And then he adds the words which we haue cited The most necessary and Fundamentall truths which constatute a Church are on both sides vnquestioned and for that c. Where we see he grants we belieue the twelue Articles of the Apostles Creed which he teaches at large to containe all Fundamentall Points of Faith and that we hold all the most necessary and Fundamentall truths which constitute a Church Therfore those Points of our Doctrine which he giues for instance are no Fundementall errours nor the contrary Articles necessary and Fundamentall truths and yet he names all the Chiefest Points controverted betweene vs and Protestants even transubstantiation Communion in one kind and Latine Service which are the things they are wont most to oppose yea he comprises all the Doctrines and Decrees of the Councell of Trent Therfore we are free from fundamentall errours by the confession of our Adversaryes Pag 59. The Protestants never intended to erect a new Church but to purge the Old The Reformation did not change the substance of Religion but only clensed it from corrupt and impure qualityes If the Protestants erected not a new Church then ours is still the Old Church and if it were only clensed from corrupt qualityes without change of the substance the substance must be still the same that it was and that which was must be the same with that which is Pag 61. The things which the Protestants belieue on their part and wherin they judge the life and substance of Religion to be comprized are most if not all of them so evidently and indisputably true that their Adversaryes themselves do avow and receaue them as well as they Therfore we Catolikes haue the life and substance of Religion Pag 60. In the prime grounds of Principles or Christian Religion wee haue not forsaken the Church of Rome Therfore you grant that we haue the prime grounds or Fundamentall Articles of Religion Pag 11. For those Catholique Verityes which she the Roman Church retaines we yield her a member of the Catholike though one of the most vnsound and corrupt members In this sense the Romanists may be called Catholikes Behold we are members of the Catholike Church which could not be if we erred in any one fundamentall Point By the way If the Romanists may be called Catholikes why may not the Roman Church be termed Catholique And yet this is that Argument which Protestants are wont to vrge against vs and Potter in particular in this very place not considering that he impugnes himselfe while he speakes against vs nor distinguishing between vniversall as Logicians speake of it which signifyes one common thing abstracting or abstracted from all particulars and Catholique as it is taken in true Divinity for the Church spred over the whole world that is all Churches which agree with the Roman and vpon that vaine conceit telling his vnlearned Reader that vniversall and particular are termes repugnant and consequently one cannot be affirmed of the other that is say I Catholique cannot be affirmed of Dr. Potter nor Dr. Potter sayd to be a Catholike because a particular cannot be sayd to be vniversall or an vniversall Pag 75. To depart from the Church of RomeÌ„ in some doctrines and practises there might be just and necessary cause though the Church of Rome wanted nothing necessary to salvation P 70. They the Roman Doctours confess that setting aside all matters controverted the maine positiue truths wherin all agree are abundantly sufficient to every good Christian both for his knowledge and for his practise teaching him what to belieue and how to liue so as he may be saved His saying that the Roman Doctours confesse that setting a side all matters controverted c. is very vntrue it being manifest that Catholikes belieue Protestants to erre damnably both in matters of Faith and practise yet his words convince ad hominem that we haue all that is necessary yea and abundantly sufficient both for knowledg and practise for vs to be saved And then he discoursing of the Doctrines wherin we differ from Protestants saith Pag 74. If the mistaker will suppose his Roman Church and Religion purged from these and the like confessed excesses and noveltyes he shall find in that which remaines little difference of importance betweene vs. Therfore de facto we belieue all things of importance which Protestants belieue After these words without any interruption he goes forward and sayes Pag 75. But by this discourse the Mistaker happily may belieue his cause to be advantaged and may reply If Rome want nothing essentiall to Religion or to a Church how then can the Reformers justify their separation from that Church or free themselves from damnable Schisme Doth not this discourse proue and the Objection which he rayses from it suppose that we want nothing essentiall to Religion Otherwise

errour if Scripture be sufficiently proposed which proposition is also required before a man can be obliged to belieue even Fundamentall points must be damnable Which words you shamefully conceale out of guiltyness that they prevented all your Answers about Ignorance or such accidentall and variable circumstances to which you sly before you gaue them Seing it appeares that Charity Maintayned spoke expressly of Scripture sufficiently proposed and N. 15. you say That such Points are fundamentall Our B. Saviour saith S. Marke 16.16 he that does not belieue shall be damned And S. Paul Gal 5.20.21 having reckoned some vices and among the rest Sects concludes They who doe these things shall not obtaine the kingdome of Heaven Will you now stand vp and blaspheme and say that our Saviour and S. Paul should not haue pronounced damnation against disbelievers Sects and Heretykes without adding your limitations to wit vnless ignorance excuse or a generall Repentance obtaine pardon 21. In your N. 15. you giue a new explication of Points Fundamentall and not Fundamentall That these Points either in themselves or by accident are Fundamentall which are evidently contained in Scripture to him that knoweth them to be so Those not Fundamentall which are there-hence deducible but probably only not evidently How many things may be observed in these words First it answers not plainly to the Question of Ch Ma which was whether is there in such denyall of a Point contained in Scripture and sufficiently proposed as Ch. M. expressly speakes any distinction betwixt Points Fundamentall and not Fundamentall sufficient to excuse from Heresy As certainly there is not Secondly by this distinction of yours all that is sufficiently proposed to be contained in Scripture is a Fundamentall Point and every errour in such Points must be a Fundamentall errour and destroy Faith Church and salvation and so you grant what Ch. Ma. desired in his Question though you thought not fitt to Answer it clearly and in direct termes but to involue things by talking of matters nothing to the purpose and therfore I say Thirdly Points deducible from Scripture but probably only are not Points of Faith which requires certitude but may be denyed without sin if one haue probable reason for his denyall as yourselfe confess N. 14. that it is a grievous sin to deny any one Truth contayned in Scripture if he who denyes it knew it to be so or haue no probable reason to doubt of it Otherwise not Ch Ma as I sayd spoke expressly of Points sufficiently knowne to be contayned in Scripture that is of matters of Faith and by what logicke can you distinguish Points of Faith into Points which are of Faith and points which are not of Faith as things which are deduced from Scripture probably only are not matters of Faith as we haue seene out of your owne words Doth not Logick teach that the Diuisum must be affirmed of everie one membrorum dividentium and will you affirme faith of that which is not Faith 23. In your N. 16. To the Question of Ch Ma whether it be not impertinent to alledge the Creed as containing all Fundamentall Points of Faith as if believing it alone we were at liberty to deny all other Points of Scripture you answer It was never alledged to any such purpose But as in other Points so in this you speake for Protestants without any commission or warrant from them For who knowes not that nothing is more common with them than to say that Protestants may be saved and are brethren as agreeing in the substance of Faith because all of them belieue the Creed which reason were plaine non-sense if they may belieue the Creed and yet not be of one Faith nor hope of Salvation by reason of their disagreement in other Points Or what availes it them to agree in necessariÃ² credendis all which you say the Creed containes which yet is very false if they differ in agendis in Articles of Faith by which they are directed for Christian Practise Seing Protestants differ not only in credendis but in agendis Howsoever I take what you giue that the Creed cannot be pertinently alledged as if believing it alone Protestants may disagree in other Points and yet remaine Brethren and so by this very answer you grant what Charity Maintayned intended to proue that disagreement in any one Point of Faith be it great or little cannot stand with Salvation on his side whose errour is culpable As wholosome meate taken alone may nourish but if the same man receiue poyson he shall not escape death in vertue of that meate which otherwise might haue conserved him in life and health Bonum ex integra causa malum ex quocunque defectu One damnable errour is enough to worke perdition though a man belieue all Truths except that which is contrary to such an errour 22. I haue no more to say about this first Chapter except only that you might haue comprized the substance therof in few lines or words if you had not perverted the state of the Question by flying to accidentall and changeable circumstances and vsing needless and endless repetitions of such variable circumstances CHAP XI The Ansvver to his second Chapter CONCERNING THE MEANES WHERBY THE REVEALED TRVTHS OF GOD ARE CONVEYED TO OVR VNDERSTANDING And vvhich must determine Controversyes in Faith and Religion 1. I Find by experience That the reducing of your dispersed and often repeated discourses to some heads frees me of much vnnecessary labour which otherwise must haue beene spent in speaking to every particular Section of yours For in this Chapter I find litle but either passion or calumny or begging of the Question or what is answered already till I come to your N. 30. which also containes nothing but a matter of fact whether Brierly and Ch. Ma and other Catholique Writers haue abused Hooker in saying that he teaches that Scripture cannot be proved to be the word of God by the testimony of scripture itselfe but by some other meanes namely the Church For my part I haue read and considered the place cited by Ch Ma out of Hooker Lib 3. Sect 8. and find that you are like those charitable people who are content to want one eye vpon condition that their adversary be deprived of both You are willing that Hooker contradict Himselfe yourselfe and evident reason itselfe rather than he should seeme to favour vs. I say he must contradict reason which can never proue that Scripture is written by Divine inspiration as I know you will not deny seing all the contents of Scripture might haue bene set downe in writing without the infallible direction of the Holy Ghost You say Pag 114. N. 156. If there were any that believed Christian Religion and yet believed not the Bible to be the word of God though they believed the matter of it to be true which is no impossible supposition for I may belieue a Booke of S. Austines to containe nothing but the truth of God

