men and deducing according to the never failing rules of Logick consequent deductions from them if this be it which you mean by discourse it is very meet reasonable necessary that men as in all their actions so especially in that of greatest importance the choice of their way to happinesse should be left unto it and he that followes this in all his opinions and actions and does not only seeme to doe so followes alwaies God whereas he that followeth a Company of men may oftimes follow a company of beasts And in saying this I say no more then S. Iohn to all Christians in these words Dearly beloved believe not every spirit but try the spirits whether they be of God or no and the rule he gives them to make this tryall by is to consider whether they confesse Iesus to be the Christ that is the Guide of their Faith and Lord of their actions no◠whether they acknowledge the Pope to be his Vicar I say no more then S. Paul in exhorting all Christians to try all things and to hold fast that which is good then S. Peter in cōmanding all Christians to be ready to give a reason of the hope that is in them then our Saviour himselfe in forewarning all his followers that if they blindly followed blind guides both leaders and followers should fall into the ditch and again in saying even to the people Yea why of your selves iudge ye not what is right And though by passion or precipitation or preiudice by want of reason or not using that they have men may be and are oftentimes led into error and mischiefe yet that they cannot be misguided by discourse truly so called such as I have described you your selfe have given them security For what is discourse but drawing conclusions out of premises by good consequence Now the principles which we have setled to wit the Scriptures are on all sides agreed to be infallibly true And you have told us in the fourth chap. of this Pamphlet that from truth no man can by good consequence inferre falshood Therefore by discourse no man can possibly be led to error but if he erre in his conclusions he must of necessity either erre in his principles which here cannot have place or commit some error in his discourse that is indeed not discourse but seeme to doe so 13 You say thirdly with sufficient confidence that if the true Church may erre in defining what Scriptures be Canonicall or in delivering the sense thereof then we must follow either the privat Spirit or else naturall wit and iudgement and by them examine what Scriptures containe true or false doctrine and in that respect ought to be received or reiected All which is apparently untrue neither can any proofe of it be pretended For though the present Church may possibly erre in her judgement touching this matter yet have we other directions in it besides the privat spirit and the examination of the contents which latter way may conclude the negative very strongly to wit that such or such a book cannot come from God because it containes irreconcileable contradictions but the affirmative it cannot conclude because the contents of a book may be all true and yet the book not written by divine inspiration other direction therefore I say we have besides either of these three that is the testimony of the Primitive Christians 14 You say Fourthly with convenient boldnesse That this infallible Authority of your Church being denied no man can be assur'd that any parcell of Scripture was written by Divine inspiration Which is an untruth for which no proofe is pretended and besides void of modesty and full of impiety The first because the experience of innumerable Christians is against it who are sufficiently assur'd that the Scripture is divinely inspir'd and yet deny the infallible authority of your Church or any other The second because if◠I cannot have ground to be assur'd of the divine authority of Scripture unlesse I first believe your Church infallible then I can have no ground at all to believe it because there is no ground nor can any be pretended why I should believe your Church infallible unlesse I first beleeve the Scripture divine 15 Fiftly and lastly You say with confidence in abundance that none can deny the infallible authority of your Church but he must abandon all infus'd faith and true religion if he doe but understand him selfe Which is to say agreeable to what you had said before and what out of the abundance of your hearts you speak very often That all Christians besides you are open Fooles or conceal'd Atheists All this you say with notable confidence as the manner of Sophisters is to place their confidence of prevailing in their confident manner of speaking but then for the evidence you promised to maintaine this confidence that is quite vanished and become invisible 16 Had I a mind to recriminate now and to charge Papists as you doe Protestants that they lead men to Socinianisme I could certainly make a much fairer shew of evidence then you have done For I would not tell you you deny the infallibility of the Church of England ergo you lead to Socinianisme which yet is altogether as good an Argument as this Protestants deny the infallibility of the Roman Church ergo they induce Socinianisme Nor would I resume my former Argument and urge you that by holding the Popes infallibility you submit your selfe to that capitall and Mother Heresy by advantage whereof he may lead you at ease to believe vertue vice and vice vertue to believe Antichristianity Christianisme and Christianity Antichristian he may lead you to Socinianisme to Turcisme nay to the Divell himselfe if he have a mind to it But I would shew you that divers waies the Doctors of your Church doe the principall and proper work of the Socinians for the undermining the Doctrine of the Trinity by denying it to be supported by those pillars of the Faith which alone are fit and able to support it I mean Scripture and the Consent of the ancient Doctors 17 For Scripture your men deny very plainly and frequently that this Doctrine can be proved by it See if you please this plainly taught and urged very earnestly by Cardinall Hosius De Author Sac. Scrip. l. 3. p. 53. By Gordonius Huntlaeus Contr. Tom. 1. Controv. 1. De verbo Dei C. 19. by Gretserus and Tanerus in Colloquio Ratesbon And also by Vega Possevin Wiekus and Others 18 And then for the Consent of the Ancients that that also delivers it not by whom are we taught but by Papists only Who is it that makes known to all the world that Eusebius that great searcher and devourer of the Christian libraries was an Arrian Is it not your great Achilles Cardinall Perron in his 3. Book 2. Chap. of his Reply to K. Iames Who is it that informs us that Origen who never was questioned for any error in this matter in or
that there is but one true Church that all Christians are obliged to harken to her that shee must be ever visible and infallible that to separate ones selfe from her communion is Schisme and to dissent from her doctrine is Heresie though it be in points never so few or never so small in their own nature and therefore that the distinction of points fundamentall and not fundamentall is wholy vaine as it is applied by Protestants These I say and some other generall grounds Charity Mistaken handles and out of them doth cleerely evince that any least difference in faith cannot stand with salvation on both sides and therefore since it is apparent that Catholiques and Protestants disagree in very many points of faith they both cannot hope to be saved without repentance and consequently as we hold that Protestancy unrepented destroies Salvation so must they also believe that we cannot be saved if they judge their own Religion to be true and ours to be false And whosoever disguizeth this truth is an enemy to soules which he deceives with ungrounded false hopes of salvation indifferent Faiths and Religions And this Charity Mistaken performed exactly according to that which appeares to have been his designe which was not to descend to particular disputes as D. Potter affectedly does namely Whether or no the Roman Church be the only true Church of Christ and much lesse whether Generall Councells be infallible whether the Pope may erre in his Decrees common to the whole Church whether he be above a Generall Councell whether all points of faith be contained in Scripture whether Faith be resolved into the authority of the Church as into his last formall Object and Motive and least of all did he discourse of Images Communion under both kinds publique service in an unknown Tongue Seven Sacraments Sacrifice of the Masse Indulgences and Index Expurgatorius all which and divers other articles D. Potter as I said drawes by violence into his Book and he might as well have brought in Pope Ioan or Antichrist or the Iewes who are permitted to live in Rome which are common Themes for men that want better matter as D. Potter was forced to fetch in the aforesaid Controversies that so he might dazle the eyes and distract the mind of the Reader and hinder him from perceiving that in his whole Answere he uttered nothing to the purpose and point in question which if he had followed closely I dare well say he might have dispatched his whole Book in two or three sheets of paper But the truth is he was loath to affirme plainely that generally both Catholiques and Protestants may be saved and yet seeing it to be most evident that Protestants cannot pretend to have any true Church before Luther except the Roman and such as agreed with her and consequently that they cannot hope for Salvation if they deny it to us he thought best to avoid this difficulty by confusion of language and to fill up his Book with points which make nothing to the purpose Wherein he is lesse excusable because he must graunt that those very particulars to which he digresseth are not fundamentall errors though it should be granted that they be errors which indeed are Catholique verities For since they be not fundamentall not destructive of salvation what imports it whether we hold them or no for as much as concernes our possibility to be saved 3 In one thing only he will perhaps seeme to have touched the point in question to wit in his distinction of points fundamentall and not fundamentall because some may thinke that a difference in points which are not fundamentall breakes not the Vnity of Faith and hinders not the hope of salvation in persons so disagreeing And yet in this very distinction he never speaks to the purpose indeed but only saies that there are some points so fundamentall as that all are obliged to know and believe them explicitely but never tells us whether there be any other points of faith which a man may deny or disbelieve though they be sufficiently presented to his understanding as truths revealed or testified by almighty God which was the only thing in question For if it be damnable as certainly it is to deny or disbelieve any one truth witnessed by almighty God though the thing be not in it self of any great consequence or moment and since of two disagreeing in matters of faith one must necessarily deny some such truth it clearly followes that amongst men of different Faiths or Religions one only can be saved though their difference consist of divers or but even one point which is not in his own nature fundamentall as I declare at large in divers places of my first part So that it is cleere D. Potter even in this his last refuge and distinction never comes to the point in question to say nothing that he himselfe doth quite overthrow it and plainly contradict his whole designe as I shew in the third Chapter of my first Part. 4 And as for D. Potters manner of handling those very points which are utterly beside the purpose it consists only in bringing vulgar mean objections which have been answered a thousand times yea and some of them are cleerely answered even in Charity Mistaken but he takes no knowledge at all af any such answeres and much lesse doth he apply himselfe to confute them He alleadgeth also Authors with so great corruption and fraud as I would not have believed if I had not found it by cleere and frequent experience In his second Edition he hath indeed left out one or two grosse corruptions amongst many others no lesse notorious having as it seemes been warned by some friends that they could not stand with his credit but even in this his second Edition he retracts them not at all nor declares that he was mistaken in the First and so his reader of the first Edition shall ever be deceived by him though withall he read the Second For preventing of which inconvenience I have thought it necessary to take notice of them and to discover them in my Reply 5. And for conclusion of this point I will only say that D. Potter might well have spared his paines if he had ingeniously acknowledged where the whole substance yea and sometime the very words and phrases of his book may be found in farre briefer manner namely in a Sermon of D. Vshers preached before our late soveraigne Lord King Iames the 20. of Iune 1624. at Wansted containing A Declaration of the Vniversality of the Church of Christ and the Vnity of Faith professed therein which Sermon having been roundly and wittily confuted by a Catholike Divine under the name of Paulus Veridicus within the compasse of about 4. sheets of Paper D. Potters Answere to Charity Mistaken was in effect confuted before it appeared And this may suffice for a generall Censure of his Answere to Charity Mistaken 6 For the second touching my Reply if you wonder at the Bulke
there was no Scripture or written word for about two thousand yeares from Adam to Moyses whom all acknowledge to haue been the first Author of Canonicall Scripture And againe for about two thousand yeares more from Moyses to Christ our Lord holy Scripture was only among the people of Israel and yet there were Gentiles endued in those daies with divine Faith as appeareth in Iob and his friends Wherefore during so many ages the Church alone was the Decider of Controversies and Instructer of the faithfull Neither did the word written by Moyses depriue the Church of her former Infallibility or other qualities requisite for a Judge yea D. Potter acknowledgeth that besides the Law there was a living Iudge in the Iewish Church endued with an absolutely infallible direction in cases of moment as all points belonging to divine Faith are Now the Church of Christ our Lord was before the Scriptures of the New Testament which were not written instantly nor all at one time but successiuely upon 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 of some there was doubt in the Church for some Ages after our Saviour Shall we then say that according as the Church by little and little received holy Scripture she was by the like degrees devested of her possessed Infallibility and power to decide CoÌ„troversies in Religion That some time Churches had one Iudge of Controversies and others another That with moneths or yeares as new Canonicall Scripture grew to be published the Church altered her whole Rule of faith or Iudge of Controversies After the Apostles time and after the writing of Scriptures Heresies would be sure to rise requiring in Gods Church for their discovery and condemnation Infallibilitie either to write new Canonicall Scripture as was done in the Apostles time by occasion of emergent heresies or infallibilitie to interpret Scriptures already written or without Scripture by divine unwritten Traditions and assistants of the holy Ghost to determine all Controversies as Tertullian saith The soule is before the letter and speech before Bookes and sense before stile Certainly such addition of Scripture with derogation or subtraction from the former power and infallibilitie of the Church would haue brought to the world division in matters of faith and the Church had rather lost then gained by holy Scripture which ought to be far from our tongues and thoughts it being manifest that for decision of Controversies infallibilitie setled in a living Iudge is incomparably more usefull and fit then if it were conceived as inherent in some inanimate writing Is there such repugnance betwixt Infallibility in the Church and Existence of Scripture that the production of the one must be the destruction of the other Must the Church wax dry by giving to her Children the milke of sacred Writ No No. Her Infallibility was and is derived from an inexhausted fountaine If Protestants will haue the Scripture alone for their Iudge let them first produce some Scripture affirming that by the entring thereof Infallibilitie went out of the Church D. Potter may remember what himselfe teacheth That the Church is still endued with infallibility in points fundamentall and consequently that infallibility in the Church doth well agree with the truth the sanctity yea with the sufficiency of Scripture for all matters necessary to Salvation I would therefore gladly know out of what Text he imagineth that the Church by the comming of Scripture was deprived of infallibility in some points and not in others He affirmeth that the Iewish Synagogue retained infallibility in her selfe notwithstanding the writing of the Old Testament and will he so unworthily and unjustly depriue the Church of Christ of infallibilitie by reason of the New Testament Eâ—pecially if we consider that in the Old Testament Lawes Ceremonies Rites Punishments Iudgements Sacraments Sacrifices c. were more particularly and minutely delivered to the Iewes then in the New Testament is done our Saviour leaving the determination or declaration of particulars to his Spouse the Church which therefore stands in need of infallibility more then the Iewish Synagogue D. Potter 1 against this argument drawne from the power and infallibilitie of the Synagogue objects that we might as well inferre that Christians must haue one soveraigne Prince over all because the Iewes had one chiefe Iudge But the disparitie is very cleare The Synagogue was a type and figure of the Church of Christ 〈◊〉 so their civill government of Christian Common wealths or kingdomes The Church succeeded to the Synagogue but not Christian Princes to Iewish Magistrates And the Church is compared to a house or family to an Army to a body to a kingdome c. all which require one Master onâ— Generall one head one Magistrate one spiritual King as our blessed Saviour with fiet Vnm ovile joyned Vnus Pastor One sheepfold one Pastour But all distinct kingdomes or Common-wealths are not one Army Family c. And finally it is necessary to salvation that all haue recourse to one Church but for temporall weale there is no need that all submit or depend upon one temporall Prince kingdome or Common-wealth and therefore our Saviour hath left to his whole Church as being One one Law one Scripture the same Sacraments c. Whereas kingdomes haue their severall Lawes different governments diversity of Powers Magistracy c. And so this objection returneth upon D. Potter For as in the One Community of the Iewes there was one Power and Iudge to end debates and resolue difficulties so in the Church of Christ which is One there must be some one Authority to decide all Controversies in Religion 24 This discourse is excellently proved by ancient S. Irenaeus in these words 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 yeeld ossent who belieue in Christ having salvation written in their hearts by the spirit of God without letters or Iuke and diligently keeping ancient Tradition It is easie to receiue the truth from Gods Church seeing 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 wee not to haue recourse to the most ancient Churches and from them to receiue what is certaine and cleare concerning the present question 25 Besides all this the doctrine of Protestants is destructiue of it selfe For either they have certaine and infallible meanes not to erre in interpreting Scripture or they haue not If not then the Scripture to them cannot be a sufficient ground for infallible faith nor a meet Iudge of Controversies If they hâ—ue certaine infallible meanes and so cannot erre in their interpretations of Scriptures then they are able with infallibility to
heare examine and determine all controversies of faith and so they may be and are Iudges of Controversies although they use the Scripture as a Rule And thus against their own doctrine they constitute another Iudge of Controversies besides Scripture alone 26 Lastly 〈◊〉 D. Potter whether this Assertion Scripture alone is Iudge of all Controversies in saith be a fundamentall point of faith or no He must be well advised before he say that it is a fundamentall point For he will haue against him as many Protestants as teach that by Scripture alone it is impossible to knowe what Bookes be Scripture which yet to Protestants is the most necessary and chiefe point of all other D. Covell expresly saith Doubtlesse it is a tolerable opinion in the Church of Rome if they goe no further as some of them doe not hee should haue said as none of them doe to affirme that the Scriptures are holy divine in themselves but so esteemed by us for the authority of the Church He will likewise oppose himselfe to those his Brethren who grant that Controversies cannot be ended without some externall living authority as we noted before Besides how can it be in us a fundamentall errour to say the Scripture alone is not Iudge of Controversies seeing notwithstanding this our beliefe wee use for interpreting of Scripture all the meanes which they prescribe as Prayer Conferring of places Consulting the Originals c and to these adde the Instruction and Authority of Gods Church which even by has confession cannot erre damnaâ—ly and may afford us more help then can be expected from the industry learning or wit of any private person and finally D. Potter grants that the Church of Rome doth not maintain any fundamentall errour against faith and consequently he cannot affirme that our doctrine in this present Controversie is damnable If he answer that their Tenet about the Scriptures being the only Iudge of Controversies is not a fundamentall point of faith then as he â—eacheth that the universall Church may erre in points not fundamentall so I hope he will nâ—t deny but particular Churches and private men are much more obnoxious to errour in such points and in particular in this that Scripture alone is Iudge of Controversies And so the very principle upon which their whole faith is grounded remaines to them uncertaine and on the other side for the selfe same reason they are not certaine but that the Church is Iudge of Controversies which if she be then their case is lamentable who in generall deny her this authority in particular controversies oppose her definitions Besides among publique Conclusions defended in Oxford the yeare 1633. to the questions Whether the Church haue authority to determine controversies in faith And To interpret holy Scripture The answer to both is Affirmatiue 27 Since then the visible Church of Christ our Lord is that infallible Meanes whereby the revealed truth of Almighty God are conveyed to our understanding it followeth that to oppose her definitions is to resist God himselfe which blessed S. Augustine plainly affirmeth when speaking of the Controversy about Rebaptization of such as were baptized by Heretiques he saith Tâ—is 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 seem to gainsay not him so much as Christ by whose testimony he was recommended Now Christ beareth witnesse 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 I conclude therefore with this argument Whosoever resisteth that meanes which infallibly proposeth to us Gods Word or Râ—velation commits a sinne which unrepented excludes salvation But whosoever resisteth Christs visible Church doth resist that meanes which infallibly proposeth Gods word or revelation to us Therefore whosoever resisteth Christs visible Church commits a sinne which unrepented excludes salvation Now what visible Church was extant when Luther began his pretended Reformation whetheâ— it were the Roman or Protestant Church and whether he and other Protestants doe not oppose that visible Church which was spread over the world before and in Luthers time is easy to be determined and importeth every one most seriously to ponder as a thing whereon eternall salvation dependeth And because our Adversaries doe here most insist upon the distinction of points fundamentall and not fundamentall and in particular teach that the Church may erre in points not fundamentall it will be necessary to examine the truth and weight of this evasion which shall be done in the next Chapter ANSVVER TO THE SECOND CHAPTER Concerning the meanes whereby the revealed Truths of God are conveyed to our understanding and which must determine Controversies in Faith and Religion AD § 1. He that would usurpe an absolute lordship and tyranny over any people need not put himselfe to the trouble and difficulty of abrogating and disanulling the Lawes made to maintain the common liberty for he may frustrate their intent and compasse his own designe as well if he can get the power and authority to interpret them as he pleases and adde to them what he pleases and to have his interpretations and additions stand for Lawes if he can rule his people by his lawes and his Lawes by his Lawyers So the Church of Rome to establish her tyranny over mens consciences needed not either to abolish or corrupt the holy Scriptures the Pillars and supporters of Christian liberty which in regard of the numerous multitude of copies dispersed through all places translated into almost all languages guarded with all sollicitous care and industry had been an impossible attempt But the more expedite way and therefore more likely to be successefull was to gain the opinion and esteem of the publique and authoriz'd interpreter of them and the Authority of adding to them what doctrine she pleas'd under the title of Traditions or Definitions For by this meanes she might both serve her selfe of all those clauses of Scripture which might be drawen to cast a favourable countenance upon her ambitious pretences which in case the Scripture had been abolished shee could not have done and yet be secure enough of having either her power limited or her corruptions and abuses reformed by them this being once setled in the mindes of men that unwritten doctrines if proposed by her were to be receiv'd with equall reverence to those that were written and that the sense of Scripture was not that which seem'd to mens reason and understanding to be so but that which the Church of Rome should declare to be so seem'd it never so unreasonable and incongruous The matter being once thus ordered and the holy Scriptures being made in effect not your directors and Iudges no farther then you please but your
not Iudge that is the Rule to judge by But as no Scripture affirmes that by the entring of it Infallibility went out of the Church so neither doe we neither have we any need to doe so But we say that it continued in the Church even together with the Scriptures so long as Christ his Apostles were living and then departed God in his providence having provided a plain and infallible Rule to supply the defect of liuing and infallible Guides Certainly if your cause were good so great a wit as yours is would devise better Arguments to maintain it We can shew no Scripture affirming Infallibility to haue gone out of the Church therefore it is Infallible Somewhat like his discourse that said It could not bee prov'd out of Scripture that the King of Sweden was dead therefore hee is still living Me thinks in all reason you that challenge privileges and exemption from the condition of Men which is to be subject to errour You that by vertue of this privilege usurp authority over mens consciences should produce your Letters-patents from the King of Heaven shew some expresse warrant for this Authority you take upon you otherwise you know the rule is Vbicontrarium non manifestè probatur praesumitur pro libertate 139 But D. Potter may remember what himselfe teacheth That the Church is still endued with Infallibility in points Fundamentall and consequently that Infallibility in the Church doth well agree with the Truth the Sanctitie yea with the sufficiency of Scripture for all matters necessary to salvation Still your discourse is so far from hitting the white that it roves quite besides the But. You conclude that the infallibility of the Church may well agree with the Truth the Sanctity the Sufficiency of Scripture But what is this but to abuse your Reader with the proofe of that which no man denies The Question is not whether an infallible Church might agree with Scripture but whether there be an Infallible Church Iam dic Posthume de tribus Capellis Besides you must know there is a wide difference between being infallible in Fundamentals and being an infallible Guide even in Fundamentals D. Potter saies that the Church is the former that is There shall be some men in the world while the world lasts which erre not in Fundamentals for otherwise there should be no Church For to say the Church while it is the Church may erre in Fundamentalls implies contradiction and is all one as to say The Church while it is the Church may not be the Church So that to say that the Church is infallible in Fundamentalls signifies no more but this There shall be a Church in the world for ever But wee utterly deny the Church to be the latter for to say so were to oblige our selves to finde some certain Society of men of whom we might be certain that they neither doe nor can erre in Fundamentals nor in declaring what is Fundamentall what is not Fundamentall and consequently to make any Church an infallible Guide in Fundamentals would be to make it infallible in all things which she proposes and requires to be believed This therefore we deny both to your and all other Churches of any one denomination as the Greek the Roman the Abyssine that is indeed we deny it simply to any Church For no Church can possibly be fit to be a Guide but only a Church of some certain denominatiō For otherwise no man can possibly know which is the true Church but by a pre-examination of the doctrine controverted and that were not to be guided by the Church to the true doctrine but by the true doctrine to the Church Hereafter therefore when you heare Protestants say The Church is Infallible in Fundamentalls you must not conceiue them as if they meant as you doe that some Society of Christians which may be known by adhering to some one Head for example the Pope or the Bishop of Constantinople is infallible in these things but only thus That true Religion shall never be so farre driven out of the world but that it shall alwaies haue some where or other some that believe and professe it in all things necessary to salvation 140 But you would therefore gladly know out of what Text he imagines that the Church by the comming of Scripture was deprived of infallibility in some points and not in others And I also would gladly know why you doe thus frame to your self vaine imaginations thē father them upon others We yeeld unto you That there shall be a Church which never erreth in some points because as wee conceive God hath promised so much but not there shall be such a Church which doth or can erre in no points because we finde not that God hath promised such a Church and therefore wee may not promise such a one to our selves But for the Churches being deprived by the Scripture of Infallibility in some points and not in others that is a wild notion of your own which we haue nothing to doe with 141 But he affirmeth that the Iewish Church retained Infallibility in her selfe and therefore it is unjustly and unworthily done of him to depriue the Church of Christ of it That the Iewes had sometimes an infallible miraculous direction from God in some cases of moment hee doth affirme and had good warrant but that the Synagogue was absolutely Infallible he no where affirmes and therefore it is unjustly unworthily done of you to obtrude it upon him And indeed how can the Infallibility of the Synagogue be conceived but only by setling it in the High Priest and the company adhering and subordinate unto him And whether the high Priest was Infallible when he believed not Christ to be the Messias but condemn'd and excommunicated thē that so professed and caused him to be crucified for saying so I leaue it to Christians to judge But then suppose God had been so pleased to doe as he did not to appoint the Synagogue an infallible guide Could you by your rules of Logick constrain him to appoint such a one to Christians also or say unto him that in wisdome he could not doe otherwise Vaine man that will be thus alwaies tying God to your imaginations It is well for us that he leaves us not without directions to him but if he will doe this sometime by living Guides sometime by written rules what is that to you may not he doe what he will with his own 142 And whereas you say for the further enforcing of this Argugument that there is greater reason to think the Church should be infallible then the Synagogue because to the Synagogue all Laws and Ceremonies c. were more particularly and minutely delivered then in the new Testament is done our Saviour leaving particulars to the determination of the Church But I pray walk not thus in generality but tell us what particulars If you mean particular rites ceremonies and orders for goverment we grant it and you