well disposed towards an object evident can faile to see and vnderstand actually if such an object be placed within the spheare or compasse of their actuity And therfore if Scripture be evident whosoever can assent to it cannot possibly dissent from it Before I end this number you must be intreated to remember what you teach Pag 329. N. 7. that it is necessary to Faith that the object of it should not be so evidently certaine as to necessitate our vnderstanding to an Assent that so there might be some obedience in it which can hardly haue place where there is no possibility of disobedience as there is not where the vnderstanding does all and the will nothing Now if the vnderstanding be not necessitated by the evidence of Faith or contents of Scripture you must find some other meanes to moue the vnderstanding namely such as Protestants vsually prescribe which cannot exceede probability nor is sufficient for an Act of Faith And so your Arguments and Similitudes grounded vpon the plaine evidence of Scripture cannot be rightly applyed by you seing it is not an evidence sufficient to assure the vnderstanding without some other meanes which being but probable if you will arriue to certainty you must still haue recourse to the Church 67. Your N. 151. going vpon a false supposition that our first Proofes and Arguments for the infallibility of the Church are taken from Scripture need no Answer seing we haue proved the contrary at large It is true that having once found the true Church and by Her authority Canonicall Scriptures we do with good reason proue out of them the authority and infallibility of the same Church with other particulars concerning her which were not knowne by the first generall notion of her being the true Church but this is done without any pretence of such evidence as must force every mans vnderstanding to assent in that manner as the Principles of naturall Sciences do necessitate vs and therfore there alwayes remaines a necessity of a Living Judge 68. In your N. 154. I find nothing but an Aggregatum of diverse Heads of which we haue treated at large as the infallibillty of Christian Faith how farr the Motives or arguments of credibility concurre to an act of Faith The manner we hold in proving the Church and believing those articles which she proposes what vse there is of Reason in finding out the Church that in vaine you distinguish betweene Christianity and Popery as you speake seing there can be but one true Christian Church c And therfore I will goe forward having first toucht in a word that wheras you say to vs you should require only a morall and modest Assent to the proposalls of the Church and not a Divine as you call it and infallible Faith It seemes you confesse that your Faith is not to be called Divine as you professe it not to be infallible and therfore indeed not Divine but a meere humane perswasion even in those Points wherin you chance notto erre 69. To your N. 155.156.157.158.159.160 of which for the substance I haue spoken hertofore I will only say That you are still taking vpon you to declare the Doctrine of Protestants in their name without any commission from them Thus here you talke as if no Protestants held that Scripture may be proved to be the word of God by Scripture it selfe the contrary whereof we haue shewed in particular of Baron and Potter And Ch. Ma. Part 2. Chap 3. Pag 91. cites Dr. Willet in his meditation ypon the 122. Psalme Pag 91. who puts among whirle-points and buboles of new Doctrine as he speakes That the word of God cannot possibly assure vs what is the word of God And whatsoever you take vpon you yet Ch. Ma. had reason to say that seing it is to Protestants a most necessary Point of Faith to know what Bookes be Scripture and that this Point cannot be proved by Scripture it followes that all matters of Faith are not contained in Scripture wherby it appeares that God hath not tyed his testimony or Revelation to his written word alone but that you must of necessity admitt Tradition or His vnwritten Word and so not learne all necessary Points from Scripture And if one Tradition must be believed by Faith you can bring no positiue Rule or reason why there may not be some other Traditions without any prejudice to the perfection of Scripture 70. In your N. 160. you impugne these words of Charity Maintayned Part 1. Pag 73. N. 26. If Dr. Potter answer that their Tenet about the Scriptures being the only judge of Controversyes is not a Fundamentall Point of Faith then as he teacheth that the vniversall Church may erre in Points not Fundamentall so I hope he will not deny but particular Churches and private men are much more obnoxious to errour in such Points and in particular in this that the Scripture alone is judge of Controversyes And so the very Principle vpon which their whole Faith is grounded remaines to them vncertaine and on the other side for the selfe same reason they are not certaine but that the Church is judge of Controversyes Against which discourse you object A pretty Sophisme depending vpon this Principle that whosoever possibly may erre he cannot be certaine that he doth not erre And vpon this ground what will hinder me from concluding that seing you also hold that neither particular Churches nor private men are infallible even in Fundamentalls that even the Fundamentalls of Christianity remaine to you vncertaine A judge may possibly erre in judgment can he therfore never haue assurance that he hath judged right A traveller may possibly mistake his way must I therfore be doubtfull whether I am in the right way from my Hall to my Chamber Or can our London Carryer haue no certainty in the middle of the day when he is sober and in his wits that he is in the way to London These you see are right worthy consequences and yet as like your owne as an egg to an egge or milke to milke 71. Answer I hope it will be found that you triumph before any possibility of victory on your behalfe and that your Objection will be turned against yourselfe Where find you in Charity Maintayned any Argument depending vpon this principle that whosoever possibly may erre he cannot be certaine that he does not erre This is your fiction not any principle of Ch. Ma. His principle is in this Whosoever possibly may erre by relying vpon some Principle Ground or Reason he cannot be certaine that he doth not erre as long as he followes that Principle only without addition of any other helpe or greater light or certainty For if the Principle be of it selfe false fallible or contingent it cannot possibly being left to itselâ—e produce an infallible Assent which is the very Ground for which you teach Christian Faith to be fallible But it doth in no case follow from hence that absolutly whosoever may possibly

we can be certaine of the fallhood of no Propositions but these only which are damnable Errours For you know that we spoke not of whatsoever truth or falshood but of a Proposition the truth or falshood wherof cannot be knowne by sense or naturall Reason but only by Revelation in which if the vniversall Church may erre for Points not Fundamentall we cannot possibly haue certainty of the truth of them as I haue proved and it is intolerable in you to make this Argument we may be certaine that snow is not blacke nor fire cold therfore we may be certaine of truths which can be knowne only by Revelation for Points in which you say the whole Church of Christ and much more private men may erre 76. To your N. 162. I need only say that a publike and vniversall Authority to decide Controversyes of Faith and interpret Scriptures must be infallible otherwise it might either be disobeyed or els men would be forced to obey exteriourly that which they judge in Conscience to be a damnable Errour as hertofore I haue declared and shewed a large difference betweene a Judge in Civill causes and Controversyes in matters of Faith alledging to that purpose your owne words Pag 59. N. 17. That in Matters of Religion such a Iudge is required whom we should be obliged to belieue to haue judged right So that in Civill Controversyes every honest vnderstanding man is fitt to be a Iudge but in Religion none but he that is infallible And yet so farre you forget yourself as to object to vs in this N. 162. I hope you will not deny but that the Iudges haue Authority to determine criminall and Civill Controversyes and yet I hope you will not say that they are absolutely infallible in their determinations Infallble while they proceed according to Law How then can you distinguish betwene a Judge in Civill and a Judge in Controversyes of Religion vnless you grant not only a conditionall but an absolute infallibility to this latter whereby he is sure never to erre whereas a Judg in Civill matters may erre by not proceeding according to Law If therfore the Propositions which were publikly defended in Oxford that the Church hath Authority to determine Controversyes in Faith and to interpret Scripture be patient of your Explication I can only say that they either say nothing or teach men to dissemble in matters of Faith by obeying the Commandements of the Church against their Conscience I haue read your friend Irenaeus Philalethes Dissertatione de Pace Ecclesiae who teaches that no man ought now after the tyme of the Apostles who were infallible to be punished by Excommunication as long as he followes the dictamen of his Conscience and how do you tell vs that now one may be excommunicated for an errour in Faith Though you admit no infallible Judge to declare the sense of Scripture and that those Texts which seeme evident to some appeare obscure to others as is manifest in the examples which you alledge as evident of our Saviours Passion and Resurection which diverse Heretikes haue either denyed or vnderstood in a different way from the doctrine of Gods Church and yourselfe in particular belieue that his suffering and Death was not the Death and Passion of God and that his Sufferings did not merit and satisfy for mankind and that he remaines in Heaven with a Body of a different nature and Essence from that which he had vpon Earth which is to deny his Resurrection for substance and Death for the fruite therof You say The Doctor who defended the saied Conclusions together with the Article of the Church of England attributeth to the Church nay to particular Churches and I subscribe to his opinion an Authority of determining Controversyes of Faith according to plain and evident Scripture and vniversall Tradition and infallibility while they proceed according to this Rule But how doth this agree with the whole Scope of your Booke that the Bible the Bible the Bible is the only Rule and with your express words heere N. 155. that no vnwritten Doctrine hath attestatten from Tradition truly vniversall Seing beside Scripture you grant a Tradition which you say gives an infallibility to him who proceeds according to it Which shewes that there is some infallible vnwritten word or Tradition You say But what now if I should tell you that in the yeare 1632. among publike Conclusions defended in Doway one was that God predeterminates men to All their Actions I answer That if you will inferr any thing from hence it must only be this that as the Question about Predetermination is not defined by the Church but left to be disputed in Schooles with an express command of our Supreme Pastour that one part do not censure another so if you grant that out of the sayd Propositions defended in Oxford I may inferr that the Scripture alone is not the Rule of Faith or at least that you are not certaine it is so nor can condemne vs Catholikes for holding the contrary if I say you grant this you overthrow that Ground in which alone all Protestants pretend to agree and of which if they be not absolutly certaine the whole structure of their Faith must be ruinous You overlash in supposing we say that the Church cannot erre whether she vse meanes or no. But we are sure that as the Holy Ghost promised Her the End of not erring so also he will not faile to moue Her essectually to vse such meanes as shall be needfull for that End Your N. 163. about a place of S. Austine I haue answered very largly hertofore 77. In your N. 164. you say Why may not the Roman Church be content to be a Part of that visible Church which was extant when Luther began and the Grecian another And if one must be the whole why not the Greeke Church as well as Roman There being not one Note of your Church which agrees not to Her as well as to your owne 78. Answer If you speake of the true Church of Christ in Greece she is so farr from being divided from the Roman that she doth not only agree with but submitts to Her and receives from her Priests ordained in Rome it selfe and brought vp in Catholique Countries The Scismaticall Grecians to their division from the Roman Church haue added Heresy as even Protestants confesse and so are neither the whole Church nor any Church at all it being indeed no lesse than a kind of blasphemy to affirme that Conventicles of Heretikes can be the true Church of Christ Dr Lawde Pag 24. saith of the Errour of the Grecians I know and acknowledge that Errour of denying the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son to be a grievous errour in Divinity And Pag 154. I would faine know what Article of the Faith doth more concerne all Christians in generall than that of Filioque Which Errour of the Grecians hath beene condemned by three Generall Councells in which the Grecians

yourself who say heere N. 33. If we once suppose they the Apostles may haue erred in some things of this nature in things which they delivered constantly as certaine revealed Truths it will be vtterly vndiscernable what they haue erred in and what they haue not Now if God hath promised to giue his Apostles infallibility only in things necessary to salvation which heere you expressly suppose it is cleare we cannot be certaine of the truth of their writings in any one thing Which supposed that we cannot be certaine that their writings are true how can you say that God both by his word and by his works hath assured vs that he aid assist them farther Seing vpon that supposition the Scripture may be false and recount works never wrought and so it is consequent that we can haue no assurance by his written word of any farther assistance that God gaue them if it be supposed that he gaue them infallibility only in things necessary to salvation which is the contradictory to your assertion and yet it is evidently deduced from your owne express words and doctrine Nay you could not be sure that the Apostles had infallibility even for Fundamentall Points if once it be supposed that they and consequently their writings were subject to errour in any thing So farr from truth is your saying we could haue assurance of farther assistance Your N. 35.36 containe no difficulty which hath not bene answered heretofore 48. I wish you had in your N. 37. set downe at large the words of Charity Maintayned whereby he proves N. 15. that according to the grounds of Protestants it is sufficient for salvation that Scripture be infallible in Fundamentall Points only as they limit to such Points the infallibility of the Church and accordingly interpret Scriptures speaking thereof The summe of his Discourse is this Put together these Doctrines That Scripture cannot erre in Points Fundamentall that they cleerely containe all such Points that Protestants can tell what Points in particular be Fundamentall it is manifest that it is sufficient for salvation that Scripture be infallible only in Points Fundamentall For seing all are obliged to belieue explicitely all Fundamentall Articles it is necessary to know which in particular be Fundamentall which Protestants cannot know except by Scripture which alone in their grounds containes all that is necessary for vs to knowe and therefore knowing by Scripture what Points in particular be Fundamentall as N. 40. you say expressly men may learne from the Scripture that such Points are Fundamentall others are not so and that Scripture is infallible in all Fundamentalls they are sure that it is infallible in such particular necessary Articles though it were supposed to be fallible in other Points by this Argument All Fundamentall Points are delivered in Scripture with infallibility this is a Fundamentall Point therefore it is delivered in Scripture with infallibility And the Syllogisme at which you say men would laugh is only your owne The Scripture is true in something the Scripture sayes that these Points only are Fundamentall therefore this is true that these are so For say you every fresh-man in Logick knowes that from meere particulars nothing can be certainly concluded But you should correct your Syllogisme thus All that is necessary the Scripture delivers with infallibility but to know what Points in particular be Fundamentall is necessary therefore the Scripture delivers it with infallibility Besides you say If without dependance on Scripture Protestants did know what were Fundamentall and what not they might possibly belieue the Scripture true in Fundamentalls and erroneous in other things Now both you and Potter affirme that there is an vniversall Tradition that the Creed containes all Fundamentall Points and consequently that in vertue of such a Tradition men may belieue all Fundamentall Points without dependance or knowledg of Scripture as also for vniversall Tradition you belieue Scripture itself Heare your owne words Pag 198. N. 15. The certainty I haue of the Creed that it was from the Apostles and containes the Principles of Faith I ground it not vpon scripture Therefore according to your owne grounds Protestants may belieue the Scripture to be true in Fundamentalls and erroneous in other things And you did not well to conceale this Argument taken from the Creed which was expressly vrged by Ch Ma in that very N. 15. which you answer By what I haue saied it appeares that in the grounds of Protestants the knowledg of Fundamentalls neede not haue for Foundation the vniversall truth of Scripture as you say but only the truth thereof for all Fundamentall Points and for knowing what Points in particular be Fundamentall as I haue declared So we must conclude that the Argument of Ch Ma stands good that if you limit the infallibility of the Church you may vpon the same ground limit the infallibility of the Apostles and their writings namely the Holy Scripture 49. Your N. 39. goes vpon a meere equivocation or a voluntary mistake you being not ignorant that Charity Maintayned saied N. 16. that no Protestant can with assurance believe the vniversall Church in Points not fundameÌ„tall because they belieue that in such points she may erre which sequele is very true and cleare For how can I belieue with assurance an Authority believed to be fallible If she alledg some evident Reason Scripture c I belieue her no more than I would belieue any child Turk or Jewe and so I attribute nothing to her authority nor can be saied to belieue her Thus you say N. 36. We cannot belieue the present Church in propounding Canonicall Bookes vpon her owne Authority though we may for other reasons belieue these Bookes to be Canonicall which she proposes Your instances are against yourself For if the divell proue that there is a God or a Geometritian demonstrate some conclusion I neither belieue the divell who I knowe was a Lier from the beginning nor the Geometritian whom I knowe to be fallible but I assent for the Reason which they giue by whomesoever it had bene given and therfore you speak a contradictory in saying N. 38. Though the Church being not infallible I cannot belieue Her in every thing she sayes yet I can and must belieue her in every thing she proves either by Scripturs or vniversall Tradition This I say implies a contradiction to belieue one because he proves seing the formall object or Motiue of Beliefe is the Authority of the speaker and not the Reason which he gives which may produce assents of diverse kinds according to the diversity of Reasons as Demonstration Scripture c which may cause an infallible assent not possible to be produced by the authority of the Church if it were fallible 50. In your N. 39. First you cite the words of Charity Maintayned thus The Churches infallible direction extending only to Fundamentalls vnless I know them before I goe to learne of her I may be rather deluded than instructed by her and then you

Controversyes Sir I beseech you when you write againe doe vs the favour to write nothing but Syllogismes for I find it still an extreme trouble to find out the concealed propositions which are to connect the parts of your enthymems As now for example I profess vnto you I am at my wits end and haue done my best endeavour to find some glue or sodder or cement or chaine or thred or any thing to tye this antecedent and this consequent together and at length am forced to giue it over and cannot doe it 54. Answer If you were in a condition to reply I would advise you to write not Syllogismes or enthymems but with truth Christian modesty and humility If there be any obscurity in Charity Maintayned you did not find but make it by breaking the thred of his discourse and disjoyning into severall Numbers of Sections or Yours that which is delivered in that one continued N. 16. which you impugne For having proved that according to the grounds of ProtestaÌ„ts they before they address themselves to the Church must know what Points are Fundamentall they learne not of her but will be as fit to teach as to be taught by her And then to confute this Doctrine of Protestants he saieth S. Austine was of a very different mind from Protestants If saieth he Epist 118. the Church through the whole world practice any of these things to dispute whether that ought to be done is a most insolent madness And in an other place he saieth Lib 4. de Bapt Chap 24. That which the whole Church holds and is not ordained by Councells but hath alwaies been kept is most rigthly believed to be delivered by Apostolicall authority Now Sr. I beseech you doe vs the favour to declare whether these words of S. Austine doe not proue that we are to learne of the Church and her Traditions and not presume to teach her Which was the very thing which Cha Ma affirmed and proved not by any Syllogisme or enthymem but by a continued discourse as men are wont to doe which yet might be easily drawne into a Syllogisme or some other Lawfull Forme of Logicall Argument if need were as any true Discourse may be so reduced 55. All that you haue N 44.45.46 containes no difficulty which may not be answered out of the grounds which I haue Laied heretofore Tertullian is rightly alledged for Traditions in generall but to the Church belongs the office of judging in particular what be Lawfull and Apostolicall or divine Traditions and not humane inveÌ„tions Neither can it be prejudiciall to Traditions in generall that some haue bene lost as I hope you will not deny some Bookes of Scripture to be Divine though some haue bene lost and some conterfaited In your N. 46. you thought it best to dissemble what Ch. Ma. alledges out of Withaker De Sacra Script Pag 678. concerning an Authority of S. Chrysostom for Traditions I answer that this is an inconsiderate speach and vnworthy so great a Father 56. In your N. 47. you spend many words about a sentence of S. Austine which that you may overcome with more ease you with a pettie policy divide from the other places which Ch Ma in the same N. 16. cites out of the same Saynt one place strengthening an other Whosoever reades with due consideration your long discourse will finde that your ayme was covertly to vent your Socinianisme against the Church and openly contradict S. Austine while you pretend to answer the sentences which Cha. ma. cited out of him which are these Epist 119. the Church being placed betwixt much chaffe and cockle doth tollerate many things but yet she doth not approue nor dissemble nor do these things which are against Faith or good life you say That because S. Austine sayes the Church doth not approue nor dissemble nor doe these things which are against Faith or good life Ch. Ma. concludes that it never hath done so nor ever can doe so And then you add But though the Argument hold in Logick a non posse and non esse yet I never heard that it is would hold back againe a non esse ad non posse The Church cannot doe this therefore it does it not followes with good consequence but the Church does not this therefore it shall neuer doe it this I belieue will hardly follow In the Epistle next before to the same I anuarius writing of the same matter he hath these words It remaines that the thing you enquire of must he of that third kind of things which are different in diverse places Let euery one therfore doe that which he finds done in the Church to which he comes for none of them is against Faith or good manners And why do you not infer from hence that no particular Church can bring vp any custome that is against Faith or good manners Certainly this consequence has as good reason for it as the former 57. Answer S. Austines meaning to be that the Church neither doth nor can approue any thing against Faith or good life appeares by the very Epist 1 18. next before to the same Iannarius as you speak where he saieth If the Church through the whole world practise any of these things to dispute whether that ought to be so done is a most insolent madnes Where you see the Saynt speakes not only de facto but de jure what ought to be done and therfore as I saied no wonder if you divided the Sentences of S. Austine which you found set downe by Charity Maintayned in the same N. 16. Besides you should know that in matters belonging to doctrine of Faith an indefinite Proposition ordinarily is equivalent to an vniversall as for example God approves not sinne the Church ere 's not in fundamentall Points of Faith Works of Christian Piety require the assistance of Gods Grace He that believes not shall be damned c And indeed how could S. Austine say vniversally of all tymes and places without limitation the Church doth not this but by supposing that it is certaine she will never doe it which must implie some particular Priviledg of Divine assistance securing her from doing it For if he spoke only of a casuall and contingent thing for a determinate tyme he could not be sure of what he affirmed seing it might be done in some place without his knowledg and whosoever vnpartially considers these words The Church does not this will confess that they signify she never does it and that something is attributed to Her which agrees not to private persons casually not doing a thing Which also appeares by the Antithesis he puts betweene the Church and chaffe and cockle that is imperfections or superstitions of which he speaks Your Argument taken from a particular Church is of no force For you confess S. Austine speaks of things indifferent and rhen I grant that no particular Church can bring vp any custome against Faith or good manners as long as she practises only