of his may informe you Non enim per alios c. we have received the disposition of our Salvation from no others but from them by whom the Gospell came unto us Which Gospell truly the Apostles first preached and after wards by the will of God delivered in writing to us to be the Pillar and Foundation of our faith Vpon which place Bellarmine's two observations and his acknowledgment ensuing upon them are very considerable and as I conceive as home to my purpose as I would wish them His first Notandum is That in the Christian Doctrine some things are simply necessary for the Salvation of all men as the knowledge of the Articles of the Apostles Creed and besides the knowledg of the ten Commandements and some of the Sacraments Other things not so necessary but that a man may be saved without the explicit knowledge and belief and profession of them His Second Note is That those things which were simply necessary the Apostles were wont to preach to all men But of other things not all to all but somethings to all to wit those things which were profitable for all other things only to Prelats and Priests These things premised he acknowledgeth That all those things were written by the Apostles which are necessary for all and which they were wont openly to preach to all But that other things were not all written And therefore when Irenaeus saies that the Apostles wrot what they Preach in the World it is true saith he and not against Traditions because they preached not to the People all things but only those things which were necessary or profitable for them 145 So that at the most you can inferre from hence but only a suppositive necessity of having an infallible Guide and that grounded upon a false supposition In case we had no Scripture but an absolute necessity hereof and to them who have and believe the Scripture which is your assumption cannot with any colour from hence be concluded but rather the contrary 146 Neither because as He saies it was then easy to receive the Truth from Gods Church then in the Age next after the Apostles Then when all the ancient and Apostolike Churches were at an agreement about the Fundamentalls of Faith Will it therefore follow that now 1600 yeares after when the ancient Churches are divided almost into as many Religions as they are Churches every one being the Church to it selfe and hereticall to all other that it is as easy but extremely difficult or rather impossible to find the Church first independently of the true Doctrine and then to find the truth by the Church 147 As for the last clause of the sentence it will not any whit advantage but rather prejudice your assertion Neither will I seek to avoid the pressure of it by saying that he speaks of small Questions and therefore not of Questions touching things necessary to Salvation which can hardly be called small Questions But I will favour you so farre as to suppose that saying this of small Questions it is probable he would have said it much more of the Great but I will answere that which is most certain and evident and which I am confident you your selfe were you as impudent as I believe you modest would not deny that the ancient Apostolique Churches are not now as they were in Irenaeus's time then they were all at unity about matters of faith which unity was a good assurance that what they so agreed in came from some one common Fountaine and they had no other then of Apostolike Preaching And this is the very ground of Tertullian's so often mistaken Prescription against Heretiques Variasse debuerat Error Ecclesiarum quod autem apud multos unum est non est erratum sed traditum If the Churches had erred they could not but have varied but that which is one among so many came not by Error but Tradition But now the case is altered and the mischiefe is that these ancient Churches are divided among themselves and if we have recourse to them one of them will say this is the way to heaven another that So that now in place of receiving from them certain and cleare truths we must expect nothing but certain and cleare contradictions 148 Neither will the Apostles depositing with the Church all things belonging to truth be any proof that the Church shall certainly keep this depositum entire and syncere without adding to it or taking from it for this whole depositum was committed to every particular Church nay to every particular man which the Apostles converted And yet no man I think will say that there was any certainty that it should be kept whole and inviolate by every man and every Church It is apparent out of Scripture it was committed to Timothy and by him consigned to other faithfull men and yet S. Paul thought it not superfluous earnestly to exhort him to the carefull keeping of it which exhortation you must grant had been vain and superfluous if the not keeping of it had been impossible And therefore though Irenaeus saies The Apostles fully deposited in the Church all truth yet he saies not neither can we inferre from what he saies that the Church should alwaies infallibly keep this depositum entire without the losse of any truth and syncere without the mixture of any falshood 149 Ad § 25. But you proceed and tell us That beside all this the Doctrine of Protestants is destructive of it selfe For either they have certain and Infallible meanes not to erre in interpreting or no◠If not Scripture to them cannot be a sufficient ground for infallible faith If they have and so cannot erre in interpreting Scripture then they are able with infallibility to heare and determine all controversies of faith and so they may be and are Iudges of Controversies although they use the Scripture as a Rule And thus against their own doctrine they constitute another Iudge of Controversies beside Scripture alone And may not we with as much reason substitute Church and Papists instead of Scripture and Protestants and say unto you Besides all this the doctrine of Papists is destructive of it selfe For either they have certain and infallible meanes not to erre in the choice of the Church and interpreting her decrees or they have not If not then the Church to them cannot be a sufficient but meerely a phantasticall ground for infallible faith nor a meet Iudge of Controversies For unlesse I be infallibly sure that the Church is Infallible how can I be upon her Authority infallibly sure that any thing she saies is Infallible If they have certain infallible meanes and so cannot erre in the choice of their Church and in interpreting her decrees then they are able with Infallibility to heare examine and determine all controversies of faith although they pretend to make the Church their Guide And thus against their own Doctrine they constitute another Iudge of controversies besides the Church alone Nay
Tradition Now nothing but Scripture hath thus descended to us Therefore nothing but Scripture can challenge our beliefe Now then to come up closer to you and to answer to your Question not as you put it but as you should haue put it I say That this position Scripture alone is the rule whereby they which belieue it to be Gods Word are to judge all Controversies in Faith is no fundameÌ„tall point Though not for your Reasons For your first and strongest reason you see is plainly voided and cut off by my stating of the Question as I haue done and supposing in it that the parties at variance are agreed about this That the Scripture is the word of God and consequently that this is none of their Controversies To your second That Controversies cannot be ended without some living Authority We haue said already that necessary Controversies may be are decided And if they be not ended this is not through defect of the Rule but through the default of Men. And for these that cannot thus be ended it is not necessary they should be ended For if God did require the ending of them he would have provided some certain meanes for the ending of them And to your Third I say that your pretence of using these meanes is but hypocriticall for you use them with prejudice and with a setled resolution not to believe any thing which these meanes happily may suggest into you if it any way crosse your pre-conceav'd persuasion of your Churches infallibility You give not your selves liberty of judgement in the use of them nor suffer your selves to bee led by them to the Truth to which they would lead you would you but be as willing to believe this consequence Our Church doth oppose Scripture therefore it doth erre therefore it is not Infallible as you are resolute to believe this The Church is infallible therefore it doth not erre and therefore it doth not oppose Scripture though it seem to doe so never so plainly 157 You pray but it is not that God would bring you to the true Religion but that he would confirm you in your own You conferre places but it is that you may confirm or colour over with plausible disguises your erroneous doctrine not that you may judge of them forsake them if there be reason for it You consult the Originalls but you regard them not when they make against your Doctrine or Translation 158 You adde not only the Authority but the Infallibility not of Gods Church but of the Roman a very corrupt and degenerous part of it whereof D. Potter never confessed that it cannot erre damnably And which being a company made up of particular men can afford you no help but the industry learning and wit of private men and that these helps may not help you out of your errour tell you that you must make use of none of all these to discover any errour in the Church but only to maintaine her impossibility or erring And lastly D. Potter assures himselfe that your Doctrine and practises are damnable enough in themselves Only he hopes and spes est rei incertae nomen he hopes I say that the Truths which you retain especially the necessity of repentance and faith in Christ will bee as an antidote to you against the errours which you maintain and that your superstructions may burne yet they amongst you Qui sequun tur Absalonem in simplicitate cor dis may be saved yet so as by fire Yet his thinking so is no reason for you or me to think so unlesse you suppose him infallible and if you doe why doe you write against him 159 Notwithstanding though not for these reasons yet for others I conceive this Doctrine not Fundamentall Because if a man should believe Christian Religion wholly and entirely and live according to it such a man though he should not know or not believe the Scripture to be a Rule of Faith no nor to be the word of God my opinion is he may be saved and my reason is because he performes the entire condition of the new Covenant which is that we believe the matter of the Gospell and not that it is contained in these or these Bookes So that the Bookes of Scripture are not so much the objects of our faith as the instruments of conveying it to our understanding and not so much of the being of the Christian Doctrine as requisite to the well being of it Irenaeus tels us as M. K. acknowledgeth 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 But these barbarous people might be saved therefore men might be saved without believing the Scripture to be the word of God much more without believing it to be a Rule and a perfect Rule of Faith Neither doubt I but if the bookes of Scripture had been proposed to them by the other parts of the Church where they had been before received and had been doubted of or even rejected by those barbarous nations but still by the bare beliefe and practise of Christianity they might be saved God requiring of us under pain of damnation only to believe the verities therein contained and not the divine Authority of the bookes wherein they are contained Not but that it were now very strange and unreasonable if a man should belieue the matter of these bookes and not the Authority of the bookes and therefore if a man should professe the not believing of these I should have reason to fear he did not believe that But there is not alwaies an equall necessity for the belief of those things for the belief whereof there is an equall reason We have I believe as great reason to believe there was such a man as Henry the eight K. of England as that Iesus Christ suffered under Pontius Pilaâ—â— yet this is necessary to be believed and that is not so So that if any man should doubt of or disbelieve that it were most unreasonably done of of him yet it were no mortall sinne nor no sinne at all God having no where commanded men under pain of damnation to believe all which reason induceth them to believe Therefore as an Executor that should performe the whole will of the dead should fully satisfy the Law though he did not believe that Parchment to be his written Will which indeed is so So I believe that he who believes all the particular doctrines which integrate Christianity and lives according to them should be saved though he neither believed nor knew that the Gospels were written by the Evangelists or the Epistles by the Apostles 160 This discourse whether it be rationall and concluding or no I submit to better judgement But sure I am that the corollary which you draw from this position that this point is not Fundamentaâ— is very inconsequent that is that we are uncertain of the truth
damnable if the contrary truth be sufficiently propounded as revealed by God Therefore all errors are alike for the generall effect of damnation if the difference arise not from the manner of being propounded And what now is become of their distinction 5 I will therefore conclude with this Argument According to all Philosophy and Divinity the Vnity and distinction of every thing followeth the Nature and Essence thereof and therefore if the Nature and being of faith be not taken from the matter which a man believes but from the motive for which he believes which is Gods word or Revelation we must likewise affirme that the Vnity and Diversity of faith must be measured by Gods revelation which is alike for all objects and not by the smalnesse or greatnesse of the matter which we believe Now that the nature of faith is not taken from the greatnesse or smalnesse of the things believed is manifest because otherwise one who believes only fundamentall points and another who together with them doth also believe points not fundamentall should have faith of different natures yea there should be as many differences of faith as there are different points which men believe according to different capacities or instruction c. all which consequences are absurd and therefore we must say that Vnity in Faith doth not depend upon points fundamentall or not fundamentall but upon Gods revelation equally or unequally proposed and Protestants pretending an Vnity only by reason of their agreement in fundamentall points doe indeed induce as great a multiplicity of faith as there is multitude of different objects which are believed by them and since they disagree in things Equally revealed by Almighty God it is evident that they forsake the very Formall motive of faith which is Gods revelanon and consequently loose all Faith and Vnity therein 6 The first part of the Title of this Chapter That the distinction of points fundamentall and not fundamentall in the sense of Protestants is both impertinent and untrue being demonstrated let us now come to the second That the Church is infallible in all her definitions whether they concerne points fundamentall or not fundamentall And this I prove by these reasons 7 It hath been shewed in the precedent Chapter that the Church is Iudge of Controversies which she could not be if she could erre in any one point as Doctor Potter would not deny if he were once perswaded that she is Iudge Because if the could erre in some points we could not rely upon her Authority and Iudgment in any one thing 8 This same is proved by the reason we alleadged before that seeing the Church was infallible in all her definitions ere Scripture was written unlesse we will take away all certainty of faith for that time we cannot with any shew of reason affirme that shee hath been deprived thereof by the adjoyned confort and helpe of sacred writ 9 Moreover to say that the Catholique Church may propose any false doctrine maketh her lyable to damnable sinne and error and yet D. Potter teacheth that the Church cannot erre damnably For if in that kind of Oath which Divines call Assertorium wherein God is called to witnesse every falshood is a deadly sinne in any private person whatsoever although the thing be of it selfe neither materiall nor prejudiciall to any because the quantity or greatnesse of that sinne is not measured so much by the thing which is affirmed as by the manner and authority whereby it is avouched and by the injury that is offered to Almighty God in applying his testimony to a falshood in which respect it is the unanimous consent of all Divines that in such kind of Oathes no levitas materiae that is smallnes of matter can excuse from a morall sacriledge against the morall vertue of Religion which respects worship due to God If I say every least falshood be deadly sinne in the foresaid kind of Oath much more pernicious a sinne must it be in the publique person of the Catholique Church to propound untrue Articles of faith thereby fastning Gods prime Verity to falshood and inducing and obliging the world to doe the same Besides according to teh doctrine of all Divines it is not only injurious to Gods Eternall Verity to disbelieve things by him revealed but also to propose as revealed truths things not revealed as in common wealths it is a haynous offence to coyne either by counterfeiting the metall or the stamp or to apply the Kings seale to a writing counterfeit although the contents were supposed to be true And whereas to shew the detestable sinne of such pernitious fictions the Church doth most exemplarly punish all broachers of fained revelations visions miracles prophecies c. as in particular appeareth in the Councell of Lateran excommunicating such persons if the Church her selfe could propose false revelations she herselfe should have been the first chiefest deserver to have been censured and as it were excommunicated by herselfe For as the holy Ghost saith in Iob doth God need your lye that for him you may speak deceipts And that of the Apocalyps is most truly verified in fictitious revelations If any shall adde to these things God will adde unto him the plagues which are written in this book and D. Potter saith to adde to it speaking of the Creed is high presumption almost as great as to detract from it And therefore to say the Church may addefalse Revelations is to accuse her of high presumption and of pernitious errour excluding salvation 10 Perhaps some will here reply that although the Church may erre yet it is not imputed to her for sinne by reason shee doth not erre upon malice or wittingly but by ignorance or mistake 11 But it is easily demonstrated that this excuse cannot serve For if the Church be assisted only for points fundamentall she cannot but know that she may erre in points not fundamentall at least she cannot be certain that she cannot erre and therefore cannot be excused from headlong and pernitious temerity in proposing points not fundamentall to be believed by Christians as matters of faith wherein she can have no certainty yea which alwaies imply a falshood For although the thing might chance to be true and perhaps also revealed yet for the matter she for her part doth alwaies expose her selfe to danger of falshood and error and in fact doth alwaies erre in the â—anner in which she doth propound any matter not fundamentall because shee proposeth it as a point of faith certainly true which yet is alwaies uncertain if she in such things may be deceived 12 Besides if the Church may erre in points not fundamentall she may erre in proposing some Scripture for Canonicall which is not such or else not erre in keeping and conserving from corruptions such Scriptures as are already believed to be Canonicall For I will suppose that in such Apocryphaâ—â— Scripture as she delivers there is no fundamentall error against faith or
his 7. Sect. he pretendeth then he may be sure that whensoever he meetes with such points in Scripture in them it is infallibly true although it might erre in others and not only true but cleere because Protestants teach that in matters necessary to Salvation the Scripture is so cleere that all such necessary truths are either manifestly contained therein or may be cleerely deduced from it Which Doctrines being put together to wit That Scriptures cannot erre in points fundamentall that they cleerely containe all such points and that they can tell what points in particular be such I mean fundamentall it is manifest that it is sufficient for Salvation that Scripture be infallible only in points fundamentall For supposing these doctrines of theirs to be true they may be sure to find in Scripture all points necessary to Salvation although it were fallible in other points of lesse moment Neyther will they be able to avoid this impiety against holy Scripture till they renounce their other doctrines and in particular till they believe that Christs promise to his Church are not limited to points fundamentall 16 Besides from the fallibility of Christs Catholique Church in some points it followeth that no true Protestant earned or unlearned doth or can with assurance believe the universall Church in any one point of doctrine Not in points of lesser moment which they call not fundamentall because they believe that in such points she may erre Not in fundamentalls because they must know what points be fundamentall before they goe to learn of her least otherwise they be rather deluded then instructed in regard that her certain and infallible direction extends only to points fundamentall Now if before they addresse themselves to the Church they must know what points are fundamentall they learn not of her but will be as fit to teach as to be taught by her How then are all Christians so often so seriously upon so dreadfull menaces by Fathers Scriptures and our blessed Saviour himselfe counselled and commanded to seeke to hear to obey the Church S. Austine was of a very different mind from Protestants If saith he the Church through the whole world practise any of these things to dispute whether that ought to be so done is a most insolent madnesse And in another place he saith That which the whole Church holds and is not ordained by Councels but hath alwaies been kept is most rightly believed to be delivered by Apostolicall authority The same holy Father teacheth that the custome of baptizing children cannot be proved by Scripture alone and yet that it is to be believed as derived from the Apostles The custome of our Mother the Church saith he in baptizing infants iâ— in no wise to be contemned nor to be accounted superfluous nor is it at all to be believed unlesse it were an Apostolicall Tradition And elsewhere Christ is of profit to Children baptized Is he therefore of profit to persons not believing But God forbid that I should say infants doe not believe I have already said he believes in another who finned in another It is said be believes and it is of force and he is reckoned among the faithfull that are baptized This the authority of our Mother the Church hath against this strength against this invincible wall whosoever rusheth shall be crushed in pieces To this argument the Protestants in the Conference at Ratishon gaue this round answer Nos ab Augustino hac in parte libere dissentimas In this we plainly disagree from Augustine Now if this doctrine of baptizing Infants be not fundamentall in D. Potters sense then according to S. Augustine the infallibility of the Church extends to points not fundamentall But if on the other side it be a fundamentall point then according to the same holy Doctour we must rely on the authority of the Church for some fundamentall point not contained in Scripture but delivered by Tradition The like argument I frame out of the same Father about the not rebaptizing of those who were baptized by Heretiques whereof he excellently to our present purpose speaketh in this manner Wee follow indeed in this matter even the most certaine authority of Canonicall all Scriptures But how Consider 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 Scriptures is held by us while we doe that which the authority of Scriptures doth recommend that so because the holy Scripture cannot deceaue us whosoever is afraid to be deceaved 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 us Among many other points in the aforesaid words we are to obserue that according to this holy Father when we prove some points not particularly contained in Scripture by the authority of the Church even in that case we ought not to be said to belieue such points without Scripture because Scripture it selfe recommends the Church and therefore relying on her we relye on Scripture without danger of being deceaved by the obscurity of any question defined by the Church And elsewhere he faithi Seeing this is written in no Scripture we must belieue the testimony of the Church which Christ declareth to speak the truth But it seemes D. Potter is of opinion that this doctrine about not rebaptizing such as were baptized by Heretiques is no necessary point of faith nor the contrary an heresie wherein he contradicteth S. Augustine from whom we haue now heard that what the Church teacheth is truly said to be taught by Scripture and consequently to deny this particular point delivered by the Church is to oppose Scripture it selfe Yet if he will needs hold that this point is not fundamentall we must conclude out of S. Augustine as we did concerning the baptizing of Children that the infallibility of the Church reacheth to points not fundamentall The same Father in another place concerning this very question of the validity of Baptisme conferred by Heretiques saith The Apostles indeed haue prescribed nothing of this but this Custome ought to be believed to be originally taken from their tradition as there are many things that the universall Church observeth which are therefore with good reason believed to haue been commanded by the Apostles although they be not written No lesse cleer is S. Chrysoslome for the infallibility of the Traditions of the Church For treating these words 2. Thess. 2. Stand hold the Traditions which you haue learned whether by speech or by Epistle saith Hence it is manifest that they delivered not all things by letter but many things also without writing and these also are worthy of beliefe Let us therefore account the tradition of the Church to be worthy of beliefe It is a Tradition Seek no more Which words are so plainly against Protestants that Whitaker is as plaine with S. Chrysostome
Church upon pretence of her errors haue failed even in fundamentall points and suffered shipwrack of their Salvation ought to deter all Christians from opposing her in any one doctrine or practises as to omit other both ancient and modern heresies we see that divers chiefe Protestants pretending to reform the corruptions of the Church are come to affirm that for many Ages she erred to death and wholy perished which D. Potter cannot deny to be a fundamentall Errour against that Article of our Creed I believe the Catholique Church as he aâ—â—irmeth it of the Donatists because they confined the universall Church within Africa or some other smal tract of soile Least therefore I may fall into some fundamentall errour it is most safe for me to belieue all the Decrees of that Church which cannot errâ— fundamentally especially if we adde That according to the Doctrine of Catholique Divines one errour in faith whether it be for the matter it selfe great or small dâ—stroies faith as is shewed in Charity Mistaken and consequently to accuse the Church of any one Errour is to affirm that she lost all faith and erred damnably which very saying is damnable because it leaues Christ no visible Church on earth 21 To all these arguments I adde this demonstration D. Potter teacheth that there neither â—as nor can be any iust cause to depart from the Church of Christ no more then from Christ himselfe But if the Church of Christ can erre in some points of faith men not only may but must forsake her in those unlesse D. Potter will haue them to believe one thing and professe another and if such errours and corruptions should fall out to be about the Churches Liturgy publique Service administration of Sacraments and the like they who perceive such errours must of necessity leaue her externall Communion And therefore if once we grant the Church may erre iâ— followeth that men may and ought to forsake her which is against D. Potters own words or else they are inexcusable who left the Communion of the Roman Church under pretence of Errours which they grant not to be fundumentall And if D. Potter think good to answer this argument he must remember his own doctrine to be that even the Catholique Church may erre in points not fundamentall 22 Another argument for the universall Infallibility of the Church I take out of D. Potters own words If saith he 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 unlesse he presuppose that the Church truly Catholique cannot erre in points not fundamentall For if she may erre in such points the Roman Church which he affirmeth to erre only in points not fundamentall may agree with the Church truly Catholique if she likewise may erre in points not fundamentall Therefore either he must acknowledge a plain contradiction in his own words or else must grant that the Church truly Catholique cannot erre in points not fundamentall which is what we intended to proue 23 If Words cannot perswade you that in all Controversies you must rely upon the infallibility of the Church at least yeeld your assent to Deeds Hitherto I haue produced Arguments drawn as it were ex naturâ rei from the Wisdome and Goodnesse of God who cannot faile to haue left some infallible meanes to determine Controversies which as we haue proved can be no other except a Visible Church infallible in all her Definitions But because both Catholiques and Protestants receive holy Scripture we may thence also proue the infallibility of the Church in all matters which concern Faith and Religion Our Saviour speaketh clearly The gates of Hell shall not prevail against her And I will aske my Father and he will giue you another Paraclete that he may abide with you for ever the Spirit of truth And But when he the Spirit of truth commeth he shall teach you all truth The Apostle saith that the Church is the Pillar and ground of Truth And He gaue some Apostles and some Prophets and other some Evangelists and other some Pastors and Doctors to the consummation of the Saints unto the work of the Ministery unto the edifying of the body of Christ untill we meet all into the unity of faith and knowleâ—ge of the Sonne of God into a perfect man into the measure of the age of the â—ulnesse of Christ that now we be not Children wavering and carried about with every winde of doctrine in the wickednesse of men in craftinesse to the circumvention of Errour All which words seem cleerly enough to proue that the Church is universally infallible without which unity of faith could not be conserved against every winde of Doctrine And yet Doctor Potter limits these promises and priviledges to fundamentall points in which he grants the Church cannot erre I urge the words of Scripture which are universall and doe not mention any such restraint I alleadge that most reasonable and receaved Rule that Scripture is to be understood literally as it soundeth unlesse some manifest absurdity force us to the contrary But all will not serue to accord our different interpretations In the mean time divers of Doctor Potters Brethren step in and reject his limitation as over large and somewhat tasting of Papistry And therefore they restrain the mentioned Texts either to the Infallibility which the Apostles and other sacred Writers had in penning of Scripture or else to the invisible Church of the Elect and to them not absolutely but with a double restriction that they shall not fall damnably and finally and other men haue as much right as these to interpose their opinion and interpretation Behold we are three at debate about the selfe same words of Scripture We conferre divers places and Text We consult the Originalls We examine Translations We endeavour to pray heartily We professe to speak sincerely To seek nothing but truth and salvation of our own soules and that of our Neighbours and finally we use all those meanes which by Protestants themselues are prescribed for finding out the true meaning of Scripture Neverthelesse we neither doe or haue any possible meanes to agree as long as we are left to our selues and when we should chance to be agreed the doubt would still remain whether the thing it selfe be a fundamentall point or no And yet it were great impiety to imagine that God the Lover of soules hath left no certaine infallible meanes to decide both this and all other differences arising about the interpretation of Scripture or upon any other occasion Our remedy therefore in these contentions must be to consult and heare God's Visible Church with submissiue acknowledgment of her Power and Infallibility in whatsoever she proposeth as a revealed truth according to that divine advice of S. Augustine in these words If at length thou seem to be sufficiently tossed and hast a desire to put an end to
why this reason will not exclude them as well as Protestants from all faith and unity therein Thus you haue fayl'd of your undertaking in your first part of your Title and that is a very ill omen especially in points of so streight mutuall dependance that we shall haue but slender performance in your second assumpt Which is That the Church is infallible in all her Definitions whether concerning points Fundamentall or not Fundamentall 25 Ad § 7. 8. The Reasons in these two paragraphs as they were alleaged before so they were before answered and thither I remit the Reader 26 Ad § 9. 10. 11. I grant that the Church cannot without damnable sinne either deny any thing to be true which she knowes to be Gods truth or propose any thing as his truth which she knowes not to be so But that she may not doe this by ignorance or mistake and so without damnable sinne that you should haue proved but haue not But say you this excuse cannot serue for if the Church bee assisted onely for points fundamentall she cannot but know that she may erre in points not fundamentall Ans. It does not follow unlesse you suppose that the Church knowes that she is assisted no farther But if being assisted only so farre she yet did conceaue by errour her assistance absolute and unlimited or if knowing her assistance restrained to fundamentalls she yet conceived by errour that she should bee guarded from proposing any thing but what was fundamentall then the consequence is apparently false But at least she cannot be certain that she cannot erre and therefore cannot be excus'd from headlong and pernicious temerity in proposing points not fundamentall to be believed by Christians as matters of faith Ans. Neither is this deduction worth any thing unlesse it bee understood of such unfundamentall points as shee is not warranted to propose by evident Text of Scripture Indeed if she propose such as matters of faith certainly true she may well be questioned Quo Warranto Shee builds without a foundation and saies thus saith the Lord when the Lord doth not say so which cannot be excus'd from rashnesse and high presumption such a presumption as an Embassadour should commit who should say in his Masters name that for which hee hath no commission Of the same nature I say but of a higher straine as much as the King of Heaven is greater then any earthly King But though she may erre in some points not fundamentall yet may shee haue certainty enough in proposing others as for example these That Abraham begat Isaac that S. Paul had a Cloak that Timothy was sick because these though not Fundamentall i. e. no essentiall parts of Christianity yet are evidently and undeniably set down in Scripture and consequently may be without all rashnes propos'd by the Church as certaine divine Revelations Neither is your Argument concluding when you say If in such things she may be deceived she must be alwaies uncertain of all such things For my sense may sometimes possibly deceiue me yet I am certain enough that I see what I see and feel what I feel Our Iudges are not infallible in their judgements yet are they certain enough that they judge aright and that they proceed according to the evidence that is given when they condemne a theef or a murtherer to the gallows A Traveller is not alwaies certain of his way but often mistaken and does it therefore follow that hee can haue no assurance that Charing crosse is his right way from the Temple to White-Hall The ground of your errour here is your not distinguishing between Actuall certainty and Absolute infallibility Geometricians are not infallible in their own science yet they are very certain of those things which they see demonstrated And Carpenters are not infallible yet certain of the straightnesse of those things which agree with their rule and square So though the Church be not infallibly certain that in all her Definitions whereof some are about disputable and ambiguous matters she shall proceed according to her Rule yet being certain of the infallibility of her rule and that in this or that thing she doth manifestly proceed according to it she may be certaine of the Truth of some particular decrees and yet not certain that shee shall never decree but what is true 27 Ad § 12. But if the Church may erre in points not fundamentall she may erre in proposing Scripture and so we cannot bee assur'd whether she haue not been deceived already The Church may erre in her Proposition or custody of the Canon of Scripture if you understand by the Church any present Church of one denomination fo◠example the Roman the Greek or so Yet haue we sufficient certainty of Scripture not from the bare testimony of any present Church but from Vniversall Tradition of which the testimony of any present Church is but a little part So that here you fall into the Fallacy à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter For in effect this is the sense of your Argument Vnlesse the Church be infallible we can haue no certainty of Scripture from the authority of the Church Therefore unlesse the Church be infallible we can have no certainty here of at all As if a man should say If the vintage of France miscarry we can have no wine from France Therefore if that Vintage miscarry we can have no Wine at all And for the incorruption of Scripture I know no other rationall assurance we can have of it then such as we have of the incorruption of other ancient Bookes that is the consent of ancient Copies such I mean for the kind though it be farre greater for the degree of it And if the spirit of God give any man any other assurance hereof this is not rationall and discursive but supernaturall and infused An assurance it may be to himselfe but no argument to another As for the infallibility of the Church it is so farre from being a proofe of the Scriptures incorruption that no proofe can be pretended for it but incorrupted places of Scripture which yet are as subject to corruption as any other and more likely to have been corrupted if it had been possible then any other and made to speak as they doe for the advantage of those men whose ambition it hath been a long time to bring all under their authority Now then if any man should prove the Scriptures uncorrupted because the Church saies so which is infallible I would demand again touching this very thing that there is an infallible Church seeing it is not of it selfe evident how shall I be assured of it And what can he answer but that the Scripture saies so in these and these places Hereupon I would aske him how shall I be assured that the Scriptures are incorrupted in thse places seeing it is possible and not altogether improbable that these men which desire to be thought infallible when they had the government of
that All which they were led into was not simply All otherwise S. Paul erred in saying we know in part but such an All as was requisite to make them the Churches Foundations Now such they could not be without freedome from errour in all those things which they delivered constantly as certaine revealed Truths For if we once suppose they may haue erred in some things of this nature it will be utterly undiscernable what they haue erred in what they haue not Whereas though wee suppose the Church hath err'd in somethings yet we haue meanes to know what she hath err'd in and what she hath not I mean by comparing the Doctrine of the present Church with the doctrine of the Primitiue Church delivered in Scripture But then last of all suppose the Doctor had said which I know he never intended that this promise in this place made to the Apostles was to bee understood only of a Truth absolutely necessary to salvation Is it consequent that he makes their Preaching and Writing not Infallible in points not fundamentall Doe you not blush for shame at this Sophistry The Dr saies no more was promised in this place Therefore he saies no more was promised Are there not other places besides this And may not that be promised in other places which is not promised in this 34 But if the Apostles were Infallible in all things propos'd by them as Divine Truths the like must be affirm'd of the Church because Doctor Potter teacheth the said promise to be verified in the Church True hee does so but not in so absolute a manner Now what is oppos'd to Absolute but limited or restrained To the Apostles then it was made to them only yet the words are true of the Church And this very promise might haue been made to it though here it is not They agree to the Apostles in a higher to the Church in a lower sense to the Apostles in a more absolute to the Church in a more limited sense To the Apostles absolutely for the Churches direction to the Church Conditionally by adherence to that direction and so farre as she doth adhere to it In a word the Apostles were led into all Truths by the Spirit efficaciter The Church is led also into all truth by the Apostles writings sufficienter So that the Apostles and the Church may be fitly compared to the Starre and the Wisemen The Starre was directed by the finger of God and could not but goe right to the place where Christ was But the Wise men were led by the Starre to Christ led by it I say not efficaciter or irresistibiliter but sufficienter so that if they would they might follow it if they would not they might choose So was it between the Apostles writing Scriptures the Church They in their writing were Infallibly assisted to propose nothing as a divine Truth but what was so The Church is also led into all Truth but it is by the intervening of the Apostles writings But it is as the Wisemen were led by the Starre or as a Traveller is directed by a Mercuriall statue or as a Pilot by his Card and Compasse led sufficiently but not irresistibly led so that she may follow not so that she must For seeing the Church is a society of men whereof every one according to the Doctrine of the Romish Church hath freewill in believing it follows that the whole aggregate has freewill in believing And if any man say that at least it is morally impossible that of so many wâ—ereof all may belieue aright not any should doe so I answer It is true if they did all giue themselues any liberty of judgement But if all as the case is here captivate their understandings to one of them all are as likely to erre as that one And he more likely to erre then any other because hee may erre and thinks he cannot because he conceiues the Spirit absolutly promis'd to the succession of Bishops of which many haue been notoriously and confessedly wicked men Men of the World whereas this Spirit is the Spirit of Truth whom the world cannot receiue because he seeth him not neither knoweth him Besides let us suppose that neither in this nor in any other place God had promised any more unto them but to lead them into all Truth necessary for their own other mens salvation Does it therefore follow that they were de facto led no farther God indeed is oblig'd by his Veracity to doe all that hee has promised but is there any thing that binds him to doe no more May not he be better then his word but you will quarrell at him May not his Bounty exceed his Promise And may not we haue certainty enough that oftimes it does so God did not promise to Solomon in his vision at Gibeon any more then what he askt which was wisdome to govern his people and that he gaue him But yet I hope you will not deny that we haue certainty enough that he gaue him something which neither God had promised nor he had asked If you doe you contradict God himselfe For Behold saith God because thou hast asked this thing I haue done according to thy word Loe I haue given thee a Wise and an Vnderstanding heart so that there was none like thee before thee neither after thee shall any arise like unto thee And I haue also given thee that which thou hast not asked both riches and honour so that there shall not be any among the Kings like unto thee in all thy dayes God for ought appeares never oblig'd himselfe by promise to shew S. Paul those Vnspeakable mysteries which in the third Heaven he shewed unto him and yet I hope we haue certainty enough that he did so God promises to those that seek his Kingdome and the righteousnesse thereof that all things necessary shall be added vnto them and in rigour by his promise he is obliged to doe no more and if hee giue them necessaries he hath discharged his obligation Shall we therefore be so injurious to his bounty towards us as to say it is determined by the narrow bounds of meere necessity So though God had obliged himselfe by promise to giue his Apostles infallibility onely in things necessary to salvation neverthelesse it is utterly inconsequent that he gaue them no more then by the rigour of his promise he was engaged to doe or that we can haue no assurance of any farther assistance that he gaue them especially when he himselfe both by his word and by his works hath assured us that he did assist them farther You see by this time that your chaine of feareful consequences as you call them is turned to a rope of sand and may easily bee avoided without any flying to your imaginary infallibility of the Church in all her proposalls 35 Ad § 14. 15. Doubting of a Book receaved for Canonicall may signifie either doubting whether it be Canonicall or supposing
in the face of all Christian Churches as if indeed they were not Reformers but Schismatiques and Heretiques or as Pagans Publicans I thank you for your ingenuous confession in recompence whereof I will doe a deed of Charity by putting you in mind into what labyrinths you are brought by teaching that the Church may erre in some points of faith yet that it is not lawful for any man to oppose his judgement or leave her Communion though he haue evidence of Scripture against her Will you have such a man dissemble against his conscience or externally deny a truth known to be coÌ„tained in holy Scripture How much more coherently doe Catholiques proceed who believe the universall infallibility of the Church and from thence are assured that there can be no evidence of Scripture or reason against her definitions nor any just cause to forsake her Communion M. Hooker esteemed by many Protestants an incomparable man yeelds as much as we haue alleaged out of you The will of God is saith he to haue them doe whatsoever the sentence of judiciall and finall decision shall determine yea though it seeme in their private opinion to swarve utterly from that which is right Doth not this man tell Luther what the will of God was which he transgressing must of necessity bee guilty of Schisme And must not M. Hooker either acknowledge the universall infallibility of the Church or else driue men into the perplexities and labyrinths of dissembling against their conscience whereof now I speake Not unlike to this is your doctrine delivered elsewhere Before the Nicene Councell say you many good Cotholique Bishops were of the same opinion with the Donatists that the Baptisme of Heretiques was ineffectuall and with the Novatians that the Church ought not to absolve some grievous sinners These errours therefore if they had gone no further were not in themselves Hereticall especially in the proper and most heavy or bitter sense of that word neither was it in the Churches intention or in her power to make them such by her declaration Her intention was to silence all disputes and to settle peace and unitie in her government to which all wise and peaceable men submitted whatsoever their opinion was And those factious people for their unreasonable and uncharitable opposition were very justly branded for Schismatiques For us the Mistaker will never proue that we oppose any declaration of the Catholique Church c. and therefore hee doth uniustlie charge us either with Schisme or Heresie These wordes manifestly condemne your Reformers who opposed the visible Church in many of her declarations Doctrines and Commands imposed upon them for silencing all disputes and setling peace and Vnity in the government and therefore they still remaining obstinately disobedient are justly charged with Schisme and Heresie And it is to be observed that you grant the Donatists to haue been very justly branded for Schismatiques although their opposition against the Church did concern as you hold a point not fundamentall to the Faith and which according to S. Augustine cannot be proved out of Scripture alone and therefore either doth evidently convince that the Church is universally infallible even in points not fundamentall or else that it is Schisme to oppose her declarations in those very things wherein she may erre and consequently that Luther and his fellowes were Schismatiques by opposing the visible Church for points not fundamentall though it were untruely supposed that she erred in such points But by the way how come you on the suddaine to hold the determination of a Generall Councell of Nice to be the declaration of the Catholique Church seeing you teach That Generall Councels may erre even fundamentally And doe you now say with us that to oppose the declaration of the Church is sufficient that one may be branded with Heresie which is a point so often impugned by you 43 It is therefore most evident that no pretended scruple of conscience could excuse Luther which he might and ought to have rectified by meanes enough if Pride Ambition Obstinacy c. had given him leave I grant he was touched with scruple of conscience but it was because he had forsaken the visible Church of Christ and I beseech all Protestants for the loue they beare to that sacred ransome of their soules the Blood of our blessed Saviour attentiuely to ponder and unpartially to apply to their owne Conscience what this Man spoke concerning the feelings and remorse of his How often saith he did my trembling heart beat within me and reprehending me obiect against me that most strong argument Art thou only wise Doe so many worlds erre Were so many ages ignorant What if thou errest and drawest so many into hell to be damned eternally with thee And in another place he saith Dost thou who art but One and of no account take upon thee so great matters What if thou being but one offendest If God permit such so many all to erre why may he not permit thee to erre To this belong those arguments the Church the Church the Fathers the Fathers the Councels the Customes the multitudes and greatnes of wise men Whom doe not these Mountaines of arguments these clouds yea these seas of Examples overthrow And these thoughts wrought so deep in his soule that he often wished and desired that he had never begun this businesse wishing yet further that his Writings were burned and buried in eternall oblivion Behold what remorse Luther felt and how he wanted no strength of malice to crosse his own conscience and therefore it was no scruple or conceived obligation of conscience but some other motives which induced him to oppose the Church And if yet you doubt of his courage to encounter and strength to master all reluctations of conscience heare an example or two for that purpose Of Communion under both kinds thus he saith If the Councell should in any case decree this least of all would we then use both kinds yea rather in despight of the Councell and the Decree we would use either but one kind only or neither or in no case both Was not Luther perswaded in Conscience that to use neither kind was against our Saviours command Is this only to offer his opinion to be considered of as you said all men ought to doe And that you may be sure that he spoke from his heart and if occasion had been offered would have been as good as his word mark what he saith of the Elevation of the Sacrament I did know the Elevation of the Sacrament to be Idolatricall yet neverthelesse I did retain it in tâ—e Church at Wittemberg to the end I might vexe the divell Carolostadius Was not this a conscience large and capacious enough that could swallow Idolatry Why would he not tolerate Idolatry in the Church of Rome as these men are wont to blaspheame if he could retain it in his own Church at Wittemberge If Carolostadius
reason is alike for all erres in many things are of necessity to forsake that Church in the Profession and practice of those errors 105 But to consider your exception to this speech of the Doctors somewhat more particularly I say your whole discourse against it is compounded of falsehoods and impertinencies The first falsehood is that he in these words avoucheth that no learned Catholiques can be saved Vnlesse you will suppose that all learned Catholiques are convinc'd in conscience that your Church erres in many things It may well be fear'd that many are so convinc'd and yet professe what they believe not Many more have been and have stifled their consciences by thinking it an act of humility to doe so Many more would have beene had they with liberty and indifference of judgement examined the grounds of the Religion which they professe But to think that all the Learned of your side are actually convinc'd of errors in your Church and yet will not forsake the profession of them this is so great an uncharitablenesse that I verily believe D. Potter abhorres it Your next falsehood is That the Doctor affirmes that you Catholiques want no meanes to Salvation and that he judges the Roman errors not to be in themselves fundamentall or damnable Which calumny I have very often confuted and in this very place it is confuted by D. Potter and confessed by your selfe For in the beginning of this Answer you tell us that the Doctor avouches of all Catholiques whom ignorance cannot excuse that they cannot be saved Certainly then he must needs esteeme them to want something necessary to Salvation And then in the Doctors saying it is remarkable that he confesses your errors to some men not damnable which cleerely imports that according to his judgement they were damnable in themselves though by accident to them who lived and died in invincible ignorance and with repentance they might prove not damnable A third is that these Assertions the Roman Errors are in themselves not damnable and yet it is damnable for me who know them to be errors to hold and confesse them are absolutely inconsistent which is false for be the matter what it will yet for a man to tell a lye especially in matter of Religion cannot but be damnable How much more then to goe on in a course of lying by professing to believe these things divine Truths which he verily believes to be falsehoods and fables A fourth is that if we erred in thinking that your Church holds errors this error or erroneous conscience might be rectifyed and deposed by judging those errors not damnable For what repugnance is there between these two suppositions that you doe hold some errors and that they are not damnable And if there be no repugnance between them how can the beleefe of the latter remove or destroy or if it be erroneous rectify the belief of the former Nay seeing there is a manifest consent between them how can it be avoided but the belief of the latter will maintaine and preserve the belief of the former For who can conjoyne in one braine not crackt pardon me if I speake to you in your own words these Assertions In the Roman Church there are errors not damnable and in the Roman Church there are no errors at all Or what sober understanding would ever think this a good collection I esteeme the errors of the Roman Church not damnable therefore I doe amisse to think that she erres at all If therefore you would have us alter our judgements that your Church is erroneous your only way is to shew your doctrine consonant at least not evidently repugnant to Scripture and Reason For as for this device this short cut of perswading our selves that you hold no errours because we believe your errors are not damnable assure your selfe it will never hold 106 A fift falsehood is That we daily doe this favour for Protestants you must mean if you speak consequently to judge they have no errors because we judge they have none damnable Which the world knowes to be most untrue And for our continuing in their communion notwithstanding their errors the justification hereof is not so much that their errors are not damnable as that they require not the beliefe and profession of these errors among the conditions of their communion Which puts a main difference between them and you because we may continue in their communion without professing to believe their opinions but in yours we cannot A sixt is that according to the Doctrine of all Divines there is any difference between a speculative perswasion of conscience of the unlawfulnesse of any thing and a practicall Dictamen that the same thing is unlawfull For these are but diverse words signifying the same thing neither is such a perswasion wholly speculative but tending to practice nor such a dictamē wholly practicall but grounded upon speculation A Seventh is That Protestants did only conceive in speculation that the Church of Rome erred in some doctrines and had not also a practicall dictamen that it was damnable for them to continue in the profession of these errors An eighth is that it is not lawfull to separate from any Churches communion for errors not appertaining to the substance of Faith which is not universally true but with this exception unlesse that Church requires the belief and profession of them The ninth is that D. Potter teacheth that Luther was bound to forsake the house of God for an unnecessary light Confuted manifestly by D. Potter in this very place for by the house of God you mean the Roman Church and of her the Doctor saies that a necessity did lye upon him even under pain of damnation to forsake the Church of Rome in her errors This sure is not to say that he was obliged to forsake her for an unnecessary light The tenth is covertly vented in your intimation that Luther and his followers were the proper cause of the Christian worlds combustion Whereas indeed the true cause of this lamentable effect was your violent persecution of them for serving God according to their conscience which if it be done to you you condemne of horrible impiety and therefore may not hope to be excused if you doe it to others 107 The eleaventh is that our first reformers ought to have doubted whether their opinions were certain Which is to say that they ought to have doubted of the certainty of Scripture which in formall and expresse termes containes many of these opinions And the reason of this assertion is very vaine for though they had not an absolute infallibility promised unto them yet may they be of some things infallibly certaine As Euclide sure was not infallible yet was he certain enough that twice two were foure and that every whole was greater then a part of that whole And so though Calvin Melancthō were not infallible in all things yet they might and did know well enough that your Latine Service was condemned by S.
the Gentleman who dealt between us to return this answer or to this effect that I believed the Doctrine of the Trinity the Deity of our Saviour and all other super-naturall verities revealed in Scripture as truly and as heartily as your self or any man and therefore herein your Charity was very much mistaken but much more and more uncharitably in conceiving me a man that was to be wrought upon with these Terribiles visu formae those carnall and base fears which you presented to me which were very proper motives for the Divell and his instruments to tempt poor spirited men out of the way of conscience and honesty but very incongruous either for Teachers of truth to make use of or for Lovers of truth in which Company I had been long agoe matriculated to hearken to with any regard But if you were indeed desirous that I should not answer Charity maintained one way there was and but one whereby you might obtain your desire and that was by letting mee know when and where I might attend you and by a fair conference to be written down on both sides convincing mine understanding who was resolv'd not to be a Recusant if I were convicted that any one part of it any one argument in it which was of moment and consequence and whereon the cause depends was indeed unanswerable This was the effect of my answer which I am well assur'd was delivered but reply from you I received none but this that you would have no conference with me but in Print and soone after finding me of proof against all these batteries and thereby I fear very much enâ—aged you tooke up the resolution of the furious Goddesse in the Poet madded with the unsuccessefulnesse of her malice Flectere si nequeâ— superos Acherontamovebo 6 For certainly those indigne contumelies that masse of portentous and execrable calumnies wherewith in your Pamphlet of Directions to N. N. you have loaded not only my person in particular but all the learned and moderate Divines of the Church of England and all Protestants in generall nay all wise men of all Religions but your own could not proceed from any other fountain 7 To begin with the last you stick not in the beginning of your first Chapter to fasten the imputation of Atheisme irreligion upon all wise and gallant men that are not of your own Religion In which uncharitable and unchristian judgment void of all colour or shadow of probability I know yet by experience that very many of the Bigots of your Faction are partakers with you God forbid I should think the like of you Yet if I should say that in your Religion there want not some temptations unto and some Principles of irreligion and Atheisme I am sure I could make my assertion much more probable then you have done or can make this horrible imputation 8 For to passe by first that which experience justifies that where and when your Religion hath most absolutely commanded there and then Atheisme hath most abounded To say nothing Secondly of your notorious and confessed forging of so many false miracles and so many lying Legends which is not unlikely to make suspitious men to question the truth of all Nor to object to you Thirdly the abundance of your weak and silly Ceremonies ridiculous observances in your Religion which in all probability cannot but beget secret contempt and scorne of it in wise and considering men and consequently Atheisme and impiety if they have this perswasion setled in them which is too rise among you and which you account a peece of Wisdome and Gallantry that if they be not of your Religion they were as good be of none at all Nor to trouble you Fourthly with this that a great part of your Doctrine especially in the points contested makes apparently for the temporall ends of the teachers of it which yet I feare is a great scandall to many Beaâ—x Esprits among you Onely I should desire you to consider attentively when you conclude so often from the differences of Protestants that they have no certainty of any part of their religion no not of those points wherein they agree whether you doe not that which so magisterially you direct me not to doe that is proceed a destructive way and object arguments against your adversaries which tend to the overthrow of all Religion And whether as you argue thus Protestants differ in many things therefore they have no certainty of any thing So an Atheist or a Sceptique may not conclude as well Christians and the Professors of all Religions differ in many things therefore they have no certainty of any thing Again I should desire you to tell me ingenuously whether it be not too probable that your portentous Doctrine of Transubstantiation joyn'd with your fore-mention'd perswasion of no Papists no Christians hath brought a great many others as well as himselfe to Averroes his resolution QuandoquideÌ„ Christiani adorant quod comedunt sit anima mea cum Philosophis Whether your requiring men upon only probable and Prudentiall motives to yield a most certaine assent unto things in humane reason impossible and telling them as you doe too often that they were as good not believe at all as believe with any lower degree of faith be not a likely way to make considering men scorne your Religion and consequently all if they know no other as requiring things contradictory and impossible to be performed Lastly whether your pretence that there is no good ground to believe Scripture but your Churches infallibility joyn'd with your pretending no ground for this but some texts of Scripture be not a faire way to make them that understand themselves believe neither Church nor Scripture 9 Your calumnies against Protestants in generall are set downe in these words Chap. 2. § 2. The very doctrine of Protestants if it bee followed closely and with coherence to it selfe must of necessity induce Socinianisme This I say confidently and evidently prove by instancing in one errror which may well be tearmed the Capitall and mother Heresy from which all other must follow at ease I mean their heresy in affirming that the perpetuall visible Church of Christ descended by a never interrupted succession from our Saviour to this day is not infallible in all that it proposeth to be believed as revealed truths For if the infallibility of such a publique Authority be once impeached what remaines but that every man is given over to his own wit and discourse And talke not here of holy Scripture For if the true Church may erre in defining what Scriptures be Canonicall or in delivering the sense and meaning thereof we are still devolved either upon the private spirit a foolery now exploâ—ed out of England which finally leaving every man to his own conceits ends in Socinianisme or else upon naturall wit and judgement for examining and determining what Scriptures contain true or false doctrine and in that respect ought to be received or rejected
errours which were not damnable I answere All that we forfake in you is only the beliefe and practice and profession of your Errors Hereupon you cast us out of your Communion And then with a strange and contradictious and ridiculous hypocrisy complain that we forsake it As if a man should thrust his friend out of doores and then be offended at his departure But for us not to forsake the beliefe of your Errors having discovered them to be Errors was impossible and therefore to doe so could not be damnable believing them to be Errors Not to forsake the practice and profession of them had been damnable hypocrisie supposing that which you vainly runne away with and take for graunted those errors in themselves were not damnable Now to doe so and as matters now stand not to forsake your Communion is apparently contradictious seeing the condition of your Communion is that we must professe to believe all your doctrines not only not to be damnable errors which will not content you but also to be certain and necessary and revealed truths So that to demand why we forsake your Communion upon pretence of Errors which were not damnable is in effect to demand why we forsooke it upon our forsaking it For to pretend that there are Errors in your Church though not damnable is ipso facto to forsake your Communion and to doe that which both in your account and as you think in Gods account puts him as does so out of your Communion So that either you must free your Church from requiring the belief of any errour whatsoever damnable and not damnable or whether you will or no you must free us from Schisme For schisme there cannot be in leaving your communion unlesse we were obliged to continue in it Man cannot be obliged by Man but to what either formally or virtually he is obliged by God for all just power is from God God the eternall truth neither can nor will obliege us to believe any the least and the most innocent falshood to be a divine truth that is to erre nor to professe a known errour which is to lye So that if you require the belief of any errour among the conditions of your Communion our obligation to communicate with you ceaseth and so the imputation of schisme to us vanisheth into nothing but lies heavy upon you for making our seperation from you just and necessary by requiring unnecessary and unlawfull conditions of your Communion Hereafter therefore I intreat you let not your demand be how could we forsake your Communion without Schisme seeing you err'd not damnably But how we could doe so without Schisme seeing you err'd not at all which if either you doe prove or we cannot disprove it we will I at least will for my part returne to your Communion or subscribe my selfe Schismatique In the mean time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 23 Yet notwitstanding all your Errors we doe not renounce your Communion totally and absolutely but only leave Communicating with you in the practise and profession of your Errors The tryall whereof will be to propose some forme of worshipping God taken wholly out of Scripture and herein if we refuse to joyn with you then and not till then may you justly say we have utterly and absolutely abandoned your Communion 24 To the sixteenth Your sixt demand I have already satisfied in my answeres to the Second and the Fourth and in my reply Ad § 2. toward the end And though you say your repeating must be excused yet I dare not be so confident and therefore forbear it 25 To the seaventeenth To the seaventh Whether errour against any one truth sufficiently propounded as testified by God destroy not the Nature and Vnity of Faith or at least is not a grievous offence excluding salvation I answere if you suppose as you seem to doe the proposition so sufficient that the party to whom it is made is convinc'd that it is from God so that the denyall of it involves also with it the denyall of Gods veracity any such errour destroyes both faith and salvation But if the Proposall be only so sufficient not that the party to whom it is made is convinc'd but only that he should and but for his own fault would have been convinc'd of the divine verity of the doctrine proposed The crime then is not so great for the beliefe of Gods veracity may well consist with such an Errour Yet a fault I confesse it is and without Repentance damnable if all circumstances considered the proposall be sufficient But then I must tell you that the proposall of the present Roman Church is only pretended to be sufficient for this purpose but is not so especially all the Rayes of the Divinity which they pretend to shine so conspicuously in her proposalls being so darkned and even extinguished with a cloud of contradiction from Scripture Reason and the Ancient Church 26 To the Eighteenth To the eight How of disagreeing Protestants both parts may hope for salvation seeing some of them must needs erre against some Truth testified by God I answere 1. The most disagreeing Protestants that are yet thus farre agree that these books of Scripture which were never doubted of in the Church are the undoubted word of God and a perfect rule of faith 2. That the sense of them which God intended whatsoever it is is certainly true So that they believe implicitely even those very truths against which they erre and why an implicit faith in Christ and his Word should not suffice as well as an implicit faith in your Church I have desired to be resolved by many of your Side but never could 3. That they are to use their best endeavours to beleive the Scripture in the true sense and to live according to it This if they performe as I hope many on all Sides doe truly and syncerely it is impossible but that they should believe aright in all things necessary to salvation that is in all those things which appertain to the Covenant between God and man in Christ for so much is not only plainly but frequently contained in Scripture And believing aright touching the Covenant if they for their parts perform the condition required of them which is syncere obedience why should they not expect that God will performe his promise and give them salvation For as for other things which lye without the Covenant and are therefore lesse necessary if by reason of the seeming conflict which is oftentimes between Scripture and Reason and Authority on the one side and Scripture Reason and Authority on the other if by reason of the variety of tempers abilities educations unavoidable prejudices whereby mens understandings are variously form'd and fashion'd they doe embrace severall Opinions whereof some must be erroneous to say that God will damne them for such errors who are lovers of him and lovers of truth is to rob man of his comfort and God of his goodnesse it is to make Man