appeares out of S. Matth. Cap. 28. where some things belong to the Apostles only as going into Galilee c. and other to the Church in them or to them in the Church as beside Teaching and Baptizing N. 19. Behold I am with you all dayes even to the consummation of the world which signifyes that he would be with them in their Successours who were to continue for all Ages after the death of the Apostles with whom he could not be present in themselves to the consummation of the world who were not to liue to the worlds end as you say heere Did he or could he haue saied to your Church which then was not extant I haue many things to say vnto you but you cannot beare them now So we may apply the like words Did he or could he say to his Apostles I will be with you to the worlds end when they were not to be extant But the truth is when our Saviour spoke to his Apostles our Church was then extant in the Apostles and the Apostles were to liue to the worlds end in their successours and so our Saviours promise is fulfilled of being alwaies with the Apostles in their Successours 81. You object to Charity Maintayned that In the very text by him alledged there are things promised which your Church cannot with any modesty pretend to For there it is saied the Spirit of Truth not only will guide you into all Truth but also will shew you things to come But this is answered by what hath bene saied already Though it were granted that some thing was promised to the Apostles alone it doth not follow that the whole promise was so restrained as I haue shewed aboue Besides Christian Faith teaches vs many things to come as the comming of Antichrist the generall judgement and signes precedent to it The Resurrection of the dead The eternall punishment of the wicked and reward of the just c For this cause S. Anselm apud Cornelium a Lapide in 4. Ephes N. 11. teaches that by Prophets in that Text are vnderstood interpreters of Scriptures because per eas futura justorum gaudia malorumque supplicia hominibus praenunciant If by shewing things to come you vnderstand the Gift of Prophecy Do you hold it as certaine that every one of the Apostles had that Gift as that they were infallible in matters of Faith Are you certaine that every Apostle could haue written the Apocalyps of S. John So that indeed if you will needs haue a full parity between being led into all Truth and knowing of things to come you will be found not to be certaine that the Apostles were infallible in matters of Faith Morover it is to be observed that to be infallible was essentiall to the office of Apostolate or teaching the Church as the Gift of Prophecy is accidentall and was communicated to others as we read in the Acts as also it was accidentall to speak all toungs to haue bene called immediatly by our Saviour as S. Matthias was not and yet was an Apostle to haue inflicted Censure of Excommunication with some visible punishment and the like extraordinary ornaments or Priviledgs And therfore no wonder if infallibility in matters of Faith be communicated to the Church though the knowledg of things to come were not though indeed de facto God hath and ever will communicate the Gift of Prophecy to his Church as is certaine by the vndoubted Authority of the best writers of all Ages You see now that neither Charity Maintayned nor other Catholique writers cite the saied text by halfes as you affirme N. 72. seing the latter clause of shewing things to come makes nothing against them nor alters the sense of the text as I haue shewed But now good Sr. I beseech you reflect whom you impugne while you would perswade men that Charity Maintayned and generally our writers of controversies when they entreate of this Argument cite this text perpetually by hafes seing Dr. Potter Pag 151. cites this very same place and leaves out those words will shew you things to come for which you accuse vs of citing that sentence by halfes especially if you call to mynd that he brings that text to proue that the Church cannot faile in Fundamentall points which as I saied were no proofe if it were meant of the Apostles only as you would proue it was by the words omitted by the Doctor no less than by C Ma he will shew you things to come To all which I add that seing you say that text concerned the Apostles only it must signify an infallibility both in Fundamentall and vnfundamentall Points and therfore seing the Doctor confesses it to be verifyed in the vniversall Church she must be infallible in all Points But it is no wonder that you contradict your Client Potter since you so perpetually contradict yourself 82. In your N. 71. you seeke to divert me to the controversyes about publique service in an vnknowne tongue and communion vnder both kinds But you know Catholique Writers haue answered all that can be objected against vs in these two questoins and whatsoever you can alledg if it were of any moment as it cannot be it could only shew that Scripture even in that which to you seemes so plain is indeed obscure seing so many learned holy and laborious men see no such evidence as you pretend yea they are certaine that your pretended cleare interpretation is an Heresie Yet because you alledge against vs without any cause a greeke word edoke I must not omitt to tell you with truth that Protestants in this Point of the Sacrament shamefully falsify the Greeke Text 1. Cor. 11. V. 27. saying in their Translation Whosoever shall eate this bread and drinke this cup of the Lord vnworthily shall be guilty of the Body and Bloud of the Lord wheras the Greeke word signifyes vel or and so you should say Whosoever shall eate this bread Or drinke the cup c. which fraud you vse to proue the necessity of Communion in both kindes 83. Your N. 73.74 containe no difficulty which hath not bene answered Only I may note that you put some Objection in a different letter which in Cha. Ma. I find not The Promise that the Holy Ghost was to remaine with the Apostles for ever was not restrained to yet is verifyed in them because they remaine for ever in their successours as you will say they remaine in their Writings Your friged interpretation of ever that is for the time of their lives is confuted by what hath bene cited out of S. Matthew Chap. 28.20 I am with you all daies even to the consummation of the world And surely the end of the world signifyes a larger extent than the end of their lives Nay you are not content with limiting all Promises made to them to the tearme of their life but it seemes you make it not absolute but only conditionall even for that short tyme. For you say The spirit would abide

fault it was in yielding too much For indeed Protestants doe not agree even in that fundamentall point that Christ is our Saviour or in Faith in Iesus Christ the Sonne of God and Saviour of the world Seing I haue shewed in divers occasions that they differ toto genere in their explication and beliefe of those Articles and accordingly Morton teaches that the Churches of Arians who denied our Saviour Christ to be God are to be accounted the Church of God because they doe hold the foundation of the Ghospell which is Faith in Iesus Christ the Sone of God and Saviour of the world as may be seene in Ch Ma Part. 1. Chap. 3. Pag. 103. and since the beliefe of those Articles is required to the consticuting of the very essence of a Church in the Lowest degree and they doe not agree in them it followes that they doe not agree in the very essence of a Church in the lowest degree As for Divine Precepts and Divine Promises which you say are clearly delivered in Scripture they belong to Agenda and not to Credenda according to your distinction and so men may agree in them and disagree in points of simple belief 38. Lastly If you had a minde to defend Protestants you should not alledg their agreement in such Points as they haue received from vs but in those wherin Luther and his fellowes forsooke the Faith of our Church with which all true Christian Churches did clearly agee and in those Protestants are so farre from agreement among themselves that in the chiefest matters divers of the most learned of them stand for vs against their pretended Brethren and vniversally it is most true that their agreement is only actuall and meerely accidentall in regard that they acknowledg no living infallible Judge of Controversyes to make them agree in case they should chance to doubt of those points wherin they casually agree and so still in actu primo they are in a disposition to disagree whereas Catholiques believing an infallible Judge are in a continuall disposition or a virtuall and potentiall agreement even in those things wherin particular persons may happen not to agree yea those many millions of Truths which you say are contayned in Scripture could not for ought Protestants know be so much as one if your doctrine were true that Scripture is not a materiall object of Faith which men are obliged to belieue And yet such is your inconstancy and spirit of contradicting yourself you say heere is it not manifest to all the world that Christians of all Professions do agree with one consent in the belief of all those Bookes of Scripture which were not doubted in the ancient Church without danger of damnation Nay is it not apparent that no man at this time can without hypocrisy pretend to belieue in Christ but of necessity he must do so Seeing he can haue no reason to belieue in Christ but he must haue the same to believe the Scripture Sr. If all Christians consent in the belief of Scripture how is not Scripture believed And if it be believed how is it not a materiall object of our belief or the thing which we belieue Nay you say no man at this tyme can pretend to belieue in Christ but of necessity he must belieue the Bookes of Scripture and so you declare that if Christ be a materiall object of our Faith the Scripture must also be such 39. But there remaines yet an other contradiction no less manifest and more strange than this which I now mentioned Heere you say expresly no man can pretend to belieue in Christ but of necessity he must belieue Scripture and you proue this your Assertion because he can haue no reason to belieue in Christ but he must haue the same to belieue the Scripture which proof to be of any force must suppose that there is alwaies an equall necessity for the belief of those things for the belief whereof there is an equall Reason Otherwise one might haue the same reason to belieue in Scripture which he hath to belieue in Christ and yet be obliged to belieue in Christ and not be obliged nor haue an equall necessity to belieue the Scripture vnder danger of damnation Is not all this cleare Now I beseech you remember what you write Pag. 116. N. 159. where you treate of this very matter that is of the belief of Scripture and of the belief of the contents thereof that is among other Points of our belief in Christ and you endeavour to proue that God requires of vs vnder pain of damnation only to belieue the verities therein contained and not the Divine Authority of the Bookes wherein they are contained Behold your Assertion contrary to that which we haue heard you say that the vndoubted Bookes of Scripture were not doubted of without danger of damnation But let vs see whether as you contradict yourself in your Assertions you doe not the same in the reason you giue for them You goe forward in the saied Pag. 116. N. 159. and say Not but that it were now very strang and vnreasonable if a man should belieue the matters of these Bookes and not the Authority of the Bookes and therefore if a man should professe the not believing of these I should haue reason to feare he did not belieue that But there is not alwaies an equall necessity for the belief whereof there is an equall reason No Is there not alwaies an equall necessity for the beliefe of c. How then did you proue that men cannot without danger of damnation doubt of the Bookes of Scripture as he cannot doubt of Christ because he can haue no reason to belieue in Christ but of necessity he must do so that is belieue the Scripture 40. Yet this is not all that heere offers itself about your Contradictions You say we haue the same reason to belieue the vndoubted Bookes of Scripture which we haue for our belief in Christ I suppose you meane vniversall Tradition for which you profess to receiue the Scripture How then were you obliged to belieue in Christ and teach that Christ is a materiall object of our Faith and yet that Scripture is not such an object If vniversall Tradition be sufficient to declare an Object to be revealed by God and the same vniversall Tr. dition deliver to vs Christ and Scripture it is a Contradiction to say the one is revealed and consequently is a materiall object of our Faith and not the other Or if one be revealed and not the other than you contradict your owne saying that there is the same reason for believing them both seing the one hath the Formall reason or Motiue of Faith namely divine Revelation which the other must want if you will needs deny it to be a Materiall Object of Faith And I hope to be revealed and not revealed are very different and not the same things or Reasons 41. In your N. 50. you fall Heavy vpon Cha. Ma. for saying