circumstance is the office rather of Prudence then of Faith 4 Thus we allow Protestants as much Charity as D. Potter spares us for whom in the words above mentioned and else where he makes Ignorance the best hope of salvation Much lesse comfort can we expect from the fierce dâ—â—trine of those chiefe Protestants who teach that for many ages before Luther Christ had no visible Church upon earth Not these men alone or such as they but even the 39. Articles to which the English Protestant Clergy subscribes censure our beliefe so deeply that Ignorance can scarce or rather not at all excuse us from damnation Our doctrine of Transubstantiation is affirmed to be repugnant to the plaine words of Scripture our Masses to be blasphemous Fables with much more to be seen in the Articles themselves In a certaine Confession of the Christian faith at the end of their books of Psalmes collected into Meeter and printed Cum privilegio Regis Regali they call us Idolaters and limmes of Antichrist and having set downe a Catalogue of our doctrines they conclude that for them we shall after the Generall Resurrection be damned to unquenchable fire 5 But yet least any man should flatter himselfe with our charitable Mitigations and thereby wax carelesse in search of the true Church we desire him to read the Conclusion of the Second Part where this matter is more explained 6 And because we cannot determine what Iudgment may be esteemed rash or prudent except by weighing the reasons upon which it is grounded we will heere under one aspect present a Summary of those Principles from which we infer that Protestancy in it selfe unrepented destroyes Salvation intending afterward to prove the truth of every one of the grounds till by a concatenation of sequels we fall upon the Conclusion for which we are charged with Wanâ— of Charity 7 Now this is our gradation of reasons Almighty God having ordained Mankind to a supernaturall End of eternall felicity hath in his holy Providence setled competent and convenient Meanes whereby that end may be attained The universall grand Origen of all such means is the Incarnation and Death of our Blessed Saviour whereby he merited internall grace for us and founded an externall visible Church provided and stored with all those helps which might be necessary for Salvation From hence it followeth that in this Church amongst other advantages there must be some effectuall meanes to beget and conserve faith to maintaine Vnity to discover and condemne Heresies to appease and reduce Schismes and to determine all Controversies in Religion For without such meanes the Church should not be furnished with helps sufficient to salvation nor God afford sufficient meanes to attayne that End to which himselfe ordained Mankind This meanes to decide Controversies in faith and Religion whether it should be the holy Scripture or whatsoever else must be indued with an Vniversall Infallibility in whatsoever it propoundeth for a divine truth that is as revealed spoken or testifyed by Almighty God whether the matter of its nature be great or small For if it were subject to errour in any one thing we could not in any other yield it infallible assent because we might with good reason doubt whether it chanced not to erre in that particular 8 Thus farre all must agree to what wee have said unlesse they have a mind to reduce Faith to Opinion And even out of these grounds alone without further proceeding it undenyably followes that of two men dissenting in matters of faith great or small few or many the one connot be saved without repentance unlesse Ignorance accidentally may in some particular person plead excuse For in that case of contrary beliefe one must of necessity be held to oppose Gods word or Revelation sufficiently represented to his understanding by an infallible Propounder which opposition to the Testimony of God is undoubtedly a damnable sin whether otherwise the thing so testified be in it selfe great or small And thus wee have already made good what was promised in the argument of this Chapter that amongst men of different Religions one is only capable of being saved 9 Neverthelesse to the end that men may know in particular what is the said infallible meanes upon which we are to rely in all things concerning Fayth and accordingly may be able to judge in what safety or danger more or lesse they live and because D. Potter descendeth to divers particulars about Scriptures and the Church c. we will goe forward and prove that although Scripture be in it selfe most sacred infallible and divine yet it alone cannot be to us a Rule or Iudge fit an able to end all doubts and debates emergent in matters of Religion but that there must be some externall visible publique living Iudge to whom all sorts of persons both learned and unlearned may without danger of errour have recourse and in whose Iudgment they may rest for the interpreting and propounding of Gods Word or Revelation And this living Iudge we will most evidently prove to be no other but that Holy Catholique Apostolique and Visible Church which our Saviour purchased with the effusion of his most precious bloud 10 If once therefore it be granted that the Church is that means which God hath left for deciding all Controversies in faith it manifestly will follow that shee must be infallible in all her determinations whether the matters of themselves be great or small because as we said above it must be agreed on all sides that if that meanes which God hath left to determine Controversies were not infallible in all things proposed by it as truths revealed by Almighty God it could not settle in our minds a firme and infallible beliefe of any one 11 From this Vniversall infallibility of Gods Church it followeth that whosoever wittingly denyeth any one point proposed by her as revealed by God is injurious to his divine Majesty as if he could either deceive or be deceived in what he testifieth The averring whereof were not a fundamentall error but would overthrow the very foundation of all fundamentall points and therefore without repentance could 〈◊〉 possibly stand with salvation 12 Out of these grounds we will shew that although the distinction of points fundamentall and not fundamentall be good and usefull as it is delivered and applied by Catholique Divines to teach what principall Articles of faith Christians are obliged explicitely to believe yet that it is impertinent to the present purpose of excusing any man from grievous sinne who knowingly disbelieves that is believes the contrary of that which Gods Church proposeth as divine Truth For it is one thing not to know explicitly some thing testifyed by God another positively to oppose what we know he hath restified The former may often be excused from sin but never the latter which only is the case in Question 13 In the same manner shall be demonstrated that to alleadge the Creed as containing all Articles of
the Church to decide Controversies and who hath then so altered their nature and filled them with such jealousies as that now they cannot agree for fear of mutuall disparagement What greater wrong is it for the written Word to be compartner now with the unwritten then for the unwritten which was once alone to be afterward joyned with the written Who ever heard that sto commend the fidelity of a Keeper were to disauthorize the thing committed to his custody Or that to extoll the integrity and knowledge and to avouch the necessity of a Iudge in suits of Law were to deny perfection in the Law Are there not in Common wealths besides the Lawes written unwritten customes Iudges appointed to declare both the one the other as severall occasions may require 2 That the Scripture alone cannot be Iudge in Controversies of faith we gather very cleerly From the quality of a writing in generall From the nature of holy Writ in particular which must be beheved as true and infallible From the Editions and translations of it From the difficulty to understand it without hazard of Errour From the inconveniences that must follow upon the ascribing of sole Iudicature to it and finally from the Confessions of our Adversaries And on the other side all these difficulties ceasing and all other qualities requisite to a Iudge concurring in the visible Church of Christ our Lord we must conclude that she it is to whom in doubts concerning Faith and Religion all Christians ought to have recourse 3 The name notion nature and properties of a Iudge cannot in common reason agree to any meere writing which be it otherwise in its kind never so highly qualified with sanctity and infallibility yet it must ever be as all writings are deaf dumb and inanimate By a Iudge all wise men understand a Person endued with life and reason able to hear to examine to declare his mind to the disagreeing parties in such sort as that each one may know whether the sentence be in favour of his cause or against his pretence and he must be appliable and able to doe all this as the diversity of Controversies persons occasions and circumstances may require There is a great and plain distinction betwixt a Iudge and a Rule For as in a Kingdome the Iudge hath his rule to follow which are the received Lawes and Customes so are not they fit or able to declare or be Iudges to themselves but that office must belong to a living Iudge The holy Scripture may be and is a Rule but cannot be a Iudge because it being alwaies the same cannot declare it selfe any one time or upon any one occasion more particularly then upon any other and let it be read over an hundred times it will be still the same and no more fit alone to terminate controversies in faith then the Law would be to end suits if it were given over to the phancy and glosse of every single man 4 This difference betwixt a Iudge and a Rule D. Potter perceived when more then once having stiled the Scripture a Iudge by way of correcting that terme he addes or rather a Rule because he knew that an inanimate writing could not be a Iudge From hence also it was that though Protestants in their begining affirmed Scripture alone to be the Iudge of Controversies yet upon a more advised reflection they changed the phrase and said that not Scripture but the Holy Ghost speaking in Scripture is Iudge in Controversies A difference without a disparity The holy Ghost speaking only in Scripture is no more intelligible to us then the Scripture in which he speaks as a man speaking only Latin can be no better understood then the tongue wherein he speaketh And therefore to say a Iudge is necessary for deciding controversies about the meaning of Scripture is as much as to say he is necessary to decide what the Holy Ghost speakes in Scripture And it were a conceyt equally foolish and pernitious if one should seek to take away all Iudges in the Kingdome upon this nicety that albeit Lawes cannot be Iudges yet the Law-maker speaking in the Law may performe that Office as if the Law-maker speaking in the Law were with more perspicuity understood then the Law whereby he speaketh 5 But though some writing were granted to have a priviledge to declare it selfe upon supposition that it were maintained in being and preserved entire from corruptions yet it is manifest that no writing can conserve it selfe nor can complaine or denounce the falsifier of it and therefore it stands in need of some watchfull and not erring eye to guard it by meanes of whose assured vigilancy we may undoubtedly receive it syncere and pure 6 And suppose it could defend it selfe from corruption how could it assure us that it selfe were Canonicall and of infallible verity By saying so Of this very affirmation there will remain the same Question still how it can prove it selfe to be infallibly true Neither can there ever be an end of the like multiplied demands till we rest in the externall Authority of some person or persons bearing witnes to the world that such or such a book is Scripture and yet upon this point according to Protestants all other Controversies in faith depend 7 That Scripture cannot assure us that it selfe is Canonicall Scripture is acknowledged by some Protestants in expresse words and by all of them in deeds M. Hooker whom D. Potter ranketh among men of great learning and Iudgement saith of things necessary the very chiefest is to know what books we are to esteem holy which point is confessed impossible for the Scripture it selfe to teach And this he proveth by the same argument which we lately used saying thus It is not the word of God which doth or possibly can assure us that we doe well to think it his word For if any one book of Scripture did give testimony of all yet still that Scripture which giveth testimony to the rest would require another Scripture to give credit â—nto it Neither could we come to any pause whereon to rest unlesse besides Scripture there were something which might assure us c. And this he acknowledgeth to be the Church By the way If Of things necessary the very chiefest cannot possibly be taught by Scripture as this man of so great learning and judgement affirmeth and demonstratively proveth how can the Protestant Clergy of England subscribe to their sixt Article Wherein it is said of the Scripture Whatsoever is not read therein nor may be proved thereby is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an Article of the faith or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation and concerning their belief and profession of this Article they are particularly examined when they be ordained Priests and Bishops With Hooker his defendant Covell doth punctually agree Whitaker likewise confesseth that the question about Canonicall Scriptures is defined to us
not by testimony of the private spirit which faith he being private and secret is unfit to teach and refell others but as he acknowledgeth by the Ecclesiasticall Tradition An argument saith he whereby may be argued and convinced what books be Canonicall and what be not Luther saith This indeed the Church hath that she can discerne the word of God from the word of men as Augustine confesseth that he believed the Gospell being moved by the authority of the Church which did preach this to be the Gospell Fulk teacheth that the Church hath judgement to discerne true writings from counterfeit and the word of God from the writing of men and that this iudgement she hath not of her selfe but of the Holy Ghost And to the end that you my not be ignorant from what Church you must receive Scriptures hear your first Patriarch Luther speaking against them who as he saith brought in Anabaptisme that so they might despight the Pope Verily saith he these men build upon a weak foundation For by this means they ought to deny the whole Scripture and the Office of Preaching For all these we have from the Pope otherwise we must go make a new Scripture 8 But now in deeds they all make good that without the Churches authority no certainty can be had what Scripture is Canonicall while they cannot agree in assigning the Canon of holy Scripture Of the Epistle of S. Iames Luther hath these words The Epistle of Iames is contentious swelling dry strawy and unworthy of an Apostolicall Spirit Which censure of Luther Illyricus acknowledgeth and maintaineth Kemnitins teacheth that the second Epistle of Peter the second and third of Iohn the Epistle to the Hebrewes the Epistle of Iames the Epistle of Iude and the Apocalyps of Iohn are Apocryphall as not having sufficient Testimony of their authority and therefore that nothing in controversy can be proved out of these Bookes The same is taught by divers other Lutherans and if some other amongst them be of a contrary opinion since Luther's time I wonder what new infallible ground they can alleage why they leaue their Master and so many of his prime Schollers I knâ—w no better ground then because they may with as much freedome abandon him as hee was bold to alter that Canon of Scripture which he found receaved in Gods Church 9 What Bookes of Scripture the Protestants of England hold for Canonicall is not easie to affirme In their sixt Article they say In the name of the holy Scripture who doe understand those Canonicall Books of the Old and New Testament of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church What meane they by these words That by the Churches consent they are assured what Scriptures be Canonicall This were to make the Church Iudge and not Scriptures alone Doe they only understand the agreement of the Church to be a probable inducement Probability is no sufficient ground for an infallible assent of faith By this rule of whose authority was NEVER any doubt in the Church the whole book of Esther must quit the Canon because some in the Church haue excluded it from the Canon as Melito Asianus Athanasius and Gregory Nazianzen And Luther if Protestanis will be content that he be in the Church saith The Iewes place the book of Esther in the Canon which yet if I might be Iudge doth rather deserve to bee put out of the Canon And of Ecclesiastes he saith This book is not full there are in it many abrupt things he wants boots and spurres that is he hath no perfect sentence hee rides upon a long reed like me when I was in the Monastery And much more is to be read in him who saith further that the said book was not written by Salomon but by Syrach in the time of the Machabees and that it is like to the Talmud the Iewes bible out of many bookes heaped into one worke perhaps out of the Library of king Ptolomeus And further he saith that he doth not belieue all to haue been done as there is set downe And he reacheth the booke of Iob to be as it were an argument for a fable or Comedy to set before us an example of Patience And he delivers this generall censure of the Prophets Books The Sermons of no Prophet were written whole and perfect but their Disciples and Auditors snatched now one sentence and then another and so put them all into one book and by this meanes the Bible was conserved If this were so the Books of the Prophets being not written by themselues but promiscuously and casually by their Disciples will soone be called in question Are not these errours of Luther fundamentall and yet if Protestants deny the infallibility of the Church upon what certaine ground can they disproue these Lutherian and Luciferian blasphemies ô godly Reformer of the Roman Church But to returne to our English Canon of Scripture In the New Testament by the aboue mentioned rule of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church 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 It is worth the observation how the before-mentioned sixt Article doth specify by name all the Books of the Old Testament which they hold for Canonicall but those of the New Testament as they are commonly receaved we doe recieue and account them Canonicall The mystery is easily to be unfolded If they had descended to particulars they must haue contradicted some of their chiefest Brethren As they are commonly recieued c. I aske By whom By the Church of Rome Then by the same reason they must receiue divers Books of the Old Testament which they reject By Lutherans Then with Lutherans they may deny some Books of the New Testament If it bee the greater or lesse number of voices that must cry up or down the Canon of Scripture our Roman Canon will prevaile and among Protestants the Certainty of their Faith must be reduced to an Vncertaine Controversie of Fact whether the number of those who reject or of those others who recieue such and such Scriptures bee greater Their Faith must alter according to yeares and daies When Luther first appeared he and his Disciples were the greater number of that new Church and so this claime Of being commonly received stood for them till Zuinglius and Calvin grew to some equall or greater number then that of the Lutherans and then this rule of Commonly received will canonize their Canon against the Lutherans I would gladly know why in the former part of their Article they say both of the Old and New Testament In the name of the holy Scripture we doe understand those Canonicall Books of the Old and New Testament of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church and in the latter part speaking againe
of the Truth but the perfection of it which are very different things though you would faine confound them For Scripture might very well be all true though it containe not all necessary Divine Truth But unlesse it doe so it cannot be a perfect Rule of Faith for that which wants any thing is not perfect For I hope you doe not imagine that we conceive any antipathy between Gods word written and unwritten but that both might very well stand together All that we say is this that we have reason to believe that God de Facto hath ordered the matter so that all the Gospell of Christ the whole covenant between God and man is now written Whereas if he had pleas'd he might so have disposed it that part might have been written and part unwritten but then he would have taken order to whom we should have had recourse for that part of it which was not written which seeing he hath not done as the progresse shall demonstrate it is evident he hath left no part of it unwritten We know no man therefore that saies It were any injury to the written Word to be joyn'd with the unwritten if there were any wherewith it might be joyn'd but that we deny The fidelity of a Keeper may very well consist with the authority of the thing committed to his custody But we know no one â—ociety of Christians that is such a faithfull Keeper as you pretend The Scripture it selfe was not kept so faithfully by you but that you suffered infinite variety of Readings to creep into it all which could not possibly be divine and yet in severall parts of your Church all of them untill the last Age were so esteem'd The interpretations of obscure places of Scripture which without Question the Apostles taught the Primitive Christians are wholy lost there remaines no certainty scarce of any one Those Worlds of Miracles which our Saviour did which were not written for want of writing are vanished out of the memory of men And many profitable things which the Apostles taught and writ not as that which S. Paul glances at in his second Epistle to the Thessalon of the cause of the hindrance of the comming of Antichrist are wholly lost and extinguished So unfaithfull or negligent hath been this keeper of Divine verities whose eyes like the keepers of Israell you say have never flumbred nor slept Lastly we deny not but a Iudge and a Law might well stand together but we deny that there is any such Iudge of Gods appointment Had he intended any such Iudge he would have nam'd him least otherwise as now it is our Iudge of controversies should be our greatest controversy 11 Ad § 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. In your second Paragraph you summe up those arguments wherewith you intend to prove that Scripture alone cannot be Iudge in controversies Wherein I professe unto you before hand that you will fight without an Adversary For though Protestants being warranted by some of the Fathers have called Scripture the Iudge of Controversies and you in saying here That Scripture alone cannot be Iudge imply that it may be called in some sense a Iudge though not alone Yet to speak properly as men should speak when they write of Controversies in Religion the Scripture is not a Iudge of Controversies but a Rule only and the only Rule for Christians to judge them by Every man is to judge for himselfe with the Iudgement of Discretion and to choose either his Religion first and then his Church as we say or as you his Church first and then his Religion But by the consent of both sides every man is to judge and choose and the Rule whereby he is to guide his choyce if he be a naturall man is Reason if he be already a Christian Scripture which we say is the Rule to judge controversies by Yet not all simply but all the Controversies of Christians of those that are already agreed upon This first Principle that the Scripture is the word of God But that there is any man or any company of men appointed to be judge for all men that we deny and that I believe you will never prove The very truth is we say no more in this matter then evidence of Truth hath made you confesse in plain termes in the beginning of this chapter viz. That Scripture is a perfect Rule of faith for as much as a writing can be a rule So that all your reasons whereby you labour to dethrone the Scripture from this office of Iudgeing we might let passe as impertinent to the conclusion which we maintaine and you have already granted yet out of curtesy we will consider them 12 Your first is this a Iudge must be a person fit to end controversies but the Scripture is not a person nor fit to end controversies no more then the Law would be without the Iudges therefore though it may be a Rule it cannot be a Iudge Which conclusion I have already granted Only my request is that you will permit Scripture to have the properties of a Rule that is to be fit to direct every one that will make the best use of it to that end for which it was ordained And that is as much as we need desire For as if I were to goe a journey and had a guide which could not erre I needed not to know my way so on the other side if I know my way or have a plain rule to know it by I shall need no guide Grant therefore Scripture to be such a Rule and it will quickly take away all necessity of having an infallible guide But without a living Iudge it will be no fitter you say to end Controversies then the Law alone to end suits I answere if the Law were plain and perfect and men honest and desirous to understand aright and obey it he that saies it were not fit to end controversies must either want understanding himself or think the world wants it Now the Scripture we pretend in things necessary is plain perfect and men we say are oblig'd under pain of Damnation to seek the true sense of it and not to wrest it to their preconceived Phansies Such a law therefore to such men cannot but be very fit to end all controversies necessary to be ended For others that are not so they will end when the world ends and that is time enough 12 Your next encounter is with them who acknowledging the Scripture a Rule only and not a Iudge make the holy Ghost speaking in Scripture the judge of Controversies Which you disprove by saying That the holy Ghost speaking only in Scripture is no more intelligible to us then the Scripture in which he speakes But by this reason neither the Pope nor a Councell can be a Iudge neither For first denying the Scriptures the writings of the Holy Ghost to be judges you will not I hope offer to pretend that their decrees the writings of men are more capable of
that these controversies about Scripture are not decidable by Scripture and have shewed that your deduction from it that therefore they are to be determin'd by the authority of some present Church is irrationall and inconsequent I might well forbeare to tire my selfe with an exact and punctuall examination of your premises 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which wether they be true or false is to the Question disputed wholly impertinent Yet because you shall not complaine of tergiverâ—ation I will runne over them and let nothing that is materiall and considerable passe without some stricture or animadversion 30 You pretend that M. Hooker acknowledgeth that That whereon we must rest our assurance that the Scripture is Gods word is the Church and for this acknowledgement you referre us to l. 3. Sect. 8. Let the Reader consult the place and he shall finde that he and M. Hooker have been much abused both by you here and by M. Breerly and others before you and that M. Hooker hath not one syllable to your pretended purpose but very much directly to the contrary There he tells us indeed that ordinarily the first introduction and probable motive to the belief of the verity is the Authority of the Church but that it is the last Foundation whereon our belief hereof is rationally grounded that in the same place he plainly denies His words are Scripture teacheth us that saving Truth which God hath discovered unto the world by Revelation and it presumeth us taught otherwise that it selfe is divine and sacred The Question then being by what meanes we are taught this some answere that to learne it we have no other way then tradition As namely that so we believe because we from our Predecessors and they from theirs have so received But is this enough That which all mens experience teacheth them may not in any wise be denied and by experience we all know that the first outward motive leading men to esteeme of the Scripture is the Authority of Gods Church For when we know the whole Church of God hath that opinion of the Scripture we judge it at the first an impudent thing for any man bred and brought up in the Church to be of a contrary minde without cause Afterwards the more we bestow our labour upon reading or hearing the mysteries thereof the more we find that the thing it self doth answer our received opinion concerning it so that the former inducement prevailing somewhat with us before doth now much more prevaile when the very thing hath ministred farther reason If Infidels or Atheists chance at any time to call it in question this giveth us occasion to sift what reason there is whereby the testimony of the Church concerning Scripture and our own perswasion which Scripture it selfe hath setled may be proved a truth infallible In which case the ancient Fathers being often constrained to shew what warrant they had so much to rely upon the Scriptures endeavoured still to maintaine the Authority of the bookes of God by arguments such as the unbelievers themselves must needs think reasonable if they judge thereof as they should Neither is it a thing impossible or greatly hard even by such kinde of proofes so to manifest and cleare that point that no man living shall be able to deny it without denying some apparent principle such as all men acknowledge to be true By this time I hope the reader sees sufficient proofe of what I said in my Reply to your Preface that M. Breerelies great ostentation of exactnesse is no very certain argument of his fidelity 31 But seeing the beliefe of the Scripture is a necessary thing and cannot be prov'd by Scripture how can the Church of England teach as she doth Art 6. That all things necessary are contain'd in Scripture 32 I have answered this already And here again I say That all but cavillers will easily understand the meaning of the Article to be That all the Divine verities which Christ revealed to his Apostles and the Apostles taught the Churches are contained in Scripture That is all the materiall objects of our faith whereof the Scripture is none but only the meanes of conveying them unto us which we believe not finally and for it selfe but for the matter contained in it So that if men did believe the doctrine contained in Scripture it should no way hinder their salvation not to know whether there were any Scripture or no. Those barbarous nations Irenaeus speaks of were in this case and yet no doubt but they might be saved The end that God aimes at is the beliefe 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 believe but not as the last object of our faith but as the instrument of it When therefore we subscribe to the 6. Art you must understand that by Articles of Faith they mean the finall and ultimate objects of it and not the meanes and instrumentall objects and then there will be no repugnance between what they say and that which Hooker and D. Covell and D. Whitaker and Luther here say 33 But Protestants agree not in assigning the Canon of holy Scripture Luther and Illyricus reject the Epistle of S. Iames. Kemnitius and other Luth. the second of Peter the second and third of Iohn The Epist. to the Heb. the Epist. of Iames of Iude and the Apocalyps Therefore without the Authority of the Church no certainty can be had what Scripture is Canonicall 34 So also the Ancient Fathers and not only Fathers but whole Churches differed about the certainty of the authority of the very same bookes and by their difference shewed they knew no necessity of conforming themselves herein to the judgement of your or any Church For had they done so they must have agreed all with that Church and consequently among themselves Now I pray tell me plainly Had they sufficient certainty what Scripture was Canonicall or had they not If they had not it seemes there is no such great harme or danger in not having such a certainty whether some books be Canonicall or no as you require If they had why may not Protestants notwithstanding their differences have sufficient certainty hereof as well as the Ancient Fathers and Churches notwithstanding theirs 35 You proceed And whereas the Protestants of England in the 6. Art have these words In the name of the Holy Scripture we doe vnderstand those Bookes of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church you demaund what they meane by them Whether that by the Churches consent they are assured what Scriptures be Canonicall I Answer for them Yes they are so And whereas you inferre from hence This is to make the Church Iudge I haue told you already That of this Controversie we make the Church the Iudge but not the present Church much lesse the present Roman Church but the consent and testimony of the
and Scripture and experience so you tell us out of M. Hooker to seek for the ending of them by submitting unto some Iudiciall sentence whereunto neither part may refuse to stand This is very true Neither should you need to persuade us to seek such a meanes of ending all our Controversies if we could tell where to finde it But this wee know that none is fit to pronounce for all the world a judiciall definitiue obliging sentence in Controversies of Religion but only such a Man or such a society of Men as is authoriz'd thereto by God And besides we are able to demonstrate that it hath not been the pleasure of God to giue to any Man or Society of Men any such authority And therefore though we wish heartily that all Controversies were ended as we doe that all sinne were abolisht yet we haue little hope of the one or the other till the World be ended And in the mean while think it best to content our selues with and to persuade others unto an Vnity of Charity and mutuall toleration seeing God hath authoriz'd no man to force all men to Vnity of Opinion Neither doe we think it fit to argue thus To us it seemes convenient there should be one Iudge of all Controversies for the whole world therefore God has appointed one But more modest and more reasonable to collect thus God hath appointed no such judge of Controversies therefore though it seemes to us convenient there should be one yet it is not so Or though it were convenient for us to haue one yet it hath pleased God for Reasons best known to himselfe not to allow us this convenience 86 D. Fields words which follow I confesse are somewhat more pressing and if he had been infallible and the words had not slipt unadvisedly from him they were the best Argument in your Book But yet it is evident out of his Book so acknowledg'd by some of your own That he never thought of any one company of Christians invested with such authority from God that all men were bound to receiue their Decrees without examination though they seem contrary to Scripture and Reason which the Church of Rome requires And therefore if he haue in his Preface strained too high in cōmendation of the subject he writes of as Writers very often doe in their Prefaces and Dedicatory Epistles what is that to us Besides by all the Societies of the World it is not impossible nor very improbable hee might meane all that are or haue been in the world and so include even the Primitiue Church and her Communion we shall embrace her Direction we shall follow her Iudgement we shall rest in if wee belieue the Scripture endeavour to finde the true sense of it and liue according to it 87 Ad 18. § That the true Interpretation of the Scripture ought to be receaved from the Church you need not prove for it is very easily granted by them who professe themselves very ready to receiue all Truths much more the true sense of Scripture not only from the Church but from any societie of men nay from any man whatsoever 88 That the Churches Interpretation of Scripture is alwaies true that is it which you would haue said and that in some sense may bee also admitted viz. if your speake of that Church which before you spake of in the 14. § that is of the Church of all Ages since the Apostles Vpon the Tradition of which Church you there told us We were to receiue the Scripture and to belieue it to bee the Word of God For there you teach us that our Faith of Scripture depends on a Principle which requires no other proofe And that such is Tradition which from hand to hand and age to age bringing us up to the Times and Persons of the Apostles and our Saviour himselfe commeth to be confirmed by all those Miracles and other Arguments whereby they convinced their Doctrine to be true Wherefore the Ancient Fathers avouch that wee must receiue the sacred Scripture upon the Tradition of this Church The Tradition then of this Church you say must teach us what is Scripture and we are willing to belieue it And now if you make it good unto us that the same Tradition down from the Apostles hath delivered from age to age and from hand to hand any interpretation of any Scripture we are ready to embrace that also But now if you will argue thus The Church in one sense tells us what is Scripture we belieue therefore if the Church taken in another sense tell us this or that is the meaning of the Scripture we are to belieue that also this is too transparent Sophistrie to take any but those that are willing to be taken 89 If there be any Traditiue Interpretation of Scripture produce it and proue it to be so and we embrace it But the Tradition of all ages is one thing and the authority of the present Church much more of the Roman Church which is but a Part and a corrupted Part of the Catholique Church is another And therefore though we are ready to receiue both Scripture and the sense of Scripture upon the authority of Originall Tradition yet we receiue neither the one nor the other upon the Authority of your Church 90 First for the Scripture how can wee receiue them upon the Authority of your Church who hold now those Books to be Canonicall which formerly you rejected from the Canon I instance in the Book of Macchabees and the Epistle to the Hebrews The first of these you held not to be Canonicall in S. Gregories time or else hee was no member of your Church for it is apparent He held otherwise The second you rejected from the Canon in S. Hieroms time as it is evident out of many places of his Works 91 If you say which is all you can say that Hierom spake this of the particular Roman Church not of the Roman Catholique Church I answer there was none such in his time None that was called so Secondly what he spake of the Roman Church must be true of all other Churches if your Doctrine of the necessity of the Conformity of all other Churches to that Church were then Catholique Doctrine Now then choose whether you will either that the particular Roman Church was not then beleived to be the Mistresse of all other Churches notwithstanding Ad hanc Ecclesiam necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiam hoc est omnes qui sunt undique fideles which Card. Perron and his Translatresse so often translates false Or if you say shee was you will runne into a greater inconvenience and be forced to say that all the Churches of that time rejected from the Canon the Epistle to the Hebrews together with the Roman Church And consequently that the Catholique Church may erre in rejecting from the Canon Scriptures truly Canonicall 92 Secondly How can we receive the Scripture upon the authority of the Roman
Church which hath delivered at severall times Scriptures in many places different and repugnant for Authenticall Canonicall Which is most evident out of the place of Malachie which is so quoted for the Sacrifice of the Masse that either all the ancient Fathers had false Bibles or yours is false Most evident likewise from the comparing of the story of Iacob in Genesis with that which is cited out of it in the Epistle to the Hebrewes according to the vulgar Edition But aboue all to any one who shall compare the Bibles of Sixtus and Clement so evident that the wit of man cannot disguise it 93 And thus you see what reason we haue to belieue your Antecedent That your Church it is which must declare what Books bee true Scripture Now for the consequence that certainty is as liable to exception as the Antecedent For if it were true that God had promised to assist you for the delivering of true Scripture would this oblige Him or would it follow from hence that He had oblig'd himselfe to teach you not only sufficiently but effectually and irresistibly the true sense of Scripture God is not defectiue in things necessary neither will he leave himselfe without witnesse nor the World without meanes of knowing his will and doing it And therefore it was necessary that by his Providence he should preserve the Scripture from any undiscernable corruptiō in those things which he would haue known otherwise it is apparent it had not been his will that these things should be known the only meanes of continuing the knowledge of them being perished But now neither is God lavish in superfluities and therefore having given us meanes sufficient for our direction and power sufficient to make use of these meanes he will not constraine or necessitate us to make use of these meanes For that were to crosse the end of our Creation which was to be glorified by our free obedience whereas necessity and freedome cannot stand together That were to reverse the Law which he hath prescribed to himselfe in his dealing with men and that is to set life and death before him and to leaue him in the hands of his own Counsell God gaue the Wisemen a Starre to lead them to Christ but he did not necessitate them to follow the guidance of this starre that was left to their liberty God gaue the Children of Israel a Fire to lead them by night and a Pillar of Cloud by day but he constrained no man to follow them that was left to their liberty So he giues the Church the Scripture which in those things which are to be believed or done are plain and easie to be follow'd like the Wise men's Starre Now that which he desires of us on our part is the Obedience of Faith and loue of the Truth and desire to finde the true sense of it and industry in searching it and humility in following and Constancy in professing it all which if he should work in us by an absolute irresistible necessity he could no more require of us as our duty then he can of the Sunne to shine of the Sea to ebb flowe and of all other Creatures to doe those things which by meere necessity they must doe and cannot choose Besides what an impudence is it to pretend that your Church is infallibly directed concerning the true meaning of the Scripture whereas there are thousands of places of Scripture which you doe not pretend certainly to understand and about the Interpretation whereof your own Doctors differ among themselues If your Church be infallibly directed concerning the true meaning of Scripture why doe not your Doctors follow her infallible direction And if they doe how comes such difference among them in their Interpretations 94 Again why does your Church thus put her candle under a Bushell and keep her Talent of interpreting Scripture infallibly thus long wrapt up in napkins Why sets she not forth Infallible Commentaries or Expositions upon all the Bible Is it because this would not be profitable for Christians that Scripture should be Interpreted It is blasphemous to say so The Scripture it selfe tells us All Scripture is profitable And the Scripture is not so much the Words as the Sense And if it be not profitable why does shee imploy particular Doctors to interpret Scriptures fallibly unlesse we must think that fallible Interpretations of Scripture are profitable and infallible interpretations would not be so 95 If you say the Holy Ghost which assists the Church in interpreting will move the Church to interpret when he shall think fit and that the Church will doe it when the Holy Ghost shall move her to doe it I demand whether the Holy Ghost's moving of the Church to such works as these be resistible by the Church or irresistible If resistible then the Holy Ghost may move and the Church may not be moved As certainly the Holy Ghost doth alwaies move to an action when he shewes us plainly that it would be for the good of men and honour of God As he that hath any sense will acknowledge that an infallible exposition of Scripture could not but be and there is no conceivable reason why such a work should be put off a day but only because you are conscious to your selves you cannot doe it and therefore make excuses But if the moving of the Holy Ghost be irresistible and you are not yet so mov'd to goe about this work then I confesse you are excused But then I would know whether those Popes which so long deferred the calling of a Councell for the Reformation of your Church at length pretended to be effected by the Councell of Trent whether they may excuse themselves for that they were not moved by the Holy Ghost to doe it I would know likewise as this motion is irresistible when it comes so whether it be so simply necessary to the moving of your Church to any such publique Action that it cannot possibly move without it That is whether the Pope now could not if he would seat himselfe in Cathedra and fall to writing expositions upon the Bible for the directions of Christians to the true sense of it If you say he cannot you will make your selfe ridiculous If he can then I would know whether he should be infallibly directed in these expositions or no If he should then what need he to stay for irresistible motion Why does he not goe about this noble worke presently If he should not How shall we know that the calling of the Councell of Trent was not upon his own voluntary motion or upon humane importunity and suggestion and not upon the motion of the Holy Ghost And consequently how shall we know whether he were assistant to it or no seeing he assists none but what he himselfe moves to And whether he did move the Pope to call this Councell is a secret thing which we cannot possibly know nor perhaps the Pope himselfe 96 If you say your meaning is only
for the Authority which you would have them follow you will let them see reason why they should follow it And is not this to goe a little about to leave reason for a short turne and then to come to it again and to doe that which you condemne in others It being indeed a plain impossibility for any man to submit his reason but to reason for he that does it to Authority must of necessity think himselfe to have greater reason to believe that Authority Therefore the confession cited by Brerely you need not think to have been extorted from Luther and the rest It came very freely from them and what they say you practise as much as they 115 And whereas you say that a Protestant admits of Fathers Councells Church as farre as they agree with Scripture which upon the matter is himselfe I say you admit neither of them nor the Scripture it selfe but only so farre as it agrees with your Church and your Church you admit because you think you have reason to doe so so that by you as well as by Protestants all is finally resolved into your own reason 116 Nor doe Heretiques only but Romish Catholiques also set up as many judges as there are men and women in the Christian world For doe not your men and women judge your Religion to be true before they believe it as well as the men and women of other Religions Oh but you say They receive it not because they think it agreeable to Scripture but because the Church tells them so But then I hope they believe the Church because their own reason tells them they are to doe so So that the difference between a Papist and a Protestant is this not that the one judges and the other does not judge but that the one judges his guide to be infallible the other his way to be manifest This same pernitious Doctrine is taught by Brentius Zanchius Cartwright and others It is so in very deed But it is taught also by some others whom you little think of It is taught by S. Paul where he saies Try all things hold fast that which is good It is taught by S. Iohn in these words Belieue not every Spirit but try the Spirits whether they be of God or no. It is taught by S. Peter in these Bee yee ready to render a reason of the hope that is in you Lastly this very pernitious Doctrine is taught by our Saviour in these words If the blinde lead the blind both shall fall into the ditch And why of your selues iudge you not what is right All which speeches if they doe not advise men to make use of their Reason for the choice of their Religion I must confesse my selfe to understand nothing Lastly not to bee infinite it is taught by M. Knot himselfe not in one page only or chapter of his Book but all his Book over the very writing and publishing whereof supposeth this for certaine that the readers are to be Iudges whether his Reasons which he brings be strong and convincing of which sort wee haue hetherto met with none or else captious or impertinences as indifferent men shall as I suppose haue cause to judge them 117 But you demand What good Statesmen would they be who should ideate or fancy such a Commonwealth as these men haue framed to themselues a Church Truly if this be all the fault they haue that they say Every man is to use his own iudgement in the choice of his Religion and not to belieue this or that sense of Scripture upon the bare Authority of any Learned man or men when he conceiues he has reasons to the contrary which are of more weight then their Authority I know no reason but notwithstanding all this they might be as good Statesmen as any of the Society But what has this to doe with Common-wealths where men are bound only to externall obedience unto the Laws and judgements of Courts but not to an internall approbation of them no nor to conceale their Iudgment of them if they disapprove them As if I conceiued I had reason to mislike the law of punishing simple theft with death as St Thomas Moore did I might professe lawfully my judgement and represent my Reasons to the King or Common-wealth in a Parliament as S â— Thomas Moore did without committing any fault or fearing any punishment 118 To the place of S. Austin wherewith this Paragraph is concluded I shall need giue no other Reply but onely to desire you to speak like an honest man and to say whether it be all one for a man to allow and disallow in every Scripture what he pleases which is either to dash out of Scripture such Texts or such Chapters because they crosse his opinionâ— or to say which is worse Though they be Scripture they are not true Whether I say for a man thus to allow and disallow in Scripture what he pleases be all one and no greater fault then to allow that sense of Scripture which he conceiues to be true and genuine and deduc'd out of the words and to disallow the contrary For Gods sake Sr tell me plainly In those Texts of Scripture which you alleage for the infallibility of your Church doe not you allow what sensâ— you think true and disallow the contrary And doe you not this by the direction of your private reason If you doe why doe you condemne it in others If you doe not I pray you tell me what direction you follow or whether you follow none at all If none at all this is like drawing Lots or throwing the Dice for the choice of a Religion If any other I beseech you tell me what it is Perhaps you will say the Churches Authority and that will be to dance finely in a round thus To belieue the Churches Infallible Authority because the Scriptures avouch it to belieue that Scriptures say and mean so because they are so expounded by the Church Is not this for a Father to beget his Sonne and the Sonne to beget his Father For a foundation to support the house and the house to support the foundation Would not Campian haue cryed out at it Ecce quos gyros quos Maeandros And to what end was this going about when you might as well at first haue concluded the Church infallible because she saies so as thus to put in Scripture for a meere stale and to say the Church is infallible because the Scripture saies so and the Scripture meanes so because the Church saies so which is infallible Is it not most evident therefore to every intelligent man that you are enforced of necessity to doe that your selfe which so tragically you declaime against in others The Church you say is infallible I am very doubtfull of it How shall I know it The Scripture you say affirmes it as in the 59. of Esay My spirit that is in thee c. Well I confesse I finde there these words but I am still
Therefore there was then an infallible Iudge Iust as if I should say Yorke is not my way from Oxford to London therefore Bristol is Or a dogge is not a horse therefore he is a man As if God had no other waies of revealing himselfe to men but only by Scripture and an infallible Church S. Chrysostome and Isidorus Pelusiota conceaved he might use other meanes And S. Paul telleth us that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might be known by his workes and that they had the Law written in their hearts Either of these waies might make some faithfull men without either necessity of Scripture or Church 125 But D. Potter saies you say In the Iewish Church there was a living Iudge indowed with an absolute infallible direction in cases of moment as all points belonging to divine Faith are And where was that infallible direction in the Iewish Church when they should have received Christ for their Messias and refused him Or perhaps this was not a case of moment D. Potter indeed might say very well not that the high Priest was infallible â—or certainly he was not but that his determination was to be of necessity obeyed though for the justice of it there was no necessity that it should be believed Besides it is one thing to say that the living judge in the Iewish Church had an infallible direction another that he was necessitated to follow this direction This is the priviledge which you challenge But it is that not this which the Doctor attributes to the Iewes As a man may truely say the wise men had an infallible direction to Christ without saying or thinking that they were constrained to follow it and could not doâ— otherwise 126 But either the Church retaines still her infallibility or it was devested of it upon the receiving of Holy Scripture which is absurd An argument me thinkes like this Either you have hornes or you have lost them but you never lost them therefore you have them still If you say you never had hornes so say I for ought appeares by your reasons the Church never had infallibility 127 But some Scriptures were received in some places and not in others therefore if Scriptures were the Iudge of Controversies some Churches had one Iudge and some another And what great inconvenience is there in that that one part of England should have one Iudge and another another especially seeing the bookes of Scripture which were received by those that received fewest had as much of the doctrine of Christianity in them as they all had which were received by any all the necessary parts of the Gospell being contained in every one of the four Gospells as I have prov'd So that they which had all the bookes of the New Testament had nothing superfluous For it was not superfluous but profitable that the same thing should be said divers times and be testified by divers witnesses And they that had but one of the four Gospells wanted nothing necessary and therefore it is vainly infer'd by you that with months and yeares as new Canonicall Scriptures grew to be published the Church altered her rule of Faith and judge of Controversies 128 Heresies you say would arise after the Apostles time and after the writing of Scriptures These cannot be discovered condemned avoyded unlesse the Church be infallible Therefore there must be a Church infallible But I pray tell me Why cannot Heresies be sufficiently discovered condemned avoided by them which believe Scripture to be the rule of Faith If Scripture be sufficient to Informe us what is the faith it must of necessity be also sufficient to teach us what is Heresy seeing Heresy is nothing but a manifest deviation from and an opposition to the faith That which is streight will plainly teach us what is crooked and one contrary cannot but manifest the other If any one should deny that there is a God That this God is omnipotent omniscient good just true mercifull a rewarder of them that seek him a punisher of them that obstinatly offend him that Iesus Christ is the Sonne of God and the Saviour of the World that it is he by obedience to whom men must look to be saved If any man should deny either his Birth or Passion or Resurrection or Assention or sitting at the right hand of God his having all power given him in Heaven and Earth That it is he whom God hath appointed to be judge of the quick and the dead that all men shall rise again at the last day That they which believe and repent shall be sav'd That they which doe not believe or repent shall be damned If a man should hold that either the keeping of the Mosaicall Law is necessary to Salvation or that good works are not necessary to Salvation In a word if any man should obstinatly contradict the truth of any thing plainly delivered in Scripture who does not see that every one which believes the Scripture hath a sufficient meanes to discover and condemne and avoid that Heresy without any need of an infallible guide If you say that the obscure places of Scripture contain matters of Faith I answere that it is a matter of faith to believe that the sense of them whatsoever it is which was intended by God is true for he that does not doe so calls Gods Truth into question But to believe this or that to be the true sense of them or to believe the true sense of them and to avoid the false is not necessary either to Faith or Salvation For if God would have had his meaning in these places certainly known how could it stand with his wisdome to be so wanting to his own will and end as to speak obscurely or how can it consist with his justice to require of men to know certainly the meaning of those words which he himselfe hath not revealed Suppose there were an absolute Monarch that in his own absence from one of his Kingdomes had written Lawes for the government of it some very plainly and some very ambiguously and obscurely and his Subjects should keep those that were plainly written with all exactnesse and for those that were obscure use their best diligence to find his meaning in them and obey them according to the sense of them which they conceived should this King either with justice or wisdome be offended with these Subjects if by reason of the obscurity of them they mistook the sense of them and faile of performance by reason of their errour 128 But It is more usefull fit you say for the deciding of Controversies to haue besides an infallible rule to goe by a living infallible Iudge to determine them from hence you conclude that certainly there is such a Iudge But why then may not another say that it is yet more usefull for many excellent purposes that all the Patriarchs should bee infallible then that the Pope only should Another that it would bee yet more usefull that all the
Archbishops of every Province should be so then that the Patriarchs only should be so Another That it would be yet more usefull if all the Bishops of every Diocesse were so Another that it would be yet more available that all the Parsons of every Parish should be so Another that it would be yet more excellent if all the Fathers of Families were so And lastly another that it were much more to be desired that every Man and every Woman were so just as much as the prevention of Controversies is better then the decision of them and the prevention of Heresies better then the condemnation of them and upon this ground conclude by your own very coÌ„sequence That not only a generall Councell nor only the Pope but all the Patriarchs Archbishops Bishops Pastors Fathers nay all the men in the World are infallible If you say now as I am sure you will that this conclusion is most grosse and absurd against sense and experience then must also the ground be false from which it evidently and undeniably follows viz. that That course of dealing with men seems alwaies more fit to Divine Providence which seemes most 〈◊〉 to humane reason 129 And so likewise That there should men succeed the Apostles which could shew theâ—selues to be their successours by doing of Miracles by speaking all kinde of languages by delivering men to Satan as S. Paul did Hymenaeus and the incestuous Corinthian it is manifest in humane reason it were incomparably more fit and usefull for the decision of Controversies then that the successour of the Apostles should haue none of these gifts and for want of the signes of Apostleship be justly questionable whether he be his successour or no and will you now conclude That the Popes haue the gift of doing Miracles as well as the Apostles had 130 It were in all reason very usefull and requisite that the Pope should by the assistance of Gods Spirit be freed from the vices passions of men lest otherwise the Authority given him for the good of the Church he might imploy as divers Popes you well know haue done to the disturbance and oppression and mischiefe of it And will you conclude from henâ—e That Popes are not subject to the sins and passions of other men That there never haue been ambitious covetous lustfull tyrannous Popes 131 Who sees not that for mens direction it were much morâ— beneficiall for the Church that Infallibility should be setled in the Popes Person then in a generall Councell That so the meanes of deciding Controversies might be speedy easy and perpetuall whereas that of generall Councells is not so And will you hence inferre that not the Church Representative but the Pope is indeed the infallible Iudge of Controversies certainly if you should the Sorbon Doctors would not think this a good conclusion 132 It had been very commodious one would think that seeing either Gods pleasure was the Scripture should be translated or else in his Providence he knew it would be so that he had appointed some men for this businesse and by his Spirit assisted them in it that so we might have Translations as Authenticall as the Originall yet you see God did not think fit to doe so 133 It had been very commodious one would think that the Scripture should have been at least for all things necessary a Rule plain and perfect And yet you say it is both imperfect and obscure even in things necessary 134 It had been most requisite one would think that the Copies of the Bibles should have been preserved free from variety of readings which makes men very uncertain in many places which is the word of God and which is the errour or presumption of man and yet we see God hath not thought fit so to provide for us 135 Who can conceive but that an Apostolike Interpretation of all the difficult places of Scripture would have been straÌ„gely beneficiall to the Church especially there being such danger in mistaking the sense of them as is by you pretended and God in his providence foreseeing that the greatest part of Christians would not accept of the Pope for the Iudge of Controversies And yet we see God hath not so ordered the matter 136 Who doth not see that supposing the Bishop of Rome had been appointed Head of the Church and â—â—dge of Controversies that it would have been infinitely beneficiall to the Church perhaps as much as all the rest of the Bible that in some Book of Scripture which was to be undoubtedly received this one Proposition had been set down in Termes The Bishops of Rome shall be alwaies Monarchs of the Church they either alone or with their adherents the Guides of faith and the Iudges of Controversies that shall arise amongst Christians This if you will deal ingenuously you cannot but acknowledge for then all true Christians would have submitted to him as willingly as to Christ himselfe neither needed you and your fellowes have troubled your selfe to invent so many Sophismes for the proofe of it There would have been no more doubt of it among Christians then there is of the Nativity Passion Resurrection or Ascention of Christ. You were best now rubbe your forehead hard and conclude upon us that because this would have been so usefull to have been done therefore it is done Or if you be as I know you are too ingenuous to say so then must you acknowledge that the ground of your Argument which is the very ground of all these absurdities is most absurd and that it is our duty to be humbly thankfull for those sufficient nay abundant meanes of Salvation which God hath of his own goonesse granted us and not conclude he hath done that which he hath not done because forsooth in our vain judgements it seemes convenient he should have done so 137 But you demand what repugnance there is betwixt infallibility in the Church and existence of Scripture that the production of the one must be the destruction of the other Out of which words I can frame no other argument for you theÌ„ this There is no Repugnance between the Scriptures existence and the Churches infallibility therefore the Church is infallible Which consequence will then be good when you can shew that nothing can be untrue but that only which is impossible that whatsoever may be done that also is done Which if it were true would conclude both you and me to be infallible as well as either your Church or Pope in as much as there is no more repugnance between the Scriptures existence and our infallibility then there is between theirs 138 But if Protestants will have the Scripture alone for their Iudge let them first produce some Scripture affirming that by the entring thereof infallibility went out of the Church This Argument put in forme runs thus No Scripture affirmes that by the entring thereof infallibility went out of the Church Therefore there is an infallible Church therefore the Scripture alone is