a necessity of some body to deliver it Neither can I discover how this argument is not against yourselfe who teach that the Creed containes all necessary points of Faith and that the article which doth concerne the Church is none of those necessary points from whence it follow that the perfection of the Creed that is the beliefe of all necessary articles excludes a necessity of believing that article of the Church For it implyes contradiction that I should belieue all that is necessary to be believed and yet some other points should be necessary or that a point not necessary should be necessary Neither is this in your grounds to exclude a necessity of some body to deliver the Creed but only to exclude a necessity of believing that this must be done by a perpetuall visible Church which you say N. 34. is not a fundamentall article and the same you teach in divers other places of your Booke You add much lesse can I discover any shew of reason why the whole Creeds containing all things necessary should mak the beliefe of a part of it vnnecessary As well for ought I vnder stand you might auouch this inference to be as good as Dr. Potters The Apostles Creed containes all things necessary therfor their is no need to belieue in God But who makes any such generall or causall inference Because the whole Creed containes all things necessary therfor the beliefe of a part of it is vnnecessary rather we must say the contrary Because it containes divers necessary points therfore the beliefe of divers of them is necessary I hope you will not deny this to be a good consequence the Creed containes all necessary articles togeather with some not necessary Therfor the beliefe of some part of it is not necessary And I wonder you would paralell our beliefe in God with that of the Church since the one is the most necessary article of all others and the other in your opinion is not necessary The rest of your discourse in this Number serves only to confirme the argument of Ch. Ma. who never sayd absolutely that if the Apostles Creed containe all things necessary all other Creeds and Catechismes are superfluous but expresly called it a poore consequence and yet that it was as good as Potters which must be to this effect It is enough vpon the Doctours supposition not in truth or it is only necessary to belieue the article of the Church Therfor it is superfluous to belieue other articles contained in the Creed 66. In your N. 81. you are pleased to spend words in vaine D. Potter says As well nay better they might haue given vs no article but that and sent vs to the Church for all the rest Ch. Ma. having first proved this inference to be of no force by way of superrogation grants the thing inferred not absolutely but thus farr which words you leaue out and yet they overthrow all that you say here that de facto our B. Saviour hath sent vs to the Church by her to be taught and by her alone because she was before the Creed and Scriptures and she to discharge this imposed office of instructing vs had delivered vs the rCeed holy Scripture vnwritten Divine Apostolicall Ecclesiasticall Traditions Thus Ch. Ma. hath granted you all that he pretended to grant as might haue been apparent if you had not omitted his first words Thus farr and not farther nor so farr as you would needs make him to haue pretended 67. Your N. 82.83 haue been answered already For if Dr. Potter meant that the article of the Church might be sufficient as containing all things necessary to be believed and that therfor we needed not the Creed Ch. Ma. sayth truly it is no good argument The Creed containes not all things necessary and that article of the Church is in rigour sufficient Therfor the Creed is not profitable or if the Doctour meant that the article of the Church were enough because the Church afterward would teach all things by Creeds or Catechismes c. that were but to leaue the Creed and afterward to come to it and indeed to tell vs that the Church must doe that which had beene done already and therfor in what sense soever you take the Doctours argument it was confuted by Ch. Ma. But now while you pretend to stand for the sufficiency of the Creed in all necessary points of beliefe you doe indeed overthrow it while you speake to Ch. Ma. in this manner Supposing the Apostles had written â—hese Scriptures as they haue written wherin all the Articles of their Creed are plainly delivered and preached that doctrine which they did preach and done all other things as they haue done besides the compossng their simbol I say if your doctrine weretrue they had done a work infinitly more beneficiall to the Church of Christ if they had never coÌ„posed their simbol which is but an imperfect comprehension of the necessary points of simple beliefe and no distinctiue mark as a Simbol should be betweene those that are true Christians and those that are not so but in steed therof had delivered this one proposition which would haue been certainly effectuall for all the forsaid good inteÌ„ts aÌ„d purposes the RomaÌ„ Church shall be for ever infallible in all things which she proposes as matters of faith who sees not that according to this discourse of yours the Apostles assuring vs that the scripture is infallible aÌ„d evideÌ„t in all necessary points de facto haue done as much service to the Church as you say they would haue done by that article I belieue the Roman Church shall be for ever infallible For this evidence of Scripture being supposed you teach that ther is no need of a guide or an infallible Church when the way is plaine of it selfe And if notwithstanding this your doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture alone the Creed is not vnprofitable and that the Apostles haue done better service to the Church by giving vs both the Creed and Scripture So I say that one article of the Church togeather with the Creed had been more profitable and of greater service then that Article alone yea the Church as I sayd must haue delivered some Creed and it was a great service to vs that the Apostles had done it to her hand If you deny this you must deny the Creed and Scripture to be de facto more profitable then the Scripture alone and so the Creed shall be of no profit For I suppose if either the Creed or Scripture be not profitable you will say it is the Creed rather then the Scripture If you say the articles of the Creed being clearly but diffusedly set downe in the Scripture as Potter speakes haue been afterwards summed vp and contracted into the Apostles Creed which therfor is of great vse I reply that by this answer you teach vs to confute your argumeÌ„t by saying that as Scripture is too large for a Creed or an abridgment so

as if the certainty of attayning an end did exclude Meanes of Exhortations Praier and the like or as if God could not effectually moue vs to what he best pleases vnless he also make vs belieue that we may tempt him by omitting all diligence of our owne towards the attaining of that to which he moves vs or interposes a Promise that he will grant it vs. You say if we belieue the Fathers of the Councell of Chalcedon the Prerogatiue of the Church of Rome of being the principall Church was grounded vpon this reason because the City was the principall and imperiall Citie But I conceiue yourself cannot belieue that the Greek Church would or could yeald such a spirituall Prerogatiue to the Latine Church vpoÌ„ so slight a ground though that might be a kind of congruence supposing an other higher and stronger Reason to wit that S. Peter had lived and died Bishop of that Citie which was as I may saie the Primate of Cities Yet I am not sorie to heare you say We do not altogether deny but that the Church of Rome might be called the chaire of Peter in regard he is sayd to haue preached the Gospell there For to omit that you dare not deny that S. Peter was at Rome which some Protestants impudently deny you giue so poore a reason why the Church of Rome hath bene particularlie by the Fathers called the chaire of Peter that every one may see there must be some better ground for it than that which you alledge of his preaching in that Citie as it is graÌ„ted that he not only preached in but was Bishop of the Citie of Antioch and he preached in many other places which yet are not wont to be called the Chaire of Peter I beseech the Reader to peruse that learned Book called Anti-Mortonus against the GraÌ„d imposture of D. Morton Â§ 4. about the Councell of Chalcedon aÌ„d he will find what Power was acknowledged to be in the Bishop of Rome aboue all Bishops through the whole world to say nothing for the present that no Councell without the confirmatioÌ„ of the Pope is of validity 26. Your N. 28. 29. 30. containe long discourses vpon occasion of a place cited by Ch. Ma. out of S. Irenaeus who Lib. 3. Cont. Hoeres Chap 36. saieth Because it were long to number the successions of all Churches we declaring the Tradition of the most great most ancient and most knowne Church founded by the most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul which Tradition it hath from the Apostles comming to vs by succession of Bishops confound all those who any way either by evill complacence of themselves or vaine glory or by blindness or ill opinion do gather conventicles otherwise then they ought For to this Church for a more powerfull principality it is necessary that all Churches resort that is all faithfull people of what place soever in which Roman Church the Tradition which is from the Apostles hath alwayes beene conserved from those who are every where 27. To this authority of S. Irenaeus you giue divers answers which vpon examination will be found insufficient and contrary to yourself You say the words set downe by Ch Ma shew that what Authority in the matter S. Irenaeus attributed to the Roman Church in particular the same for the kind though pâ—rhaps not in the same degree he attributed to all other Apostolique Churches Answer S. Irenaeus is so farre from affirming an equality betwene the Roman and other Churches that he expresly prefers her before the rest in such manner as though the rest had then had no Being yet all Heretiques might haue bene confuted by her sole authority For seing he acknowledges it needless to number the successions of other Churches in order to the force of his Argument he might as well haue supposed them not to exist as not to be necessarily taken notice of which he never saied of any other Apostolique Church Beside since he takes the Roman for as good as all other Apostolique Churches and for the same reason of all other Churches of that tyme whose successours he held it needless to reckon it being impossible that all Churches should faile in Faith we must conclude even out of S. Irenaeus his Reason that the Roman Church cannot faile in points of Belief And as for you I wonder how you would end your N. 28. in these words If v. Irenaeus thought the Testimony of the Roman Church in this point only humane and fallible then surely he could never think either adhering to it a certain marke of a Catholique or separation from it a certain marke of a Heretique For seing Cyou hold hristian Faith te be no more than probable and that the Tradition for which you receyue Scripture is humane and fallible how can you these your assertions supposed affirme that a testimony humane and fallible may not be sufficient to proue one a Catholique or Heretique Vnless you will say he is no Heretique who rejects Scripture and all Christianity nor that he is a Catholique who believes them because you profess that the motives for which you belieue them are fallible 28. You find fault with the noble Translatresse of Cardinall Perron for rendring Ad hane Ecclesiam necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiam To this Church it is necessary that every Church should agree But if you will but consult Cowpers Dictionary you will find that you haue no reason against that noble Translatresse See I say the word Conveni and you will finde Convenit in eum haec Contumelia Cic. This reproach toucheth him justly Conveniunt hae vites ad quemvis agrum Cato Uarro These vines proue well in all grounds Conveniebat in tuam vaginam machaera militis Plautus The solidours sword was meete for thy Scabbard Convenit optime ad pedem cothurnus Cic. The slippar is as meete for the foote as may be Will you say This reproach resorts to him vines resort to the field the sword resorts to the scabbard the slippar resorts to the foote Neither is that Translation either contrary or different from the Translation of Ch Ma for as much as concernes the matter and meaning of S. Irenaeus To this Church it is necessary that all Churches resort For why should all Churches resort to this Roman Church but that they may be instructed by her and agree with her in matters concerning Faith not that they may correct controll and disagree from her Otherwise it had bene a strang Argument to convince Heretiques by the Roman Church if he had not taken that Church as a modell and Rule with which they ought to agree Neither doth resort signify a corporall going to Rome but a recourse for instruction either by going thither themselves or by other meanes as you must say of those who are round about But you say if S. Irenaeus had saied By shewing the tradition of the Roman Church we confound all Heretiques For to this Church all Churches must agree what had