every one makes himselfe a chooser of his own Religion and of his own sense of the Churches decrees which very thing in Protestants they so highly condemne and so in judging others condemne themselves 150 Neither in saying thus haue I only cry'd quittance with you but that you may see how much you are in my debt I will shew unto you that for your Sophisme against our way I haue given you a Demonstration against yours First I say your Argument against us is a transparent fallacy The first part of it lyes thus Protestants haue no meanes to interpret without errour obscure and ambiguous places of Scripture therefore plain places of Scripture cānot be to thē a sufficiēt ground of Faith But though we pretend not to certain meanes of not erring in interpreting all Scripture particularly such places as are obscure and ambiguous yet this me thinks should be no impediment but that we may have certain meanes of not erring in and about the sense of those places which are so plain and cleer that they need no Interpreters and in such we say our Faith is contain'd If you aske me how I can be sure that I know the true meaning of these places I aske you again can you be sure that you understand what I or any man else saies They that heard our Saviour and the Apostles preach could they haue sufficient assurance that they understood at any time what they would have them doe if not to what end did they heare them If they could why may we not be as well assured that we understand sufficiently what we conceive plaine in their writings 151 Againe I pray tell us whether you doe certainly know the sense of these Scriptures with which you pretend you are led to the knowledge of your Church If you doe not how know you that there is any Church Infallible and that these are the notes of it that this is the Church that hath these notes If you doe then give us leave to haue the same meanes and the same abilities to know other plain places which you have to know these For if all Scripture be obscure how come you to know the sense of these places If some places of it be plain why should we stay here 152 And now to come to the other part of your dilemma in saying If they have certain meanes and so cannot erre mee thinkes you forget your selfe very much and seeme to make no difference between having certain meanes to doe a thing and the actuall doing of it As if you should conclude because all men have certain meanes of Salvation therefore all men certainly must be saved and cannot doe otherwise as if whosoever had a horse must presently get up and ride Whosoever had meanes to find out a way could not neglect those meanes and so mistake it God be thanked that we have sufficient meanes to be certain enough of the truth of our Faith But the Priviledge of not being in possibility of erring that we challenge not because we have as little reason as you to doe so and you have none at all If you aske seeing we may possibly erre how can we be assured we doe not I ask you again seeing your eye-fight may deceive you how can you be sure you see the Sunne when you doe see it Perhaps you may be in a dream and perhaps you and all the men in the World have been so when they thought they were awake and then only awake when they thought they dreamt But this I am sure of as sure as that God is good that he will require no impossibilities of us not an Infallible nor a certainly unerring belief unlesse he hath given us certain meanes to avoid error and if we use those which we have will never require of us that we use that which we have not 153 Now from this mistaken ground that it is all one to have meanes of avoiding errour and to be in no danger nor possibility of errour You inferre vpon us as an absurd conclusion That we make our selves able to determine Controversies of faith with Infallibility and Iudges of Controversies For the latter part of this inference we acknowledge and imbrace it We doe make our selves Iudges of controversies that is we doe make use of our own understanding in the choice of our Religion But this if it be a crime is common to us with you as I have proved above and the difference is not that wee are choosers and you not choosers but that we as we conceive choose wisely but you being wilfully blind choose to follow those that are so too not remembring what our Saviour hath told you when the blind lead the blind both shall fall into the ditch But then again I must tell you you have done ill to confound together Iudges and infallible Iudges unlesse you will say either that we have no Iudges in our Courts of Civill judicature or that they are all Infallible 154 Thus haue we cast off your dilemma and broken both the hornes of it But now my retortion lies heavy upon you and will not be turned off For first you content not your selves with a morall certainty of the things you beleive nor with such a degree of assurance of them as is sufficient to produce obedience to the condition of the new Covenant which is all that we require Gods Spirit if he please may work more a certainty of adherence beyond a certainty of evidence But neither God doth nor man may require of us as our dutie to give a greater assent to the conclusion then the premises deserue to build an infallible Faith upon Motives that are only highly credible and not infallible as it were a great and heavy building upon a foundation that hath not strength proportionable But though God require not of us such unreasonable things You doe and tell men they cannot be saved unlesse they beleive your proposals with an infallible Faith To which end they must beleive also your Propounder your Church to be simply Infallible Now how is it possible for them to give a rationall assent to the Churches infallibility unlesse they have some infallible meanes to know that she is infallible Neither can they infallibly know the infallibility of this meanes but by some other and so on for ever unlesse they can dig so deep as to come at length to the Rock that is to settle all upon something evident of it selfe which is not so much as pretended But the last resolution of all is into Motives which indeed upon examination will scarce appeare probable but are not so much as avouched to be any more then very credible For example if I aske you why you doe beleive Transubstantiatiō What can you answer but because it is a Revelation of the Prime Verity I demaund again how can you assure your selfe or me of that being ready to embrace it if it may appeare to be so And what can you say but that you
of it because we say the whole Church much more particular Churches and privat men may erre in points not Fundamentall A pretty sophisme depending upon this Principle that whosoever possibly may erre he cannot be certain that he doth not erre And upon this ground what shall hinder me from concluding that seeing you also hold that neither particular Churches nor private men are Infallible even in Fundamentalls that even the Fundamentalls of Christianity remain to you uncertain A Iudge may possibly erre in judgement can he therefore never have assurance that he hath judged right A travailer may possibly mistake his way must I therefore be doubtfull whether I am in the right way from my Hall to my Chamber Or can our London carrier have 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 they are as like your own as an egge to an egge or milke to milke 161 And for the selfe same reason you say we are not certain that the Church is not Iudge of Controversies But now this selfe same appears to be no reason and therefore for all this we may be certain enough that the Church is no Iudge of Controversies The ground of this sophisme is very like the former viz. that we can be certain of the falshood of no propositions but these only which are damnable errors But I pray good Sir give me your opinion of these The Snow is black the Fire is cold that M. knot is Archbishop of Toledo that the whole is not greater then a part of the whole that twise two make not foure In your opinion good Sir are these damnable Haeresies or because they are not so have we no certainty of the falshood of them I beseech you Sir to consider seriously with what strange captions you have gone about to delude your King and your Country and if you be convinced they are so give glory to God and let the world know it by your deserting that Religion which stands upon such deceitfull foundations 162 Besides you say among publique conclusions defended in Oxford the yeare 1633. to the Questions Whether the Church have authority to determine controversies of Faith And to interpret holy Scripture The answere to both is affirmative But what now if I should tell you that in the year 1632. among publique Conclusions defended in Doway one was That God predeterminates men to all their Actions good bad and indifferent Will you think your selfe obliged to be of this opinion If you will say so If not doe as you would be done by Again me thinkes so subtil a man as you are should easily apprehend a wide difference between Authority to doe a thing and Infallibility in doing it againe between a conditionall infallibility an absolute The former the Doctor together with the Article of the Church of England attributeth to the Church nay to particular Churches and I subscribe to his opinion that is an Authority of determining controversies of faith according to plain and evident Scripture and Vniversall Tradition and Infallibility while they proceed according to this Rule As if there should arise an Heretique that should call in Question Christs Passion and Resurrection the Church had Authority to decide this Controversy and infallible direction how to doe it and to excommunicate this man if he should persist in errour I hope you will not deny but that the Iudges have Authority to determine criminall and Civill Controversies and yet I hope you will not say that they are absolutely Infallible in their determinations Infallible while they proceed according to Law and if they doe so but not infallibly certain that they shall ever doe so But that the Church should be infallibly assisted by Gods spirit to decide rightly all emergent Controversies even such as might be held diversly of divers men Salva compage fidei and that we might be absolutely certain that the Church should never faile to decree the truth whether she used meanes or no whether she proceed according to her Rule or not or lastly that we might be absolutely certain that she would never fail to proceed according to her Rule this the defender of these conclusions said not and therefore said no more to your purpose then you have all this while that is just nothing 163 Ad § 27. To the place of S. Austin alleaged in this paragraph I Answer First that in many things you will not bee tried by S. Augustines judgement nor submit to his authority not concerning Appeals to Rome not concerning Transubstantiation not touching the use and worshiping of Images not concerning the State of Saints soules before the day of judgement not touching the Virgin Maries freedome from actuall and originall sinne not touching the necessity of the Eucharist for Infants not touching the damning Infants to hell that dye without Baptisme not touching the knowledge of Saints departed not touching Purgatory not touching the fallibility of Councells even generall Councells not touching perfection and perspicuity of Scripture in matters necessary to Salvation not touching Auricular Confession not touching the halfe Communion not touching Prayers in an unknown tongue In these things I say you will not stand to S. Austines judgement and therefore can with no reason or equity require us to doe so in this matter 2. To S. Augustine in heat of disputation against the Donatists and ransacking all places for arguments against them we oppose S. Austine out of this heat delivering the doctrine of Christianity calmely and mode rately where he saies In iis quae apertè posita sunt in sacris Scripturis omnia ea reperiuntur quae continent â—idem mores'que vivendi 3 Wee say he speaks not of the Roman but the Catholique Church of farre greater extent and therefore of farre greater credit and authority then the Roman Church 4 He speaks of a point not expressed but yet not contradicted by Scripture whereas the errors we charge you with are contradicted by Scripture 5 He saies not that Christ has recommended the Church to us for an Infallible definer of all emergent controversies but for a credible witnesse of Ancient Tradition Whosoever therefore refuseth to follow the practise of the Church understand of all places and ages though he be thought to resist our Saviour what is that to us who cast off no practises of the Church but such as are evidently post-nate to the time of the Apostles and plainly contrary to the practise of former and purer times Lastly it is evident and even to impudence it selfe undeniable that upon this ground of beleiving all things taught by the present Church as taught by Christ Error was held for example the necessity of the Eucharist for infants and that in S. Austines time and that by S. Austine himselfe and therefore without controversy this is no certain ground for truth which may support falshood as well as
that there is no falshood at all but only want of divine testification in which case D. Potter must either grant that it is a fundamentall error to apply divine revelation to any point not revealed or else must yeeld that the Church may erre in her Proposition or Custody of the Canon of Scripture And so we cannot be sure whether she have not been deceived already in Bookes recommended by her and accepted by Christians And thus we shall have no certainty of Scripture if the Church want certainty in all her definitions And it is worthy to be observed that some Bookes of Scripture which were not alwaies known to be Canonicall have been afterward received for such but never any one book or syllable defined by the Church to be Canonicall was afterward questioned or rejected for Apocryphall A signe that Gods Church is infallibly assisted by the holy Ghost never to propose as divine truth any thing not revealed by God and that Oâ—ission to define points not sufficiently discussed is laudable but Commission in propounding things not revealed inexcusable into which precipitation our Saviour Christ never hath nor never will permit his Church to fall 13 Nay to limit the generall promises of our Saviour Christ made to his Church to points only fundamentall namely that the gates of hell shall not prevail against her and that the holy Ghost shall lead her into all truth c. is to destroy all faith For we may by that doctrine and manner of interpreting the Scripture limit the Infallibility of the Apostles words preaching only to Points fundamentall and whatsoever generall Texts of Scripture shall be alleadged for their infallibility they may by D. Potter example be explicated and restrained to points fundamentall By the same reason it may be farther affirmed that the Apostles and other writers of Canonicall Scripture were endued with infallibility only in setting down points fundamentall For if it be urged that all Scripture is divinely inspired that it is the word of God c. D. Potter hath afforded you a ready answer to say that Scripture is inspired c. only in those parts or parcels wherein it delivereth fundamentall points In this manner D. Fotherby saith The Apostle twice in one Chapter professed that this he speaketh and not the Lord He is very well content that where he lacks the warrant of the expresse word of God that part of his writings should be esteemed as the word of man D. Potter also speaks very dangerously towards this purpose Sect. 5. where he endeavoureth to prove that the infallibility of the Church is limited to points fundamentall because as Nature so God is neither defective in necessaries nor lavish in supersâ—uities Which reason doth likewise prove 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 necessaries or lavish in supersâ—uities In the same place he hath a discourse much tending to this purpose where speaking of these words The Spirit shall lead you into all truth and shall abide with you for ever he saith Though that promise was directly and primarily made to the Apostles who had the Spirits guidance in a more high and absolute manner then any since them yet it was made to themfor the behoof of the Church and is verified in the Church Vniversall But all truth is not simply all but all of some kind To be led into all truths is to know and believe them And who is so simple as to be ignorant that there are many millions of truths in Nature History Divinity whereof the Church is simply ignorant How many truths lye unrevealea in the infinite treasury of Gods wisdome wherewith the Church is not acquainted c. so then the truth it selfe enforceth us to understand by all truths not simply all not all which God can possibly reveal but all pertaining to the substance of faith all truth absolutely necessary to salvation Mark what he saith That promise The spirit shall lead you into all truth was made directly to the Apostles and is verified in the universall Church but by all truth is not understood simply all but all apperraining to the substance of faith and absolutely necessary to salvation Doth it not hence follow that the promise made to the Apostles of being led into all truth is to be understood only of all truth absolutely necessary to salvation and consequently their preaching and writing were not infallible in points not fundamentall or if the Apostles were infallible in all things which they proposed as divine truth the like must be affirmed of the Church because D. Potter teacheth the said promise to be verified in the Church And as he limits the aforesaid words to points fundamentall so may he restrain what other text soever that can be brought for the universall infallibility of the Apostles or Scriptures So he may and so he must least otherwise he receive this answer of his own from himselfe How many truths lye unrevealed in the infinite treasurie of Gods wisdome wherewith the Church is not acquainted And therefore to verify such generall sayings they must be understood of truths absolutely necessary to Salvation Are not these fearfull consequences And yet D. Potter will never be able to avoid them till he come to acknowledge the infallibility of the Church in all points by her proposed as divine truths and thus it is universally true that she is lead into all truth in regard that our Saviour never permits her to define or teach any falshood 14 All that with any colour may be replied to this argument is That if once we call any one Book or parcell of Scripture in question although for the matter it contain no fundamentall error yet it is of great importance and fundamentall by reason of the consequence because if once we doubt of one Book received for Canonicall the whole canon is made doubtfull and uncertain and therefore the infallibility of Scripture must be universall and not confined within compasse of points fundamentall 15 I answere For the thing it selfe it is very true that if I doubt of any one parcell of Scripture received for such I may doubt of all and thence by the same parity I inferre that if we did doubt of the Churches infallibility in some points we could not believe her in any one and consequently not in propounding Canonicall Bookes of any other points fundamentall or not fundamentall which thing being most absurd and withall most impious we must take away the ground thereof and believe that she cannot erre in any point great or small and so this reply doth much more strengthen what we intend to prove Yet I adde that Protestants cannot make use of this reply with any good coherence to this their distinction and some other doctrines which they defend Por if D. Potter can tell what points in particular be fundamentall as in
saying I answer that this is an inconsiderate speech and unworthy so great a Father But let us conclude with S. Augustine that the Church cannot approue any errour against faith or good manners The Church saith he being Placed between much chaffe and cockle doth tollerate many things but yet she doth not approue nor dissemble nor doe those things which are against faith or good life 17 And as I haue proved that Protestants according to their grounds cannot yeeld infallibls assent to the Church in any one point so by the same reason I prove that they cannot rely upon Scripture it selfe in any one point of faith Not in points of lesser moment or not fundamentall because in such points the Catholique Church according to D. Potter and much more any Protestant may erre and thinke it is contained in Scripture when it is not Not in points fundamentall because they must first know what points be fundamentall before they can bee assured that they cannot erre in understanding the Scripture and consequently independantly of Scripture they must foreknow all fundamentall points of faith and therefore they doe not indeed rely upon Scripture either for fundamentall or not fundamentall points 18 Besides I mainly urge D. Potter and other Protestants that they tell us of certain points which they call fundamentall and we cannot wrest from them a list in particular of such points without which no man can tell whether or no he erre in points fundamentall and be capable of salvation And which is most lamentable insteed of giving us such a Catalogue they fall to wrangle among themselves about the making of it 19 Calvin holds the Popes Primacy Invocation of Saints Free will and such like to bee fundamentall errours overthrowing the Gospell Others are not of his minde as Melancthou who saith in the opinion of himselfe and other his Brethren That the Monarchy of the Bishop of Rome is of use or profit to this end that Consent of Doctrine may be retained An agreement therefore may easily be established in this Article of the Popes Primacy if other Articles could be agreed upon If the Popes Primacy be a meanes that consent of Doctrine may be retained first submit to it and other articles will be easily agreed upon Luther also saith of the Popes Primacy it may be borne withall And why then O Luther did you not beare with it And how can you and your followers be excused from damnable Schisme who chose rather to devide Gods Church then to beare with that which you confesse may be borne withall But let us goe forward That the doctrine of freewill Prayer for the dead worshipping of Images Woâ—ship and Invocation of Saints Reall presence Transubstantiation Receaving under one kinde Satisfaction and Ment of works and the Masse be not fundamentall Errours is taught respective by divers Protestants carefully alleaged in the Protestants Apologie c. as namely by Perkins Cartwright Frith Fulle Spark Goade Luther Reynolds Whitaker Tindall Franci Iohnson with others Contrary to these is the Confession of the Christian faith so called by Protestants which I mentioned heretofore wherein we are damned unto unquenchable fire for the doctrine of Masse Prayer to Saints and for the dead Freewill Presence at Idol-service Mans merit with such like Iustification by faith alone is by some Protestants affirmed to be the soule of the Church The only principall origen of Salvation of all other points of doctrine the chiefest and weightiest Which yet as we haue seen is contrary to other Protestants who teach that meâ— of good works is not a fundamentall Errour yea divers Protestants defend merit of good works as may bee seen in Breereley One would think that the Kings Supremacy for which some blessed men lost their lives was once among Protestants held for a Capitall point but now D. Andrewes late of Winchester in his book against Bellarmime tells us that it is sufficient to reckon it among true Doctrines And Woâ—ton denies that Protestants hold the Kings Supremacy to be an essentiall point of faith O freedome of the new Gospell Hold with Catholiques the Pope or with Protestants the King or with Puritanes neither Pope nor King to be Head of the Church all is one you may be saved Some as Castalio and the whole Sect of the Academicall Protestants hold that doctrines about the Supper Baptisme the state and office of Christ how he is one with his Father the Trinity Predestination and divers other such questions are not necessary to Salvation And that you may observe how ungrounded and partiall their Assertions be Perkins teacheth that the Reall presence of our Saviours Body in the Sacrament as it is believed by Catholiques is a fundamentall errour and yet affirmeth the Consubstantiation of Lutherans not to be such notwithstanding that divers chiefe Lutherans to their Consubstantiation joyne the prodigious Heresie of Vbiquitation D. Vsher in his Sermon of the Vnity of the Catholique faith grants Salvation to the Aethiopians who yet with Christian Baptisme joyne Circumcision D. Potter cites the doctrine of some whom he termeth men of great learning and judgement that all who professe to loue and honour IES VS CHRIST are in the visible Christian Church and by Catholiques to be reputed Brethren One of these men of great learning and judgement is Thomas Morton by D. Potter cited in his Margent whose love and honour to Iesus-Christ you may perceive by his saying that the Churches of Arians who denied our Saviour Christ to be God are to be accounted the Church of God bâ—cause they doe hold the foundation of the Gospell which is Faith in Iesus-Christ the Sonne of God and Saviour of the world And which is more it seemeth by these charitable men that for being a member of the Church it is not necessary to believe one only God For D. Potter among the arguments to proue Hookers and Mortons opinion brings this The people of the ten Tribes after their defection notwithstanding their grosse corruptions Idolatry remained still a true Church We may also as it seemeth by these mens reasoning deny the Resurrection and yet be members of the true Chruch For a learned man saith D. Potter in behalfe of Hookers and Mortons opinion was anciently made a Bishop of the Catholique Church though he did professedly doubt of the last Resurreâ—tion of our bodies Deere Saviour What times doe we behold If one may be a member of the true Church and yet deny the Trinity of the Persons the Godhead of our Saviour the necessity of Baptisme if we may use Circumcision and with the worship of God joyne Idolatry wherein doe we differ from Turks and Iews or rather are we not worse then eyther of them If they who deny our Saviours divinity might be accounted the Church of God how will they deny that favour to those ancient Heretiques who denied our Saviours true humanity and so
it to be Canonicall whether it be True If the former sense were yours I must then againe distinguish of the terme received For it may signify either received by some particular Church or by the present Church Vniversall or the Church of all Ages If you meant the word in either of the former senses that which you say is not tâ—â—e A man may justly and reasonably doubt of some Texts or some Book received by some particular Church or by the Vniversall Church of this present time whether it be Canonicall or no and yet haue just reason to belieue no reason to doubt but that other Books are Canonicall As Eusebius perhaps had reason to doubt of the Epistle of S. Iames the Church of Rome in Hierom's time of the Epistle to the Hebr. And yet they did not doubt of all the Books of the Canon nor had reason to doe so If by Received you meant Received by the Church of all Ages I grant he that doubts of any one such Book has as much reason to doubt of all But yet here again I tell you that it is possible a man may doubt of one such book and yet not of all because it is possible men may doe not according to reason If you meant your words in the latter sense then I confesse he that belieues such a Book to be Canonicall i. e. the word of God and yet to make an impossible supposition believes it not to be true if he will doe according to reason must doubt of all the rest and belieue none For there being no greater reason to believe any thing true then because God hath said it nor no other reason to belieue the Scripture to be true but only because it is Gods word hee that doubts of the Truth of any thing said by God hath as much reason to belieue nothing that he saies and therefore if he will doe according to reason neither must nor can believe any thing he saies And upon this ground you conclude rightly that the infallibility of true Scripture must be Vniversall and not confin'd to points fundamentall 36 And this Reason why we should not refuse to beleiue any part of Scripture upon pretence that the matter of it is not Fundamentall you confesse to be convincing But the same reason you say is as convincing for the Vniversall infallibility of the Church For say you unlesse shee be Infallible in all things we cannot belieue her in any one But by this reason your Proselytes knowing you are not Infallible in all things must not nor cannot belieue you in any thing Nay you your selfe must not belieue your selfe in any thing because you know that you are not Infallible in all things Indeed if you had said wee could not rationally belieue her for her own sake and upon her own word and authority in any thing I should willingly grant the consequence For an authority subject to errour can be no firm or stable foundation of my beliefe in any thing and if it were in any thing then this authority being one the same in all proposalls I should haue the same reason to belieue all that I haue to belieue one and therefore must either doe unreasonably in believing any one thing upon the sole warrant of this authority or unreasonably in not believing all things equally warranted by it Let this therefore be granted and what will come of it Why then you say we cannot belieue her in propounding Canonicall Books If you mean still as you must doe unlesse you play the Sophister not upon her own Authority I grant it For we belieue Canonicall Books not upon the Authority of the present Church but upon Vniversall Tradition If you mean Not at all and that with reason we cannot believe these Books to be Canonicall which the Church proposes I deny it There is no more consequence iâ—â—he Argument then in this The Divell is not infallible therefore if he saies there is one God I cannot believe him No Geometritian is Infallible in all things therefore not in these things which the domonstrates M. Knot is not Infallible in all things therefore he may not believe that he wrote a Book entituled Charity Maintained 37 But though the reply be good Protestants cannot make use of it with any good coherence to this distinction and some other Doctrine of theirs because they pretend to be able to tell what points are Fundamentall and what not and therefore though they should believe Scripture erroneous in others yet they might be sure it err'd not in these To this I answer That if without dependance on Scripture they did know what were Fundamentall and what not they might possibly believe the Scripture true in Fundamentalls and erroneous in other things But seeing they ground their beliefe that such and such things only are Fundamentalls only upon Scripture and goe about to prove their assertion true only by Scripture then must they suppose the Scripture true absolutely and in all things or else the Scripture could not be a sufficient warrant to them to believe this thing that these only points are Fundamentall For who would not laugh at them if they should argue thus The Scripture is true in something the Scripture saies that these points only are Fundamentall therefore this is true that these only are so For every Fresh-man in Logick knowes that from meer particulars nothing can be certainly concluded But on the other side this reason is firme and demonstrative The Scripture is true in all things But the Scripture saies that these only points are the Fundamentalls of Christian Religion therefore it is true that these only are so So that the knowledge of Fundamentalls being it selfe drawen from Scripture is so farre from warranting us to believe the Scripture is or may be in part True and in part False that it selfe can have no foundation but the Vniversall truth of Scripture For to be a Fundamentall truth presupposes to be a truth now I cannot know any Doctrine to be a divine and supernaturall Truth on a true part of Christianity but only because the Scripture saies so which is all true Therefore much more can I not know it to be a Fundamentall truth 33 Ad § 16. To this Parag. I answer Though the Church being not Infallible I cannot believe her in every thing she saies yet I can and must believe her in every thing she proves either by Scripture Reason or universall Tradition be it Fundamentall or be it not Fundamentall This you say we cannot in points not Fundamentall because in such we believe she may erre But this I know we can because though she may erre in some things yet she does not erre in what she proves though it be not Fundamentall Again you say we cannot doe it in Fundamentalls because we must know what points be Fundamentall before we goe to learn of her Not so but I must learn 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 Doctrine that he and his Apostles did such miracles in confirmation of it that the Scripture is Gods word unlesse I be taught it So then the Church is though not a certain Foundation and proof of my Faith yet a necessary introduction to it 39 But the Churches infallible direction extending only to Fundamentalls unlesse I know them before I goe to learn of her I may be rather deluded then instructed by her The reason and connexion of this consequence I fear neither I nor you doe well understand And besides I must tell you you are too bold in taking that which no man grants you that the Church is an infallible direction in Fundamentalls For if she were so then must we not only learn Fundamentalls of her but also learn of her what is fundamentall and take all for fundamentall which she delivers to be such In the performance whereof if I knew any one Church to be infallible I would quickly be of that Church But good Sir you must needs doe us this favour to be so acute as to distinguish between being infallible in fundamentalls and being an infallible guide in fundamentalls That she shall be alwaies a Church infallible in fundamentalls we easily grant for it comes to no more but this that there shall be alwaies a Church But that there shall be alwaies such a Church which is an infallible Guide in fundamentalls this we deny For this cannot be without setling a known infallibility in some one known society of Christians as the Greek or the Roman or some other Church by adhering to which Guide men might be guided to believe aright in all Fundamentalls A man that were destitute of all meanes of communicating his thoughts to others might yet in himselfe and to himselfe 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 repaire to it for direction could not be an infallible guide and yet he might be in himselfe infallible You see then there is a wide difference between these two and therefore I must beseech you not to confound them nor to take the one for the other 40 But they that know what points are Fundamentall otherwise then by the Churches authority learn not of the Church Yes they may learn of the Church that the Scripture is the word of God and from the Scripture that such points are fundamentall others are not so and consequently learn even of the Church even of your Church that all is not fundamentall nay all is not true which the Church teacheth to be so Neither doe I see what hinders but a man may learn of a Church how to confure the errors of that Church which taught him as well as of my Master in Physick or the Mathematicks I may learn those rules and principles by which I may confute my Masters erroneous conclusions 41 But you aske If the Church be not an infallible teacher why are we commanded to hear to seek to obey the Church I Answer For commands to seek the Church I have not yet met with any and I believe you if you were to shew them would be your selfe to seek But yet if you could produce some such we might seek the Church to many good purposes without supposing her a Guide infallible And then for hearing and obeying the Church I would fain know whether none may be heard and obeyed but those that are infallible Whether particular Churches Governors Pastors Parents be not to be heard and obeyed Or whether all these be Infallible I wonder you will thrust upon us so often these worne out-objections without taking notice of their Answers 42 Your Argument from S. Austine's first place is a fallacy Adicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter If the whole Church practise any of these things matters of order and decency for such only there he speaks of to dispute whether that ought to be done is insolent madnesse And from hence you inferre If the whole Church practise any thing to dispute whether it ought to be done is insolent madnesse As if there were no difference between any thing and any of these things Or as if I might not esteem it pride and folly to contradict and disturbe the Church for matter of order pertaining to the time and place and other circumstances of Gods worship and yet account it neither pride nor folly to goe about to reforme some errors which the Church hath suffered to come in and to vitiate the very substance of Gods worship It was a practise of the whole Church in S. Austines time and esteem'd an Apostolique Tradition even by Saint Austine himself That the Eucharist should be administred to infants Tell me Sir I beseech you Had it been insolent madnesse to dispute against this practise or had it not If it had how insolent and mad are yoâ— that have not only disputed against it but utterly abolished it If it had not then as I say you must understand S. Austines words not simply of all things but as indeed he himselfe restrained them of these things of matter of Order Decency and Vniformity 43 In the next place you tell us out of him That that which has been alwaies kept is most rightly esteem'd to come from the Apostles Very right and what then Therefore the Church cannot erre in defining of Controversies Sir I beseech you when you write again doe us the favour to write nothing but syllogismes for I find it still an extream trouble to find out the concealed propositions which are to connect the parts of your enthymemes As now for example I professe unto you I am at my wits end and have done my best endeavour to find some glue or sodder or cement or chaine or thred or anything to tye this antecedent and this consequent together and at length am inforced to give it over and cannot doe it 44 But the Doctrines that Infants are to be baptized and those that are baptized by Heretiques are not to be re-baptized are neither of them to be proved by Scripture And yet according to S. Austine they are true Doctrines and we may be certain of them upon the Authority of the Church which we could not be unless the Church were Infallible therefore the Church is infallible I answer that there is no repugnance but we may be certain enough of the Vniversall Traditions of the ancient Church such as in S. Austin's account these were which here are spoken of and yet not be certain enough of the definitions of the present Church Vnlesse you can shew which I am sure you can never doe that the Infallibility of the present Church was alwaies a Tradition of the ancient Church Now your main businesse is to prove the present Church infallible not so much in consigning ancient