denieth him in all seing there is one only Christ the same in all The Magdeburgians in Praefat Centur 6. They are Anti-Christs and divels Beza de puniendis haereticis They are infidels and Apostates Mort Lib 1. Apolog. Cap 7. Either you must giue the name of Catholiks to Protestants or we must deny them the name of Christians Yourself Pag 23. N 27. speaking of Uerityes contained in the vndoubted Books of Scripture say He that doth not belieue all can hardly belieue any neither haue we reason to belieue he doth so Which is more than Catholique Divines teach who affirme that an heretique may belieue some articles of Faith by an humane opinion not purelie for Divine Revelation and so you also must vnderstand that he who doth not belieue all that is contained in the vndoubted Books of Scripture can hardly belieue any for the Authority of Scripture but if he belieue them it must be with mixture of some other reason and so fall farre short of Divine supernaturall Faith Wittenbergenses in Refutat Ortodox Consensus As he who keepeth all the Law but offendeth in one is witness saint Iames guilty of all So who believeth not one word of Christ though he seemes to belieue the other articles of the Creed yet believeth nothing and is damned and incredulous Schlusselburgh Lib. 1. Theolog. Calvin Art 1. Most truly wrote S. Chrisostom in 1. Gallat He corupteth the whole doctrin who subuerteth it in the least Article Most truly saied Ambrose E pist ad demetriadem he is out of the number of the Faithfull and lot of Saints who dissenteth in any point from the Catholike Truth Calvin Ephes 4. V. 5. vpon that One God one Faith writeth thus As often as thou readest the word one vnderstand it put emphatically as if he had saied Christ cannot be divided Faith cannot not be parted Perkins in Explicat Symboli Colum 512 Thus indeed fareth the matter that a man failing in one article faileth and erreth in all Wherevpon Faith is termed an entire copulatiue As I saied of your words so I say of these that they containe more than Catholiques affirme and to giue them a true sense they must be vnderstood that he faileth and erreth in as much as he believes not with a divine but only with an humane Faith Spalatensis contra Suarem C. 1. N. 7 Divine Faith perisheth wholy by the least detraction and consequently it is no true Church no not visible in which entire Faith is not kept in publik profession 44. The same is the Doctrine of the ancient Fathers Tertullian de praescrip Cap 2. saieth Heresies are to destroy Faith and bring everlasting death And Cap 37. If they be heretiks they can be no Christians S. Cyprian Epist 73. saieth that both by the testimonie of the Gospell and Apostle Heretiks are called Anti-christs S. Austine Enchirid Cap 5. Christ in name only is found with any Heretiks S. Chrysostom cited by Ch Ma N. 33. in Galat 17. saieth that the least error in matter of Faith destroieth Faith Let them heare sayth this holy Father what S. Paul sayth Namely that they who brought in some small errour had overthrowne the Ghospell For to shew how a small thing ill mingled doth corrupt the whole he sayd that the Ghospell was subverted For as he who clips a litle of the stamp from the kings mony makes the whole piece of no value so whosoever takes away the least particle of sound Faith is wholy corrupted But enough of this You do but cavill and yourself know you doe so in saying to Ch Ma that there is not one Catholique Divine who delivers for true Doctrine this position of yours thus nakedly set downe That any error against any one revealed truth destroies all divine Faith For you cannot be ignorant that when this Question is propounded by Divines it is necessarily vnderstood of culpable error otherwise it could be no Question And whereas you say There is not one Catholique Divine who delivers c. Your self did reade in Ch Ma S. Thomas delivering that Doctrine in the same manner 2. 2. Q. 5. Ã 3. For having propounded the Question Whether he who denieth one Article of Faith may retaine Faith of other Articles in his Conclusion he saieth It is impossible that Faith even informed or Faith without Charity remaine in him who doth not belieue some one Article of Faith although he confess all the rest to be true What say you to this Is not S. Thomas one Catholique Divine or is he not one instar omnium And yet he both proposes and answers this Question supposing not expressing that he speakes of culpable errour and afterward he speaks expresly of Heretiques as also Ch Ma in this very Number expresly specifies Protestants whom you know we belieue to erre culpably against many revealed Truths You goe forward and speak to Ch Ma in this manner They Catholique Divines all require not yourself excepted that this truth must not only be revealed but revealed publiquely and all things considered sufficiently propounded to the erring party to be one of those which God vnder pain of damnation commands all men to belieue But you are more bold than well advised in taking vpon you to know what all Catholique Divines hold and you are even ridiculous in telling Ch Ma what his opinion is I beseech you produce any one Catholique Divine teaching that all Divines hold that the errour which destroyes all divine Faith must be revealed publiquely Who is ignorant that many great Divines teach that he were properly an Heretique who should reject or disbelieue a private Divine Revelation sufficiently knowne to be such by never so secret meanes Do not yourself heere cite Estius whom you stile one of the most rationall and profound Doctors of our Church saying It is impertinent to Faith by what meanes we belieue the prime verity For many of the Ancients as Adam Abraham Melchisedeck Iob receyved the Faith by speciall Revelation Do you not remember that Zacharie was punished for his slowness in believing a revelation made privately to him and of a particular object You speak very confusedly when you say They Catholique Divines require that this Truth be one of those which God vnder pain of Damnation commands all men to belieue For all Catholique Divines agree that it is Heresie to deny any revealed truth proposed by the Church though other wise it be not comaÌ„ded to be believed aÌ„d you do not only teach through your whole Book that it is damnable to disbelieue any Truth sufficiciently propounded as revealed by God but you saie further that whatsoever one is obliged not to disbelieue at any time at the same tyme he is oblged to belieue it which latter part though it be false as I haue shewed heretofore yet it shewes that you must affirme that God vnder paine of damnation commands all men to belieue positively and explicitely all truths sufficiently propounded as revealed by God so that this

48 p. 880. The commandements may be kept with the grace of God but not without it J. n. 26. p. 20. 2. No communion in Divine service can be lawfull with those of a different Faith c. 7 n. 82 p. 511 VVho leaves to communicate in what all agree leaves the communion of all And in what all otherwise devided doe agree must be true n. 118 p. 538. 539. Communion of Protestants is composed of contradictory members and consistent with all sorts of Heretiques n. 67 p. 501 sequen In what sense a Community can oblige it selfe c. 11. n. 47 p. 680 Private Confession averred by Protestants to be necessary and that otherwise Christ had given the power of the eyes in vaine c. 2 n. 17 p. 128 It is a Divine precept c. 16 n. 17 p. 943 Consequences probably only deduced out of points of Faith are not points of Faith c 10 n. 21 p. 646 Contradictoryes not vnderstood to be such may be be beleeved c. 1. n. 54. p. 76. Concerning centradictoryes Chill Doctâ—ine is discussed disproved and the bad consequences of it shewed c. 13. n. 20. p. 802. sequentibus The Councell of Trent sufficient to convince the truth of Catholique Religion J. n. 10. p. 7. Generall councells if not infallible cannot end controversies of Faith c. 2. n. 45. p. 483. The Doctrine of Lawd concerning Generall Councells and sequels drawne from it in favour of Catholiques c. 7. n 40. p. 481. sequen Also from the Doctrine of I hil and Potter concerning the same n. 160. P. 579 sequen aÌ„d n 48 p. 48â— Of the Creed through all the c. 13. It is averred by Chil. to be receaved by vniversall tradition independent of Scripture and that the principles of Faith may be knowne by it independent also of Scripture and yet teaches that only Scripture is receaved by vniversall Tradition and that it is necessary to know the principles of Faith c. 13. n. 5. p. 791. Proved that it cannot be a sufficient Rule of Faith seeinge Potter graunts it needs a new declaration for emergent heresies n. 6. p. 792. D Doctrine may be taught effectually and yet resistibly c. 12. n. 79. p. 766. The Donatists had a Bishop at Rome to seeme true Catholiques by communicating with the Bishop of Rome c. 15 n. 11. p. 894 Their hatted to Catholiques imitated by Protestants n. 12. p. 895. They were justly sayd to be confind to Africa having no where else any considerable number n. 36. it should haue been 35. p. 916. which is put 816. They had no Divine Faith c. 16. n. 19. p. 943. 944. Their heresy of rebaptization Ibid A doubt properly taken destroyes probability c. 1. n. 53. p. 75. 76. Reflected vpon and embraced it is not vnvoluntary n. 54. p. 76. Apprchended but rejected is no voluntary doubt Ibid E Errours in themselves not damnable cannot be damnable to be held c. 14. n. 44. p. 877. 878. The Evangelists did not themselves put the Titles of their Gospells c. 2. n. 158. p. 235. Evangelists alwayes in the Church c. 12. n. 100. p. 783. Eucharist altered in matter and forme by heretiques c. 2. n. 40. p. 147. 148. Never held necessary by the Church to be given to Infants n. 207. p. 273. If in the Eucharist Christ be present Protestants expose theÌ„selves more to sinne then Catholiques if he be not present c. 4. n. 65. p. 394. 395. Evidence of things contained in Scripture diversly vnderstood e. 2. n. 6. p. 123. seq In what sense Catholiques may affirme that all things necessary for the church are evidently contayned in Scripture n. 9. p. 125. Evidence to Sectaryes is what they fancye c. 7. n. 56. p. 491. Of Evils the lesser may and must be to llerated for avoiding greater c. 12. n. 57. p. 751. And n. 59. p. 753. Uide Perplexity Excommunicaton doth not first separate a Schismatique from the church but presupposes his owne voluntary separation which also may remaine a though the excommunication were taken of c. 7. n. 64. p. 499. deinceps Chilling must separate from the church of England which exeommunicates whosoever affirmes that the 39. Articles containe superstâ—â—â—oÌ„ or errour n. 66. p. 501. The difference betwixt excommunication and Schisme n. 64. p. 499. and n 104. p. 529. F Faith of Christians proved infallible c. 1. per totum VVithout a circle c. 5. per tonum Infallible Faith strictly commanded as the first stepp to all merit c. 1. n. 95. p. 103 The infallibility of it is taught by the light of reason and instinct of nature as that there is a God n. 2. 3. 4. p. 38. 39. Acknowledged by Protestants n. 5. p. 39. sequent It is proved by Scripture by Fathers by reason n. 9. p. 30. sequen It is required for acts of supernaturall vertues and consequently it selfe is supernaturall n. 98. p. 105. It takes its essence from Diuine Revelation c. 12. n. 20 it is put 14 p. 720. It is of its essence indivisible but divisible in intension c. 1 n. 44 p. 68 seq It is an intellectuall vertue repugnant to errour n. 28 p. 59 It determines to truth and corrects reason c. 1. n. 29 p. 60 Compared with naturall science an act of Faith is most certaine but the acts of Faith compared amongst themselves may exceed one another in graduall perfection c. 1 n. 44 p. 68 seq Supernaturall Faith may be without Charity but cannot overcome the world without it n. 61 p. 80 Nor is it an efficient cause of the habit of Charity n. 67 p. 83 84 The certainty of it takes not away free will n. 62 p. 81 seq The infallibility of Faith is only requisit for the generall groundsâ— for the particular applicatioÌ„ or matter of fact a morall certainty suffices c. 4 n. 11 p. 357 seq and n. 30 p. 376 377 what is necessary for the eâ—ercising a true act of Faith n. 13 p. 359 Heretiques opposit doctrines about Faith c. 1 n. 1 p. 38 Potter and I hil directly opposit about the infallibility of it n. 6 p. 40 The Faith of I hil and the sequels of it in his owne grounds paraleld with the Catholique and convinced to be most preiudiciall to salvation n 75 p. 88 89 90 Fallibility of Christian Faith is scandalous to Iewes Turks and Painims n. 1 p. 37 It brings to Athisme Ib and n. 100 p. 107 casts into agonyes and perplexityes Those that hold it dare not declare themselves Ib I hil would seeme to admitt of infallibility n. 39 p. 66 67 and supernaturality n. 93 p. 103 His examples to shew that fallible Faith is sufficieÌ„t for salvation are examined and convinced to proue the contrary A nu 102 p. 109 ad finem capit Fallible Faith is alwayes ready to destroy it selfe n. 105 p. 111 112 It was cause of I hil so often changes Ibid He acknowledges that in such a Faith nothing caÌ„ be settled n. 22 p. 54 55 He