Traditions as in defining emergent controversies Again it followes not because the Churches Authority is warrant enough for us to believe some doctrine touching which the Scripture is silent therefore it is Warrant enough to believe these to which the Scripture seemes repugnant Now the Doctrines which S. Austine received upon the Churches Authority were of the first sort the Doctrines for which we deny your Churches infallibility are of the second And therefore though the Churches authority might be strong enough to bear the weight which S. Austine laid upon it yet happily if may not be strong enough to bear that which you lay upon it Though it may support some Doctrines without Scripture yet surely not against it And last of all 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 nor that all his sentences are oracles and particularly in this thing that whatsoever was practised or held by the Vniversall Church of his time must needs have come from the Apostles Though considering the neerenesse of his time to the Apostles I think it a good probable way and therefore am apt enough to follow it when I see no reason to the contrary Yet I professe I must have better satisfaction before I can induce my selfe to hold it certain and infallible And this not because Popery would come in at this dore as some have vainly feared but because by the Church Vniversall of some time and the Church Vniversall of other times I see plain contradictions held and practised Both which could not come from the Apostles for then the Apostles had been teachers of falshood And therefore the belief or practise of the present Vniversall Church can be no infallible proof that the Doctrine so beleived or the custome so practised came from the Apostles I instance in the doctrine of the Millenaries and the Eucharists necessity for infants both which Doctrines have been taught by the consent of the eminent Fathers of some ages without any opposition from any of their Contemporaries and were delivered by them not as Doctors but as Witnesses not as their own opinions but as Apostolike Traditions And therefore measuring the doctrine of the Church by all the Rules which Cardinall Perron gives us for that purpose both these Doctrines must be acknowledged to have been the doctrines of the Ancient Church of some age or ages And that the contrary Doctrines were Catholique at some other time I believe you will not think it needfull for me to prove So that either I must say the Apostles were fountaines of contradictious doctrines or that being the Vniversall Doctrine of the present Church is no sufficient proof that it came originally from the Apostles Besides who can warrant us that the Vniversall Traditions of the Church were all Apostolicall seeing in that famous place for Traditions in Tertullian Quicunque traditor any author whatsoever is founder good enough for them And who can secure us that Humane inventions and such as came à quocunque Traditore might not in a short time gain the reputation of Apostolique Seeing the direction then was Precepta maâ—orum Apostolicas Traditiones quisque existimat 45 No lesse you say is S. Chrysost. for the infallible Traditions of the Church But you were to prove the Church infallible not in her Traditions which we willingly grant if they be as universall as the Tradition of the undoubted books of Scripture is to be as infallible as the Scripture is for neither does being written make the word of God the more infallible nor being unwritten make it the lesse infallible Not therefore in her universall Traditions were you to prove the Church infallible but in all her Decrees and definitions of Controversies To this point when you speak you shall have an answer but hitherto you doe but wander 46 But let us see what S. Chrysostome saies They the Apostles delivered not all things in writing who denies it but many things also without writing who doubts of it and these also are worthy of belief Yes if we knew what they were But many things are worthy of belief which are not necessary to be believed As that Iulius Caesar was Emperour of Rome is a thing worthy of belief being so well testified as it is but yet it is not necessary to be believed a man may be saved without it Those many workes which our Saviour did which S. Iohn supposes would not have been contained in a world of bookes if they had been written or if God by some other meanes had preserv'd the knowledge of them had been as worthy to be believed and as necessary as those that are written But to shew you how much a more faith full keeper Records are then report those few that were written are preserved believed those infinitly more that were not written are all lost and vanished out of the memory of men And seeing God in his providence hath not thought fit to preserve the memory of them he hath freed us from the obligation of believing them for every obligation ceases when it becomes impossible Who can doubt but the Primitive Christians to whom the Epistles of the Apostles were written either of themselves understood or were instructed by the Apostles touching the sense of the obscure places of them These Traditive interpretations had they been written and dispersed as the Scriptures were had without question been preserved as the Scriptures are But to shew how excellent a keeper of the Tradition the Church of Rome hath been or even the Catholique Church for want of writing they are all lost nay were all lost within a few ages after Christ. So that if we consult the ancient Interpreters we shall hardly find any two of them agree about the sense of any one of them Cardinall Perron in his discourse of Traditions having alleaged this place for them Hold the Traditions c. tells us we must not answer that S. Paul speaks here only of such Traditions which though not in this Epist. to the Thess. yet were afterwards written and in other bookes of Scripture because it is upon occasion of Tradition touching the cause of the hinderance of the comming of Antichrist which was never written that he laies this iniunction upon them to hold the Traditions Well let us grant this Argument good and concluding and that the Church of the Thessalonians or the Catholique Church for what S. Paul writ to one Church he writ to all were to hold some unwritten Traditions and among the rest what was the cause of the hinderance of the comming of Antichrist But what if they did not performe their duty in this point but suffered this Tradition to be lost out of the memory of the Church Shall we not conclude that seeing God would not suffer any thing necessary to salvation to be lost and he has suffered this Tradition to be lost therefore the
§ 20. At the first entrance into this Parag. from our own Doctrine That the Church cannot erre in Points necessary it is concluded if we are wise we must for sake it is nothing least we should for sake it in something necessary To which I answer First that the supposition as you understand it is falsely impos'd upon us and as we understand it will doe you no service For when we say that there shall be a Church alwaies some where or other unerring in Fundamentalls our meaning is but this that there shall be alwaies a Church to the very being whereof it is repugnant that it should erre in fundamentals for if it should doe so it would want the very essence of a Church and therefore cease to be a Church But we never annexed this privilege to any one Church of any one Denomination as the Greek or the Roman Church which if we had done and set up some setled certain Society of Christians distinguishable from all others by adhering to such a Bishop for our Guide in fundamentals then indeed and then only might you with some colour though with no certainty haue concluded that we could not in wisdome forsake this Church in any point for feare of forsaking it in a necessary point But now that we say not this of any one determinate Church which alone can perform the office of Guide or Director but indefinitely of the Church meaning no more but this That there shall be alwaies in some place or other some Church that erres not in Fundamentalls will you conclude from hence that we cannot in wisdome forsake this or that the Roman or the Greek Church for feare of erring in Fundamentalls 56 Yea but you may say for I will make the best I can of all your Arguments That this Church thus unerring in Fundamentalls when Luther arose was by our confession the Roman and therefore wee ought not in wisdome to haue departed from it in any thing I answer First that we confesse no such thing that the Church of Rome was then this Church but only a Part of it and that the most corrupted and most incorrigible Secondly that if by adhering to the church we could haue been thus far secured this Argument had some shew of reason But seeing wee are not warranted thus much by any privilege of that Church that She cannot erre fundamentally but only from Scripture which assures us that she doth erre very haynously collect our hope that the Truths she retaines the practise of them may proue an Antidote to her against the Errors which she maintaines in such Persons as in simplicity of heart follow this Absalom wee should then doe against the light of our conscience and so sinne damnably if we should not abandon the profession of her Errours though not Fundamentall Neither can we thus conclude we may safely hold with the church of Rome in all her points for she cannot erre damnably For this is false she may though perhaps she does not But rather thus These points of Christianity which have in thē the nature of Antidotes against the poyson of all sinnes and errours the Church of Rome though otherwise much corrupted still retaines therefore wee hope shee erres not fundamentally but still remaines a Part of the Church But this can be no warrant to us to think with her in all things seeing the very same Scripture which puts us in hope she erres not fundamentally assures us that in many things and those of great moment she erres very grievously And these Errours though to them that believe them wee hope they will not be pernicious yet the professing of them against conscience could not but bring to us certain damnation As for the feare of departing from some fundamentall truths withall while we depart from her errours Happily it might work upon us if adhering to her might secure us from it and if nothing else could But both these are false For first adhering to her in all things cannot secure us from erring in Fundamentals Because though de facto we hope shee does not erre yet we know no privileges she has but she may erre in them herselfe and therefore we had need haue better security hereof then her bare Authority Then secondly without dependance on her at all we may be secured that we doe not erre fundamentally I meane by believing al those things plainly set down in Scripture wherein all things necessary and most things profitable are plainly delivered Suppose I were travelling to London and knew two waies thither the one very safe and convenient the other very inconvenient and dangerous but yet a way to London and that I overtook a Passenger on the way who himselfe believed and would fain perswade me there was no other way but the worse and would perswade me to accompany him in it because I confessed his way though very inconvenient yet a way so that going that way we could not faile of our journies end by the consent of both parties but he believed my way to be none at all therefore I might justly feare least out of a desire of leaving the worst way I left the true and the only way If now I should not bee more secure upon my own knowledge then frighted by this fallacy would you not beg me for a fool Iust so might you think of us if we would bee frighted out of our own knowledge by this bugbeare For the only the main reason why we believe you not to erre in Fundamentalls is your holding the Doctrines of faith in Christ and Repentance which knowing we hold as well as you notwithstanding our departure from you we must needs know that we doe not erre in Fundamentalls as well as we know that you doe not erre in some Fundamentals therefore cannot possibly feare the contrary Yet let us be more liberall to you and grant that which can never be proved that God had said in plain tearmes The Church of Rome shall never destroy the Foundation but with all had said that it might and would lay much hay and stubble upon it That you should never hold any Errour destructive of salvation but yet many that were prejudiciall to Edification I demand might we haue dispensed with our selves in the believing and professing these Errours in regard of the smalnesse of them Or had it not been a damnable sinne to doe so though the Errours in themselves were not damnable Had we not had as plain direction to depart frō you in some things profitable as to adhere to you in things necessary In the beginning of your Book when it was for your purpose to haue it so the greatnesse or smalnesse of the matter was not considerable the Evidence of the Revelation was all in all But here wee must erre with you in small things for feare of loosing your direction in greater and for feare of departing too far from you not goe from you at all even where we
the infallible guide of Faith You will confesse I presume he doth not and will pretend it was not necessary Yet if the King should tell us the Lord Keeper should judge such and such causes but should either not tell us at all or tell us but doubtfully who should be Lord Keeper should we be any thing the neerer for him to an end of contentions Nay rather would not the dissentions about the Person who it is increase contentions rather then end them Iust so it would have been if God had appointed a Church tobe judge of Controversies and had not told us which was that Church Seeing therefore God does nothing in vain and seeing it had been in vain to appoint a judge of Controversies and not to tell us plainly who it is and seeing lastly he hath not told us plainly no not at all who it is is it not evident he hath appointed none Ob. But you will say perhaps if it be granted once that some Church of one denomination is the infallible guide of faith it will be no difficult thing to prove that yours is the Church seeing no other Church pretends to be so Ans. Yes the Primitive and the Apostolique Church pretends to be so That assures us that the spirit was promised and given to them to lead them into all saving truth that they might lead others Ob. But that Church is not now in the world and how then can it pretend to be the guide of Faith Ans. It is now in the world sufficiently to be our guide not by the Persons of those men that were members of it but by their Writings which doe plainly teach us what truth they were led into and so lead us into the same truth Ob. But these writings were the writings of some particular men and not of the Church of those times how then doth that Church guide us by these writings Now these places shew that a Church is to be our guide therefore they cannot be so avoided Ans. If you regard the conception and production of these writings they were the writings of particular men But if you regard the Reception and approbation of them they may be well called the writings of the Church as having the attestation of the Church to have been written by those that were inspired and directed by God As a statute though pen'd by some one man yet being ratified by the Parliament is called the Act not of that man but of the Parliament Ob. But the words seem cleerly enough to prove that the Church the Present Church of every Age is Vniversally infallible Ans. For my part I know I am as willing and desirous that the Bishop or Church of Rome should be infallible provided I might know it as they are to be so esteemed But he that would not be deceived must take heed that he take not his desire that a thing should be so for a reason that it is so For if you look upon Scripture through such spectacles as these they will appeare to you of what colour pleases your fancies best and will seem to say not what they doe say but what you would have them As some say the Manna wherewith the Israelites were fed in the Wildernesse had in every mans mouth that very tast which was most agreeable to his palate For my part I professe I have considered them a thousand times and have looked upon them as they say on both sides and yet to me they seeme to say no such matter 70 Not the First For the Church may erre and yet the gates of Hell not prevail against her It may erre and yet continue still a true Church and bring forth Children unto God and send soules to Heaven And therefore this can doe you no service without the plain begging of the point of Question viz. That every errour is one of the gates of Hell Which we absolutely deny and therefore you are not to suppose but to prove it Neither is our denyall without reason For seeing you doe and must grant that a particular Church may hold some errour and yet be still a true member of the Church why may not the Vniversall Church hold the same errour and yet remain the true Vniversall 71 Not the Second or Third For the spirit of Truth may be with a Man or a Church for ever and teach him all Truth And yet he may fall into some errour if this all be not simply all but all of some kind which you confesse to be so unquestioned and certain that you are offended with D. Potter for offering to prove it Secondly he may fall into some errour even contrary to the truth which is taught him if it be taught him only sufficiently and not irresistibly so that he may learne it if he will not so that he must and shall whether he will or no. Now who can ascertain me that the spirits teaching is not of this nature Or how can you possibly reconcile it with your doctrine of free-will in believing if it be not of this nature Besides the word in the Originall is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies to be a guide and director only not to compell or necessitate Who knowes not that a guide may set you in the right way and you may either negligently mistake or willingly leave it And to what purpose doth God complain so often and so earnestly of some that had eyes to see and would not see that stopped their eares and closed their eyes least they should hear and see Of others that would not understand least they should doe good that the light shined and the darknesse comprehended it not That he came unto his own and his own received him not That light came into the world and men loved darknesse more then light To what purpose should he wonder so few believed his report and that to so few his arme was revealed And that when he comes he should find no faith upon earth If his outward teaching were not of this nature that it might be followed and might be resisted And if it be then God may teach and the Church not learn God may lead and the Church be refractory and not follow And indeed who can doubt that hath not his eyes vailed with prejudice that God hath taught the Church of Rome plain enough in the Ep. to the Corinthians that all things in the Church are to be done for edification and that in any publique Prayers or Thanks-givings or Hymnes or Lessons of instruction to use a language which the assistants generally understand not is not for edification Though the Church of Rome will not learne this for feare of confessing an errour and so overthrowing her Authority yet the time will come when it shall appeare that not only by Scripture they were taught this sufficiently and commanded to believe but by reason and common sense And so for the Communion in both kindes who can deny but they are taught it by our Saviour Iohn
Paul and applied by him to our Saviour He hath put all things under his feet mentions no exception yet S. Paul tels us not only that it is true or certain but it is manifest that He is excepted which did put all things under him 84 But your interpretation is better then D. Potters because it is literall I answer His is Literall as well as yours and you are mistaken if you think a restrained sense may not be a literall sense for to Restrained Literall is not opposed but unlimited or absolute and to Literall is not oppos'd Restrained but Figuratiue 85 Whereas you say D. Potters Brethren reiecting his limitation restrain the mentioned Texts to the Apostles implying hereby a contrariety between them and him I answer So does D. Potter restrain all of them which he speaks of in the pages by you quoted to the Apostles in the direct and primary sense of the words Though he tels you there the words in a more restrained sense are true being understood of the Church Vniversall 86 As for your pretence That to finde the meaning of those places you conferre divers Texts you consult Originals you examin Translations and use all the meanes by Protestants appointed I haue told you before that all this is vain and hypocriticall if as your manner your doctrine is you giue not your selfe liberty of judgement in the use of these meanes if you make not your selves Iudges of but only Advocats for the doctrine of your Church refusing to see what these meanes shew you if it any way make against the doctrine of your Church though it be as cleare as the light at noone Remoue prejudice Even the ballance and hold it even make it indifferent to you which way you goe to heaven so you goe the true which Religion be true so you be of it then use the meanes and pray for Gods assistance and as sure as God is true you shall be lead into all necessary Truth 87 Whereas you say you neither doe nor haue any possible meanes to agree as long as you are left to your selues The first is very true That while you differ you doe not agree But for the second That you haue no possible means of agreement as long as you are left to your selues i. e. to your own reasons and judgement this sure is very false neither doe you offer any proofe of it unlesse you intended this that you doe not agree for a proof that you cannot which sure is no good consequence not halfe so good as this which I oppose against it D. Potter and I by the use of these meanes by you mentioned doe agree concerning the sense of these places therefore there is a possible meanes of agreement and therefore you also if you would use the same meanes with the same minds might agree so farre as it is necessary and it is not necessary that you should agree further Or if there bee no possible meanes to agree about the sense of these Texts whilst wee are left to our selves then sure it is impossible that we should agree in your sense of them which was That the Church is universally infallible For if it were possible for us to agree in this sense of them then it were possible for us to agree And why then said you of the selfe same Texts but in the page next before These words seem cleerly enough to proue that the Church is Vniversally infallible A strange forgetfulnesse that the same man almost in the same breath should say of the same words They seem cleerly enough to proue such a conclusion true yet that three indifferent men all presum'd to be lovers of Truth and industrious searchers of it should haue no possible meanes while they follow their own reason to agree in the Truth of this Conclusion 88 Whereas you say that it were great impiety to imagine that God the lover of Soules hath left no certaine infallible meanes to decide both this and all other differences arising about the interpretation of Scripture or upon any other occasion I desire you to take heed you commit not an impiety in making more impieties then Gods Commandements make Certainly God is no way oblig'd either by his promise or his Loue to giue us all things that we may imagine would be convenient for us as formerly I haue proved at large It is sufficient that he denies us nothing necessary to Salvation Deus non deficit in necessariis nec redundat in superfluis So D. Stapleton But that the ending of all Controversies or having a certain meanes of ending them is necessary to Salvation that you haue often said and suppos'd but never proved though it be the main pillar of your whole discourse So little care you take how slight your Foundations are so your building make a faire shew And as little care how you commit those faults your selfe which you condemne in others For you here charge them with great impiety who imagine that God the lover of Soules hath left no infallible meanes to determine all differences arising about the interpretation of Scripture or upon any other occasion And yet afterwards being demanded by D. Potter why the Questions between the Iesuits Dominicans remain undetermined You returne him this crosse interrogatory Who hath assured you that the point wherein these learned men differ is a revealed Truth or capable of definition or is not rather by plain Scripture indeterminable or by any Rule of faith So then when you say it were great impiety to imagine that God hath not left infallible meanes to decide all differences I may answer It seemes you doe not believe your selfe For in this controversie which is of as high consequence as any can be you seem to be doubtfull whether there be any meanes to determin it On the other side when you aske D. Potter who assured him that there it any meanes to determine this Controversie I answer for him that you have in calling it a great impiety to imagine that there is not some infallible meanes to decide this and all other differences arising about the Interpretation of Scripture or upon any other occasion For what trick you can devise to shew that this difference between the Dominicans and Iesuits which includes a difference about the sense of many Texts of Scripture many other matters of moment was not included under this and all other differences I cannot imagine Yet if you can finde out any thus much at least we shall gain by it that generall speeches are not alwaies to be understood generally but sometimes with exceptions and limitations 89 But if there be any infallible meanes to decide all differences I beseech you name them You say it is to consult and heare Gods Visible Church with submissive acknowledgment of her Infallibility But suppose the difference be as here it is whether your Church be infalliâ—le what shall decide that If you would say as you should dot Scripture and
the Creed So that it is cleere that to make an errour damnable it is not necessary that the matter be of it selfe fundamentall 3 Moreover you cannot ground any certainty upon the Creed it selfe unlesse first you presuppose that the authority of the Church is universally infallible and consequently that it is damnable to oppose her declarations whether they concerne matters great or small contayned or not contained in the Creed This is cleere Because we must receiue the Creed it self upon the credit of the Church without which we could not know that there was any such thing as that which we call the Apostles Creed and yet the arguments whereby you endeavour to prove that the Creed containes all fundamentall points are grounded upon supposition that the Creed was made either by the Apostles themselves or by the Church of their times from them which thing we could not certainly know if the succeeding and still continued Church may erre in her Traditions neither can we be assured whether all fundamentall Articles which you say were out of the Scriptures summed and contracted into the Apostles Creed were faithfully summed and contracted and not one pretermitted altered or mistaken unlesse we undoubtedly know that the Apostles composed the Creed and that they intended to contract all fundamentall points of faith into it or at least that the Church of their times for it seemeth you doubt whether indeed it were composed by the Apostles themselves did understand the Apostles aright and that the Church of their times did intend that the Creed should containe all fundamentall points For if the Church may erre in points not fundamentall may she not also erre in the particulers which I have specified Can you shew it to be a fundamentall point of faith that the Apostles intended to comprize all points of faith necessary to Salvation in the Creed Your self say no more then that it is very probable which is farre from reaching to a fundamentall point of faith Your prohability is grounded upon the Iudgment of Antiquity and even of the Roman Doctours as you say in the same place But if the Catholique Church may erre what certainty can you expect from Antiquity or Doctours Scripture is your totall Rule of faith Cite therefore some Text of Scripture to prove that the Apostles or the Church of their times composed the Creed and composed it with a purpose that it should containe all fundamentall points of faith Which being impossible to be done you must for the Creed it self rely upon the infallibility of the Church 4. Moreover the Creed consisteth not so much in the words as in their sense and meaning All such as pretend to the name of Christians recite the Creed and yet many have erred fundamentally as well against the Articles of the Creed as other points of faith It is then very frivolous to say the Creed containes all fundamentall points without specifying both in what sense the Articles of the Creed be true and also in what true sense they be fundamentall For both these taskes you are to performe who teach that all truth is not fundamentall and you doe but delude the ignorant when you say that the Creed taken in a Catholique sense comprehendeth all points fundamentall because with you all Catholique sense is not fundamentall for so it were necessary to salvation that all Christians should know the whole Scripture wherein every least point hath a Catholique sense Or if by Catholique sense you understand that sense which is so universally to be knowne and believed by all that whosoever failes therein cannot be saved you trifle and say no more then this All points of the Creed in a sense necessary to salvation are necessary to salvation Or All points fundamentall are fundamentall After this manner it were an easie thing to make many trve Prognostications by saying it will certainly raine when it raineth You say the Creed was opened and explained in some parts in the Creeds of Nice c. but how shall we understand the other parts not explained in those Creeds 5. For what Article in the Creed is more fundamentall or may seem more cleere then that wherein we believe IESVS CHRIST to be the Mediatour Redeemer and Saviour of mankind and the founder and foundation of a Catholique Church expressed in the Creed And yet about this Article how many different doctrines are there not only of old Heretiques as Arius Nestorius Eutiches c. but also of Protestants partly against Catholiques and partly against one another For the said maine Article of Christ's being the only Saviour of the world c. according to different senses of disagreeing Sects doth involve these and many other such questions That Faith in IESVS CHRIST doth justifie alone That Sacraments have no efficency in Iustification That Baptisme doth not availe Infants for salvation unlesse they have an Act of faith That there is no Sacerdotall Absolution from sinnes That good works proceeding from Gods grace are not meritorious That there can be no Satisfaction for the temporall punishment due to sinne after the guilt or offence is pardoned No Purgatory No prayers for the dead No Sacrifice of the Masse No Invocation No Mediation or intercession of Saints No inherent Iustice No supreme Pastor yea no Bishop by divine Ordinance No Reall presence no Transubstantiation with diverse others And why Because forsooth these Doctrines derogate from the Titles of Mediator Redeemer Advocate Foundation c. Yea and are against the truth of our Saviours humane nature if we believe diverse Protestants writing against Transubstantiation Let then any judicious man consider whether Doctour Potter or others doe really satisfie when they send men to the Creed for a perfect Catalogue to distinguish points fundamentall from those which they say are not fundamentall If he will speak indeed to some purpose let him say This Article is understood in this sense and in this sense it is fundamentall That other is to be understood in such a meaning yet according to that meaning it is not so fundamentall but that men may disagree and denie it without damnation But it were no policie for any Protestant to deale so plainly 6. But to what end should we use many arguments Even your selfe are forced to limit your owne Doctrine and come to say that the Creed is a perfect Catalogue of fundamentall points taken as it was further opened and explained in some parts by occasion of emergent Heresies in the other Catholique Creeds of Nice Constantinople Ephesus Chalcedon and Athanasius But this explication or restriction overthroweth you assertion For as the Apostles Creed was not to us a sufficient Catalogue till it was explained by the first Councell nor then till it was declared by another c. so now also as new Heresies may arise it will need particular explanation against such emergent errors and so it is not yet nor ever will be of it self alone a particular Catalogue sufficient