c. 15 n. 24 p. 903 Luthers Tenet that to hold an obligation of keeping the commandements is to deny Christ and abolim Faith J. n. 25 p. 19 That lawes and good workes are more to be shunned then sinnes Jbid His desperate remorse for leaving the church c. 7. n. 14. p. 468. and c. 14. n. 50. p. 882. His division from the whose church proved out of Protestants c. 7. n. 116. p. 537. His shamless falsification of Rom 3.28 and I hill conscienceless endeavour to make it good c. 11. n. 16. p. 6â—9 M Maximinianus Patriarche of Constantinople his testimony for the Principality of the Romane Church c. 15. n. 33. p. 914. 915. Merit by good workes excludes not grace c. 15. n 17. p. 800. Milenaryes Doctrine never decreed nor delivered by the church c. 9. n. 5. p. 626. and c. 15. n 31. p. 911. c. I hill imposture vpon S. Justine Martyr concerning it confuted by testimonyes of Protestants Ibi. Miracles perpetually wrought by the church doe not only confirme some particular point but all her Doctrine and to say the contrary is injurious â—s God and makes the Doctrine of the Apostles and of all the church vnfitt to convert people c. 5. n. 7. p. 433. 434. Shewed by Scripture to be proofes of true Faith n. 9. p. 435. To deny theÌ„ is to oppose our Saviour and his Apostles and to vndermine all Christianity n. 8. p. 434. VVrought before Protestants were dreamt of in confirmation of particular points in which they disagree from Catholiques Ibid Yet they are not necessary for every point of christian doctrine c. 3. n. 33. p. 301. Acknowledged by Luther to haue been in the church through all ages for these 1500. yeares c 5. n. 4. p. 429. By them haue been converted Jewes and Gentles yet cannot move Protestants c. 3. n. 76. p. 338. Chill holds that true Miracles may be wrought to delude men n 76. p. 337 and c. 2 n. 186 p. 261. N Nature to conserue itselfe embraceth by instinct great naturall difficultyes as less evills then its owne destruction c. 1 n. 114. p. 119. To affirme that it is as easy to obey the Ghospell as to performe what the common instinct of nature commands is iniurious to our Saviours merits Ibid. As natuâ—â—â— instinct for its naturall conservatioÌ„ is cerâ—â—â—â—â— aÌ„d invariable so must the light of Faith be for supernaturall conservation Ibid. Divers vnderstandings of things Necessary to salvation c. 2. n. 1. p. 122. seq Notes of credibility authorize the writers before their writings c. 5. n. 1. p. 426. seq and n. 5. p. 431. 432. They authorize the church independently of Scripture and fall primarily vpon her not vpon Scripture Jbid. VVhat church they authorize is to be infallibly beleeved in all points n. 6. p. 433. God of his goodness could not permitt them be found as they are in the catholique Romane church if her Faith could be false n. 7. p. 433. and n. 10. 11. 12. p. 436. 437. These notes cannot be pretended by Protestantâ— and other Sectaryes n. 4. p. 429. 430. O Objects are not obsure evident certainâ— probable c. in theÌ„selves but only so denominated extrinsecally by the acts to which those affections are proper c. 15. n. 6. p. 888. 889. Observations to aÌ„swear many of Chil. objections about the creed c. 13. n. 8 p. 793. 794. Aprobable Opinion may be safely followed in things necessary for salvation only necessitate Praecepti but not in such as are necessitane Medij c. 16. n. 1. p. 933. and n. 16. p. 941. P In case of perplexity what is to be done c. 7. n. 132. p. 551 seq and c. 12. n 57. p. 751. and n 59. p 753. A speculatiue Perswasion differs much from a practicall c. 14. n. 46. p. 879. S. Peter and the Apostles vindicated from the errour imputed to them by Chill c. 3. n. 34. 35. p. 303. 304. S Peters Primacie over all the Apostles c. 14. n. 35 p. 871. seq He was not preseÌ„t wheÌ„ the Apostles contended who was the greater n. 36. p. 873. His name Peter is a title of great honour n. 39. p. 874. his power over all the church descended to his successors n. 41. p 875. seq Points necessary and principall rightly declared c. 2. n. 128 p. 218. 219. the most points of catholique Religion held by some Protestants or other n. 91. 92. p. 193 194. 195. alibi Those by which catholiques are made most odious to the vulgar held by chiefest Protestant Doctours n. 92. p. 195. The Pope held infallible by Potter if he hath but the assistance which the high Priest of the Jewes had c. 11. n. 36. p. 673. This saying of Potter falsly and foolishly interpred by Chill n. 39. 40. p. 675. many disparities betwixt the Church and the Synagogue n. 38. p. 674. seq The Primacie of the Church of Rome is de Jure Divino c. 14. n. 31. p. 868. It is acknowledged by Protestants to be accordinge to order wisely appointed and necessary to be retained yea that no common government can be hoped for without it c. 7. n. 13. p. 467. falsly put 167. aÌ„d n. 60. p. 496. Profession of an errour if it it be meerly exexternall is a less sinne then internall Heresie n. 133. falsly put 123. p. 554. By Prophesye is not only vnderstood the fortellinge of things but also the interpretation of Scripture and in both senses is found in the Church c. 12. n. 81. p. 769. 770. which hath alwayes had such Prophets n. 100. p. 783 An indefinite Proposition in matters of Faith is equivalent to an vniversall c. 12. n. 57. p. 749. Protestants were not first forced by excomunication to separate from the Church but their precedeÌ„t obstinat separation forced the Church to excommunicate them c. 7 n. 62. p. 497. seq For this separation they could haue no grownd n. 169. p. 584. the learned of them taxing of ignoâ—ance and absurdity those that deny salvation to Romane Catholiques n. 151. p. 573. Nor can they haue any evidence against Catholique Doctrine n. 52. p. 490. seq Whose objections were answeared longe before Protestants appeared in the world n. 59. p. 495. Their arguments to proue that by Scripture alone the Articles of Faith are to be knowne fully answeared c. 2. n. 57. p. 159. seq alibi Learned Protestants confesse that the Fathers agree with vs against them c. 2. n. 90. p. 192. They make their owne reason not Scripture as they pretend the Rule of Faith and judge of controversies c. 11. n. 61. p. 692. Whence they must needs haue a Chimericall Church patched vp of as many members repugnant in Faith as are their fancies concerning all sorts of Articles c. 13. n. 35. p. 815. seq Hence Grotius one of the learnedest of them despaired of their vnion except vnder the Pope c. 7. n. 13. p. 467. For once devided from the Roman Church they must

ought you to determine the restriction without evident scripture which if you leaue you can bring vs no certainty For if you fly to reason alone your Faith must floate in vncertaintyes for things aboue reason and what certaine reason can you giue that S. Luke should necessarily set downe all necessary points rather than S. Matthew and S. Mark whom you only probably affirme to haue written all things necessary Yea seing those two Evangelists wrote before S. Luke they should rather haue done it especially S. Matthew who wrote the Gospell before the rest and so in reason it might seeme more needfull that he should haue written all necessary points if indeed your false doctrine were true that all necessary things must be written In the meane tyme you must not confound Principall and Necessary things as if vniversally they were all one Some points may be in themselves Principall and not necessary Others Necessary and yet in themselves not principall Others both Principall and Necessary The manner of the existence of God Identity with his attributes Free Decrees Infallible Prenotion of all things the proceeding of one Divine Person from another and the like are in themselves and as they appeare to Angells and Saints in the Beatificall vision most Principall Objects but for the manner which is also a most principall Object are not vniversally necessary for all nor possible to be knowne in this mortall life Contrarily the Matter and Forme of Baptisme and other Sacraments and the like are not principall Points in themselves or in their naturall perfection and entity yet they are Necessary to be knowne The Conception of the Sonne of God in the wombe of the most B. Virgin by power of the Holy Ghost his Nativity Ascension and sitting at the right hand of his Father are Articles both Principall and necessary and yet S. Mark who alone beginns his Gospell with these words The beginning of the Gospell of Jesus Christ as part of scripture doth not mention them and if one should demand concerning S. Mark as you doe of the Text of S. Luke whether his words The Gospell of Jesus Christ must not at least imply all the principall and necessary things which Jesus began to doe and teach what would you answer Whatsoever can be answered for S. Mark wil serue for answer concerning that Text of S. Luke Yea what will you answer even for S. Lukes Gospell wherin is omitted the sending of the Holy Ghost which is a very Principall and Necessary Article of Christian Religion Could he say All assecuto omnia that he had attained the knowledg of all and yet omitt a Poynt so principall and necessary If so then you cannot by the particle All in the Acts vnderstand all things principall and necessary Neither will it serue your turne to say that S. Luke makes profession to deliver all things which Jesus began to doe and teach which the other Evangelists do not profess For the signe All in S. Luke being not to be vnderstood vniversally as I haue often sayd and is cleare out of S. John Cap. 21. it must admitt some limitation and can signify no more than what all the Evangelists did purpose and performe that is to deliver all things which Jesus began to doe and teach as far as was necessary for the End which they intended according to the direction and inspiration of the Holy Ghost that all men should be obliged to receiue our Saviour Christ as the true Messias or els for confutation of some particular heresy or for prevention of false and sictious narrations in which respect every one of the Evangelists might haue vsed the same word all as in deeds they did fully comply with the same duty which S. Luke performed Which I confirme by the Protestant Translation Anno 1622. saying in the Preface to S. Lukes Gospell It seemed good to me also having had perfect vnderstanding of things from the very first c. Where there is not the word All and yet you will not deny but that it is to be vnderstood as if it were expressed and accordingly the Protestant Translations or Editions of the Yeares 1593. 1596. 1602. express that word It seemed good also to me as soone as I had searched out perfectly all things from the beginning And therfor all the Evangelists as I sayd might haue expressed All and must be vnderstood in reality to write all no less then S. Luke who expresses so much 129. But here occurrs a difficulty which moves mee also to make this demand whether All in the preface to S. Lukes Gospell as soone as I had searched out all things from the beginning signify the same thing with All in his preface or entrance to the Acts of the Apostles The former treatise haue I made of all that Iesus began to doe and teach vntill the day in which he was taken vp You cannot say that they signify the same thing because it is certaine that S. Luke had searched out divers things concerning our B. Saviour which he did not committ to writing as for example those particulars which are written by the other Evangelists and not by him as also some of those things which were not written by any Therfor the word all in S. Luke must haue a different signification when he sayth that he had searched or had notice of all and when he sayes that he wrote all and so by all which even in these two texts hath a different signification you cannot possibly learne that S. Luke wrote in his Gospell all things necessary to salvation of those things which Jesus began to doe and teach but you must doe it out of some other texts of scripture declaring that he in the texts of the Acts by All vnderstands all things necessary to salvation though he vnderstand much more by All in his Preface before his Gospell assecuto omnia having vnderstood all but no man in his wits will vndertake any such task You demand 130. 10 VVhether this be not the very interpretat â—oÌ„ o your Remish Doctours in their Annotation vpon this place 131. Answer why make you not a conscience to deceiue the Reader by alledging Authours against their knowen meaning But this shewes as I observed aboue how hard it is to find any Writing so cleare that either by malice or mistake is not obnoxious to be misvnderstood And Cha Ma whom you egregiously wrong in this kind and particularly in fathering on him that which through his whole Booke he disproves and detests that a formall Heretique may be saved without relinquishing his heresy may comfort himself with what that great Dionysius Corinthius as we find in Eusebius L. 4. C. 12 Hist Eccles sayd what wonder is it if they haue endeavoured to falsify the words of holy scripture who haue corrupted those meane things which we haue written you know that those most pious zealous and learned men who wrote the Annotations vpon the New Testament firmely believe and vpon all

occasions teach proclaime and proue the necessity of Tradition and that scripture alone is not evident or sufficient without a living judg and the Gift of interpretation bequeathed by God to his Church Do they not even in their Annotations vpon this very first Chap of the Acts 14. and 15. verse purposely avouch and proue the same When therfor they say in their short marginall Note vpon these words all things Act 1. not all particularly but all the principall and most necessary things it is cleare their meaning is not that S. Luke had written all particular poynts necessary to be believed in Gods Church but only that he had set downe what was principall and most necessary for the End at which he aymed that is to proue our Saviour to be the messias and to oblige men to belieue so much as also to preserue vs from false or fayned Narrations And it is certaine S. Luke omitted nothing that was most necessary for these ends I might add that if we examine exactly those words All the principall and most necessary things they signify not all necessary things but all most necessary which may be very true though some necessary things be ommitted and left to the other Evangelists and Canonicall Writers or to Tradition and the Declaration of Gods Church and so the words of those Doctours do not make good your demand which concerned absolutely all principall and necessary things 132 Neither doth this any way hinder but that S. Luke and the Evangelists may be most truly and properly sayd to write the Gospell and life of Christ while he lived on earth in order to the ends which I haue declared as also because though they wrote not all but somthing of all as S. Ambrose speakes and we may say not singula generum but genera singuloruÌ„ yet every one of them wrote of our B. Saviours miracles of his Doctrine of his Parables of his promises of his sufferings of his Death c but not every particular that might haue bene recorded vnder these kinds or generall heads And this is a proper and literall explication both for the words of S. Luke which you object aÌ„d for what you alledg concerning the other three Evangelists to proue that every one of theÌ„ must express every necessary point of faith For if the Evangelists may be truly sayd to haue written for example the Miracles of our Saviour though neither any one nor all of them together haue written the twenty thousandth part of them as we gather out of S. John much more may every one of them be truly sayd to write the Gospell or History of Christ though they express not every particular point or object of Christian Faith taken in the whole latitude therof I hope you will not be objecting against the Evangelists how can they be sayd to write the Miracles of Christ of they write not the halfe nor fourth nor tenth no nor the thousandth part therof as you are pleased to object against vs and say Pag 210. N. 40. If every one of them Evangelists haue not in them all necessary Doctrines how haue they complyed with their owne designe which was as the titles of their Books shew to write the Gospell of Christ and not part of it Good Sir are not the Miracles of our Sauiour a part of the Gospell and is not your vnderstanding by the whole Gospell as you declare yourself in the same place not the whole History of Christ but all that makes vp the covenant between God and man which signifyes all necessary things a voluntary vnderstanding and a meere begging of the Question And by what I haue sayd in this occasion we may gather that although scripture should expresly affirme that it self contaynes all things necessary yet without a Living Judg and authenticall Interpreter we should remayneâ—ncertayne of the meaning of that very Text since the Annotations vpon the Rhemes Testament say that S. Luke wrote all the principall and most necessary things which Jesus began to doe and teach and yet yourself know that those learned Doctours were farr from conceyving that S. Lukes Gospell containes all Poynts necessary to be believed by Christians 133. 11. Whether all these Articles of the Christian Faith without the belief wherof no man can be saved be not the principall and most necessary things which I â—sus taught 134. Answer Omitting to repeate what I sayd about the difference of things principall and necessary I grant that the Articles of Faith without the belief wherof no man can be saved are the most necessary things which Iesus taught But you are perpetually begging the Question in supposing that all that Jesus taught concerning the Articles without the belief wherof no man can be saved are particularly expressly and evidently written either by S. Luke or any one or all of the Canonicall Writters which you know we deny 135. 12. Whether many things which S. Luke has wrote in his Gospell be not less principall and less necessary then all and every one of these 136. Answer I suppose you would make this Argument S. Luke hath written many things less principall and lesse necessary then those without the belief wherof no man can be saved therfor he hath written all those things without the belief wherof no man can be saved But why do you not say Not only the foure Evangelists but all and every one of the Canonicall Writers haue written many things which be less principall and less necessary then those without the belief wherof no man can be saved therfore they haue written all such necessary things You should consider that things may be principall and necessary compared to one end and not principall and necessary in order to another S. Luke hath not fayld to set downe all things necessary for that end which by inspiration of the Holy Ghost he proposed to himself which was beside other causes ver grat preventing false Narrations c to proue our Saviour to be the Messias for attaining of which end there was no necessity of expressing all other Articles of Christian Faith and therfor you cannot gather that he hath expressed all necessary Poynts because he hath written many things less necessary For those things less necessary to be believed by all may yet be more necessary in order to some particular end which the Canonicall Writer may haue prescribed to himself And therfor as the Writers of scripture wrote vpon severall ocasions and for different ends we must not determine what they were obliged to set downe by the nature of things in themselves but with relation to such diversity of ends otherwise we must say that the Saints Peter Paul James and John must of necessity haue expressed in their Epistles all Points necessary to be believed because they delivered some things less necessary in themselves than those which they wrote And who can deny but that the Evangelists omitted some Poynts more principall in themselves then some other which they

Tradition Heere yourselfe expressly distinguish those who tooke their direction only from Scripture from others who tooke it from the Writings of the Fathers and the Decrees of Councells c. The truth is you vndertooke to defend Potter and Protestants only to haue the occasion of venting Socinianisme and covertly overthrowing Protestantisme and vpon grounds which indeed overthrow all Religion You say Let me tell you the difference between them especially in comparison of your Church and Religion is not the difference between good and bad but between good and better Answer in matters of Faith of two disagreeing the one must be in an errour against Divine Testimony and the other in the right I hope you will not say that the difference betweene an Assent of Faith and an errour against Faith is not between good and bad but between good and better as if errour against Faith were good but not so good as Faith Now those different capitall Principles of which you spoke caÌ„not chuse but produce different and opposite conclusions and Doctrines of which one must be an errour 24. In your N. 83.84.85.86.87.89.90.91.92.93.94.95.96 you spend many words with much vnnecessary fervour against the answers which Ch. Ma. gives to two similitudes which D. Potter brings to excuse Protestants from the guilt of Schisme which similitudes you alledge in a cursiffe letter but add words of importance which the Doctour hath not His words faithfully alledged by Ch Ma. P. 194. N. 30 taken out of the Doctours P 81. 82. are these If a monastery should reforme it selfe and should reduce into practice ancient good discipline when others would not in this case could it in reason be charged with Schisme from others or with Apostasie from its rule and order Or as in a Society of men vniversally injected with soxie disease they that should free themselves from the common disease could not be therfor sayd to separate from the Society so neither can the Reformed Churches be truly accused for making a Schisme from the Church seing all they did was to reforme themselves You say this argument is pressing and vnanswerable But Examples and similitudes are commonly sayed rather to illustrate then demonstrate and are often more captious then solid and convincing You haue no reason to accuse Ch Ma for perverting them for he first set downe the very words of Potter and then sets downe the case with application to our present purpose never affirming that the Doctour sets it downe in the manner and in those words but contrarily shewing that it should be so set downe which appeares by his express words N. 31. Before you make your finall resolution heare a word of advice And N. 32. Let me set before you these considerations All which words in both these places declare manifestly that Ch Ma did not pretend to set downe verbatim the Doctours case but to signify what he ought to haue considered and set downe and what de facto past in the division of Luther from the Church And lastly he shewes that the case being set downe as it ought to haue been made against the Doctour in favour of his adversary That all this is true will appeare by reading the discourse of Ch Ma N. 31.32.33.34 25. And it was easy for Ch. Ma. to retort the similitudes out of these grounds which he had proved That there is a most strict divine command not to forsake the communion of Gods Church Dr. Potter Pag 76. sayes Whosoever professeth himselfe to forsake the communion of any one member of the Body of Christ must confesse himselfe consequently to forsake the whole and therfor her the Roman Churches communion we forsake not no more then the Body of Christ And that externall communion is essentiall to make men members of the same Church which he Ch. Ma. shewes Pag 155. N. 5 and I haue proved heretofore For out of these two grounds it followes That it is de Jure Divino not to forsake the communion of the Church which according to Dr. Potter were to forsake the body of Christ and that to forsake the externall communion which is essentiall to the Church is to forsake the communion of the Church Now the similitudes of the Doctor to be of any force must suppose that ther is no divine command to remaine in that Monastery or company of those infected persons or else that to leaue their externall communion were not to leaue them and so in one word the parity must be absolutely denyed seing it is supposed that ther is no divine precept for remayning in that Monastery or Hospitall of sick people or else that to remaine in their company were not essentiall to be a member of such communities and therfor you say very irreligiously N. 84. That as it is possible to forsake other Societies that is their externall communion so also it may be Lawfull to forsake the communion of the Church for her pretended faults and corruptions But let vs see what you can object and I must here againe entreate the Reader to read Ch Ma. and not take his answers not only at a second but at an adversaries hand For here you practice an art first to divide the Reasons of Ch. Ma. and then to set vpon every single one a parte wheras there is such a connexion between his reasons that one receaves light and strength from another It seemes you haue a minde to cavill when you would seeme to make a difference between one Monasterie compared with other Monasteries of the same order and one or some few persons compared with the one Monasterie in which they liue Wheras you cannot but judge that there is the selfsame proportion and that the reason which may excuse or accuse in the one may doe the like in the other or rather indeed it is but one and the selfe same case for as much as belongs to our present purpose 26. You N. 85. in stead of aÌ„swering the case as C. Ma. puts it professe to alter it and to put it not just as Ch. Ma. would haue it Well even taking the case as you put it I say that if there were as ther is in our case a divine command not to part from such a community those observances which you suppose to be obliging would cease to oblige if they could not be kept without forsaking such a community yea though they did still oblige it were not Lawfull to leaue that community as I declared heretofore in case of minoris mali and perplexity But indeed Ch. Ma. speakes not of observances the omitting wherof did import sinne but in express termes of a case wherin a Monastery did confessedly obserue their substantiall vowes and all principiall Statutes or constitutions of the order though withsome neglect of lesser Monasticall Observances Neither is the streame of Casuists against Ch. Ma. in this nor S. Paul whome you cite while he sayes that we may not doe the least evill that we may doe the greatest good Seing in

Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n

Text snippets containing the quad