may admit the efficiency of Sacraments There is no mention of Ecclesiasticall Apostolicall Divine Traditions one way or other or of holy Scriptures in generall and much lesse of every book in particular nor of the Name Nature Number Effects Matter Forme Minister Intention Necessity of Sacraments and yet the due Administration of Sacraments is with Protestants an essentiall Note of the Church There is nothing for Baptisme of Children nor against Rebaptization There is no mention in favour or against the Sacrifice of the Masse of Power in the Church to institute Rites Holy daies c. and to inflict Excommunication or other Censures of Priesthood Bishops and the whole Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy which are very fundamentall points of S. Peters Primacy which to Calvin seemeth a fundamentall errour nor of the possibility or impossibility to keep Gods commandements of the procession of the holy Ghost from the Father and the Sonne of Purgatory or Prayer for the dead in any sense And yet D. Potter doth not deny but that Aerius was esteemed an Heretique for denying all sort of Commemoration for the dead Nothing of the Churches Visibility or Invisibility Fallibility or Infallibility nor of other points controverted betwixt Protestants themseves and between Protestants and Catholiques which to D. Potter seem so hainous corruptions that they cannot without damnation joyne with us in profession thereof There is no mention of the Cessation of the Old Law which yet is a very main point of faith And many other might be also added 15. But what need we labour to specify particulars There are as many important points of faith not expressed in the Creed as since the worlds begining now and for all future times there have been are and may be innumerable grosse damnable Heresies whose contrary truths are not contained in the Creed For every fundamentall Error must have a contrary fundamentall truth because of two contradictory propositions in the same degree the one is false the other must be true As for example if it be a damnable error to deny the Bâ— Trinity or the Godhead of our Saviour the belief of them must be a truth necessary to Salvation or rather if we will speak properly the Error is damnable because the opposite Truth is necessary as death is frightfull because life is sweet and according to Philosophy the Privation is measured by the Forme to which it is repugnant If therefore the Creed contain in particular all fundamentall points of faith it must explicitely or by cleer consequence comprehend all truths opposite to innumerable Heresies of all ages past present and to come which no man in his wits will affirme it to doe 16 And here I cannot omit to signify how you applaud the saying of D. Vsher. That in those propositions which without all controversy are universally received in the whole Christian world so much truth is contained as being joyned with holy Obedience may be sufficient to bring a man to everlasting salvation neither have we cause to doubt but that as many as walk according to this Rule neither overthrowing that which they have builded by superinducing any damnable heresies thereupon nor otherwise vitiating their holy faith with a lewd and wicked conversation peace shall be upon them and upon the Israel of God Now D Potter knowes that the Mystery of the B. Trinity is not universally received in the whole Christian world as appeares in very many Heretiques in Polony Hungary and Transilvania and therefore according to this Rule of D. Vsher approved by D. Potter the deniall of the B. Trinity shall not exclude Salvation 17 Let me note by the way that you might easily have espied a foul contradiction in the said words of D. Vsher by you recited and so much applauded For he supposeth that a man agrees with other Churches in belief which joyned with holy Obedience may bring him to everlasting salvation and yet that he may superinduce damnable heresies For how can he superinduce damnable heresies who is supposed to believe all Truths necessary to salvation Can there be any damnable heresy unlesse it contradict some necessary truth which cannot happen in one who is supposed to believe all necessary Truths Besides if one believing all fundamentall Articles in the Creed may superinduce damnable heresies it followeth that the fundamentall truths contrary to those damnable heresies are not contained in the Creed 18 According to this Modell of D. Potters foundation consisting in the agreement of scarceone point of faith what a strange Church would he make of men concurring in some one of few Articles of belief who yet for the rest should be holding conceits plainly contradictory so patching up a Religion of men who agree only in the Article that Christ is our Saviour but for the rest are like to the parts of a Chimaera having the head of a man the neck of a horse the shoulders of an Oxe the foot of a Lion c. I wrong them not herein For in good Philosophy there is greater repugnancy between assent and dissent affirmation and negation est est non non especially when all these contradictories pretend to rely upon one and the selfe same Motive the infallible Truth of Almighty God then between the integrall parts as head neck c. of a man horse lion c. And thus Protestants are farre more bold to disagree even in matters of faith then Catholique Divines in questions meerely Philosophicall or not determined by the Church And whâ—e thus they stand only upon fundamentall Articles they doe by their own confession destroy the Church which is the house of God For the foundation alone of a house is not a house nor can they in such an imaginary Church any more expect Salvation then the foundation alone of a house is fit to afford a man habitation 19 Moreover it is most evident that Protestants by this Chaos rather then Church doe giue unavoidable occasion of desperation to poore soules Let some one who is desirous to save his soule repaire to D. Potter who maintaines these grounds to know upon whom he may rely in a matter of so great consequence I suppose the Doctors answer will be Vpon the truely Catholique Church She cannot erre damnably What understand you by the Catholique Church Cannot generall Councells which are the Church representatiue erre Yes they may weakly or wilfully misaply or misunderstand or neglect Scripture and so erre damnably To whom then shall I goe for my particular instruction I cannot confer with the united body of the whole Church about my particular difficulties as your selfe affirmes that the Catholique Church cannot be told of private iniuries Must I then consult with every particular person of the Catholique Church So it seemes by what you write in these words The whole militant Church that is all the members of it cannot possibly erre either in the whole faith or any necessary Article of it You say M. Doctour I cannot for my
Creed For this he affirmes only of such speculatiue divine veriries which God hath commanded particularly to be preached to all and believed by all Now let the doctrines objected by you be well considered and let all those that are reducible to the three former heads be discarded and then of all these Instances against D. Potters Assertion there will not remain so much as one 33 First the Questions touching the conditions to bee performed by us to obtaine remission of sinnes the Sacraments the Commandements and the possibility of keeping them the necessity of imploring the Assistance of Gods Grace and Spirit for the keeping of them how farre obedience is due to the Church Prayer for the Dead The cessation of the old Law are all about Agenda and so cut off upon the first consideration 34 Secondly the Question touching Fundamentalls is profitable but not fundamentall He that belieues all Fundamentals cannot bee damned for any errour in faith though he belieue more or lesse to bee fundamental then is so That also of the procession of the holy Ghost from the Father and the Sonne of Purgatory of the Churches Visibility of the Books of the new Testament which were doubted of by a considerable part of the Primitiue Church untill I see better reason for the contrary then the bare authority of men I shall esteem of the same condition 35 Thirdly These Doctrines that Adam and the Angels sinned that there are Angels good and bad that those bookes of Scripture which were never doubted of by any considerable part of the Church are the word of God that S. Peter had no such primacy as you pretend that the Scripture is a perfect rule of faith consequently that no necessary doctrine is unwritten that there is no one Society or succession of Christians absolutely infallible These to my understanding are truths plainly revealed by God and necessary to be believed by them who know they are so But not so necessary that every man woman is bound under pain of damnation particularly to know thē to be divine Revelations and explicitely to believe them And for this reason these with innumerable other points are to be referred to the third sort of doctrines aboue mentioned which were never pretended to haue place in the Creed There remaines one only point of all that Army you mustred together reducible to none of these heads that is that God is and is a Remunerator which you say is questioned by the deniall of merit But if there were such a necessary indissoluble coherence between this point and the doctrine of merit mee thinks with as much reason and more charity you might conclude That we hold merit because we hold this point Then that we deny this point because we deny merit Besides when Protestants deny the doctrine of Merits you know right well for so they haue declared themselues a thousand times that they mean nothing else but with David that their well doing extendeth not is not truly beneficiall to God with our Saviour when they haue done all which they are commanded they haue done their duty only and no curtesie And lastly with S. Paul that all which they can suffer for God and yet suffering is more then doing is not worthy to bee compared to the glory that shall be revealed So that you must either misunderstand their meaning in denying Merit or you must discharge their doctrine of this odious consequence or you must charge it upon David and Paul and Christ himselfe Nay you must either grant their deniall of true Merit just reasonable or you must say that our good actions are really profitable to God that they are not debts already due to him but voluntary and undeserved Favours and that they are equall unto and well worthy of eternall glory which is prepar'd for them As for the inconvenience which you so much feare That the deniall of Merit makes God a Giver only not a Rewarder I tell you good Sir you feare where no feare is and that it is both most true on the one side that you in holding good Works meritorious of eternall glory make God a rewarder only not a giver contrary to plain Scripture affirming that The gift of God is eternall life And that it is most false on the other side that the doctrine of Protestants makes God a giver only and not a rewarder In as much as their doctrine is That God giues not Heaven but to those which doe something for it and so his gift is also a Reward but withall that whatsoever they doe is due unto God before hand and worth nothing to God and worth nothing in respect of Heaven and so mans work is no Merit and Gods reward is still a Gift 36 Put the case the Pope for a reward of your service done him in writing this Book had given you the honour and meanes of a Cardinall would you not not only in humility but in sincerity haue professed that you had not merited such a Reward And yet the Pope is neither your Creatour nor Redeemer nor Preserver nor perhaps your very great Benefactour sure I am not so great as God Almighty and therefore hath no such right and title to your service as God hath in respect of precedent obligations Besides the work you haue done him hath been really advantagious to him and lastly not altogether unproportionable to the fore-mentioned Reward And therefore if by the same work you will pretend that either you haue or hope to haue deserved immortall happinesse I beseech you consider well whether this be not to set a higher value upon a Cardinal's cap then a Crowne of immortall glory and with that Cardinall to prefer a part in Paris before a part in Paradise 37 In the next Paragraph you beat the ayre again and fight manfully with your own shadow The point you should haue spoken to was this That there are some points of simple beliefe necessary to bee explicitely believed which yet are not contained in the Creed Insteed hereof you trouble your selfe in vain to demonstrate That many important points of faith are not contained in it which yet D. Potter had freely granted and you your selfe take particular notice of his granting of it All this paines therefore you have imployed to no purpose saving that to some negligent Reader you may seem to have spoken to the very point because that which you speak to at the first hearing sounds somewhat neere it But such a one I must intreat to remember there be many more points of faith then there be Articles of Simple belief necessary to be explicitly believed And that though all of the former sort are not contained in the Creed yet all of the latter sort may be As for your distinction between Heresies that have been and Heresies that are and Heresies that may be I have already proved it vaine and that whatsoever may be an Heresie that is so and whatsoever is so
shew or shadow of Reason and an evident sophisme grounded upon an affected mistake of the sense of the word Fundamentall 49 The first untruth is that D. Potter makes a Church of men agreeing scarcely in one point of faith of men concurring in some one or few Articles of belief and in the rest holding conceits plainly contradictory Agreeing only in this one Article that Christ is our Saviour but for the rest like to the parts of a Chimaera c. Which I say is a shamelesse calumny not only because D. Potter in this point delivers not his own judgement but relates the opinion of others M. Hooker and M. Morton but especially because even these men as they are related by D. Potter to the constituting of the very essence of a Church in the lowest degree require not only Faith in Christ Iesus the sonne of God and Saviour of the World but also submission to his Doctrine in mind and will Now I beseech you Sir tell me ingenuously whether the doctrine of Christ may be called without blasphemy scarcely one point of Faith or whether it consists only of some one or few Articles of belief Or whether there be nothing in it but only this Article That Christ is our Saviour Is it not manifest to all the world that Christians of all Professions doe agree with one consent in the belief of all those Bookes of Scripture which were not doubted of in the ancient Church without danger of damnation Nay is it not apparent that no man at this time can without hypocrisy pretend to believe in Christ but of necessity he must doe so Seeing he can have no reason to believe in Christ but he must have the same to believe the Scripture I pray then read over the Scripture once more or if that be too much labour the New Testament only and then say whether there be nothing there but scarcely one point of Faith But some one or two Articles of beleif Nothing but this Article onely that Christ is our Saviour Say whether there be not there an infinite number of Divine Verities Divine precepts Divine promises and those so plainly and undoubtedly delivered that if any sees them not it cannot be because he cannot but because he will not So plainly that whosoever submits syncerely to the doctrine of Christ in mind and will cannot possibly but submit to these in act and performance And in the rest which it hath pleased God for reasons best known to himselfe to deliver obscurely or ambiguously yet thus farre at least they agree that the sense of them intended by God is certainly true and that they are without passion or prejudice to endeavour to find it out The difference only is which is that true sense which God intended Neither would this long continue if the walls of separation whereby the Divell hopes to make their Divisions eternall were pulled down and errour were not supported against Truth by humane advantages But for the present God forbid the matter should be so ill as you make it For whereas you looking upon their points of difference and agreement through I know not what strange glasses have made the first innumerable and the other scarce a number the truth is clean contrary That those divine Verities Speculative and Practicall wherein they universally agree which you will have to be but a few or but one or scarcely one amount to many millions i◠an exact account were taken of them And on the other side the Ponts in variance are in comparison but few and those not of such a quality but the Error in them may well consist with the belief obedience of the entire Covenant ratified by Christ between God and man Yet I would not be so mistaken as if I thought the errours even of some Protestants unconsiderable things and matters of no moment For the truth is I am very fearfull that some of their opinions either as they are or as they are apt to be mistaken though not of themselves so damnable but that good and holy men may be saved with thē yet are too frequent occasions of our remisnes and slacknesse in running the race of Christian Profession of our deferring Repentance and conversion to God of our frequent relapses into sinne not seldome of security in sinning consequently though not certain causes yet too frequent occasions of many mens damnation and such I conceive all these doctrines which either directly or obliquely put men in hope of eternall happinesse by any other means saving only the narrow way of sincere and universall obedience grounded upon a true and lively faith These Errours therefore I doe not elevate or extenuate and on condition the ruptures made by them might be composed doe heartily wish that the cement were made of my deerest blood and only not to be an Anathema from Christ Only this I say that neither are their points of agreement so few nor their differences so many as you make them nor so great as to exclude the opposite Parties from being members of one Church Militant joynt heires of the glory of the Church Triumphant 50 Your other palpable untruth is that Protestants are farre more bold to disagree even in matters of faith then Catholique Divines you mean your own in Questions meerely Philosophicall or not determined by the Church For neither doe they differ at all in matters of faith if you take the word in the highest sense and mean by matters of faith such doctrines as are absolutely necessary to Salvation to be believed or not to be disbelieved And then in those wherein they doe differ with what colour or shadow of Argument can you make good that they are more bold to disagree then you are in Questions meerely Philosophicall or not determined by the Church For is there not as great repugnancy between your assent and dissent your affirmation and negation your Est Est Non Non as there is between theirs You follow your Reason in those things wich are not determined by your Church and they theirs in things not plainly determined in Scripture And wherein then consists their greater their farre greater boldnesse And what if they in their contradictory opinions pretend both to rely upon the truth of God doth this make their contradictions ever a whit the more repugnant I had alwaies thought that all contradictions had been equally contradictions and equally repugnant because the least of them are as farre asunder as Est and Non Est can make them and the greatest are no farther But then you in your differences by name about Predetermination the Immaculate Conception the Popes Infallibility upon what other motive doe you rely Doe not you cite Scripture or Tradition or both on both sides And doe you not pretend that both these are the infallible Truths of Almighty God 51 You close up this Section with a fallacy proving forsooth that we destroy by our confession the Church which is the house of God
that those persons sinned mortally who accompanied without hope of issue Seaventhly they held all things done above the girdle by kissing touching words compression of the breasts c. to be done in Charity and not against Continency Eightly that neither Priest nor civill Magistrate being guilty of mortall sinne did enjoy their dignity or were to be obeyed Ninthly they condemned Princes and Iudges Tenthly they affirmed singing in the Church to be an hellish clamor Eleaventhly they taught that men might dissemble their Religion so accordingly they went to Catholique Churches dissembling their faith and made Offertories confessions and communions after a dissembling manner Waldo was so unlearned that saith Fox he gave rewards to certain learned men to translate the holy Scripture for him and being thus holpen did as the same Fox there reporteth confer the forme of religion in his time to the infallible word of God A goodly example for such as must needs have the Scripture in English to be read by every simple body with such fruit of Godly doctrine as we have seen in the foresaid grosse heresies of Waldo The followers of Waldo were like their Master so unlearned that some of them â—aith Fox expounded the words Ioan. 1. Sui eum non receperunt Swine did not receive him And to conclude they agreed in divers things with Catholiques against Protestants as may be seen in Brerely 51 Neither can it be pretended that these are slanders forged by Catholiques For for besides that the same things are testified by Protestant writers as Iâ—â—yricus Coâ—per and others our Authors cannot be suspected of partiality in disfavour of Protestants unlesse you will say perhaps that they were Prophets and some hundred yeares agoe did both foresee that there were to bee Protestants in the world and that such Protestants were to be like the Waldenses Besides from whence but from our Histories are Protestants come to know that there were any such men as the Waldenses and that in some points they agreed with the Protestants disagreed from them in others And upon what ground can they belieue our Authors for that part wherein the Waldenses were like to Protestants and imagine they lyed in the rest 52 Neither could Wiccliffe continue a Church never interrupted from the time of the Waldenses after whom he lived more then one hundred and fifty yeares to wit the yeare 1371. Hee agreed with Catholiques about the worshipping of Reliques and Images and about the Intercession of our blessed Lady the ever Immaculate Mother of God he went so far as to say It seemes to me impossible that we should be rewarded without the intercession of the Virgin Mary He held seaven Sacraments Purgatory and other points And against both Catholiques and Protestants he maintained sundry damnable doctrines as divers Protestant Writers relate As first If a Bishop or Priest be in deadly sinne he doth not indeed either giue Orders Consecrate or Baptize Secondly That Ecclesiasticall Ministers ought not to haue any temporall possessions nor propriety in any thing but should beg and yet he himselfe brake into heresie because he had been deprived by the Archbishop of Canterbury of a certain Benefice as all Schismes and heresies beginne upon passion which they seek to cover with the cloak of Reformation Thirdly he condemned lawfull Oathes like the Anabaptists Fourthly he taught that all things came to passe by absolute necessity Fiftly he defended human merits as the wicked Pelagians did namely as proceeding from naturall forces without the necessary help of God's grace Sixtly that no man is a Civill Magistrate while he is in mortall sinne and that the people may at their pleasure correct Princes when they offend by which doctrine he proues himselfe both an Heretique and a Traytour 53 As for Husse his chiefest Doctrines were That Lay people must receive in both kinders and That Civill Lords Prelates and Bishops loose all right and authority while they are in mortall sinne For other things he wholy agreed with Catholiques against Protestants and the Bohemians his followers being demanded in what points they disagreed from the Church of Rome propounded only these The necessity of Communion under both kinds That all Civill Dominion was forbidden to the Clergy That Preaching of the word was free for all men and in all places That open Crimes were in no wise to be permitted for avoiding of greater evill By these particulars it is apparant that Husse agreed with Protestants against us in one only point of both kindes â—hich according to Luther is a thing indifferent because he teacheth that Christ in this matter commanded nothing as necessary And he saith further If thou come to a place where one only kinde is administred use one kinde only as others doe Melancthon likewise holds it a thing indifferent and the same is the opinion of some other Protestants All which considered it is cleer that Protestants cannot challenge the Waldenses Wickliffe and Husse for members of their Church and although they could yet that would advantage them little towards the finding out a perpetuall visible Church of theirs for the reasons aboue specified 54 If D Potter would goe so farre off as to fetch the Muscovites Armenians Georgians Aethiopians or Abissines into his Church they would proue over deare bought For they either hold the damnable heresy of Euâ—iches or use Circumcision or agree with the Greek or Roman Church And it is most certaine that they have nothing to doe with the doctrine of the Protestants 55 It being therefore granted that Christ had a visible Church in all ages and that there can be none assigned but the Church of Rome it followes that she is the true Cath. Church and that those pretended Corruptions for which they forsook her are indeed divine truths delivered by the visible Catholique Church of Christ And that Luther and his followers departed from her and consequently are guilty of Schisme by dividing themselves from the Communion of the Roman Church Which is cleerly convinced out of D. Potter himself although the Roman Church were but a particular Church For he saith Whosoever professes himself to forsake the Communion of any one member of the body of Christ must confesse himself consequently to forsake the whole Since therefore in the same place he expressely acknowledges the Church of Rome to be a member of the body of Christ and that it is cleere they have forsaken her it evidently followes that they haue forsaken the whole and therefore are most properly Schismatiques 56 And lastly since the crime of Schisme is so grievous that according to the doctrine of holy Fathers rehearsed aboue no multitude of good works no morall honesty of life no cruel death endured even for the profession of some Article of faith can excuse any one who is guilty of that sinne from damnation I leaue it to be considered whether it be not true Charity to speak as wee believe and
For it is to require that they which believe some part of your Doctrine false should withall believe it all true Seeing therefore for any man to believe your Church in error and professe the contrary is damnable Hypocrisie to believe it and not believe it a manifest repugnancy and thirdly to professe it and to continue in your Communion as matters now stand a plain impossibility what remaines but that whosoever is supposed to have just reason to disbelieve any doctrine of your Church must of necessity forsake her Communion Vnlesse you would remit so farre from your present rigour as to allow them your Churches communion who publiquely professe that they doe not believe every article of her established Doctrine Indeed if you would doe so you might with some coherence suppose your Church in error and yet finde fault with men for abandoning her communion because they might continue in it and suppose her in error But to suppose your Church in error and to excommunicate all those that believe your own supposition and then to complain that they continue not in your communion is the most ridiculous incongruity that can be imagined And therefore though your corruptions in doctrine in themselves which yet is false did not yet your obliging us to professe your doctrine uncorrupted against knowledge and conscience may induce an obligation to depart from your communion As if there were any society of Christians that held there were no Antipodes notwithstanding this error I might communicate with them But if I could not doe so without professing my selfe of their beleefe in this matter then I suppose I should be excus'd from Schisme if I should forsake their communion rather then professe my selfe to believe that which I doe not believe Neither is there any contradiction or shadow of contradiction that it may be necessary for my Salvation to depart from this Churches communion And that this Church though erring in this matter wants nothing necessary to Salvation And yet this is that manifest contradiction which D. Potter you say will never be able to salve viz. That there might be necessary cause to depart from the Church of Rome in some Doctrines and practices though she wanted nothing necessary to Salvation 60 And your Reason wherewith you prove that there is in these words such a plain contradiction is very notable For say you if she wanted nothing necessary to Salvation how could it be necessary to Salvation to forsake her Truly Sir if this be a good manner of proving it is a very ready way to prove any thing for what is there that may not be proved if it be proofe enough to aske how it can be otherwise Me thinkes if you would convince D. Potter's words of manifest contradiction you should shew that he affirmes and denies the same of the same From which fault me thinkes he should be very innocent who saies only that that may be damnable to one which is not so to another and that may be necessary for one which is not necessary for another And this is all that D. Potter saies here viz. That the profession of a falsehood to him that believes it may be not damnable and yet damnable to him that believes the contrary Or that not to professe a falsehood in him that knowes it to be so is necessary to Salvation and yet not so in him that by error conceives it to be a truth The words by you cited and charged with unsalvable contradiction are in the 75. pag. But in the progresse of the same particular discourse in the next page but one he gives such evident reason of them which can hardly be done to prove implicancy true that whereas you say he will never be able to salve them from contradiction I believe any indifferent reader having considered the place will be very apt to think that you whatsoever you pretend were very able to have done this curtesy for him if your will had been answerable to your ability I will set down the words and leave the Reader to condemne or absolve them To forsake the errors of that Church and not to joyne with her in those practices which we account erroneous wee are enforced by necessity For though in the issue they are not damnable to them which belieue as they professe yet for us to professe avow by oath as the Church of Rome enioynes what we belieue not were without question damnable And they with their errours by the grace of God might goe to Heaven when we for our hypocrisie and dissimulation he might haue added and Perjury should certainly be condemned to Hell 61 Ad § 20. But a Church not erring in Fundamentalls though erring in other matters doth what our Saviour exacts at her hands doth as much as lies in her power to doe Therefore the Communion of such a Church is not upon pretence of Errour to be forsaken The consequence is manifest The Antecedent is proved because God by D. Potters confession hath promised his assistance no further nor is it in her power to doe more then God doth assist her to doe Ans. The promise of Divine Assistance is two fold Absolute or Conditionall That there shall be by Divine providence preseru'd 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 Doctor affirmes that God hath promised absolutely Yet he neither doubts nor denies but that a farther assistance is conditionally promised us even such an assistance as shall lead us if we be not wanting to it and our selves into all not only necessary but very profitable truth and guard us from all not only destructive but also hurtfull Errours This I say he neither denies nor questions And should he haue done so hee might haue been confuted by evident and expresse Text of Scripture When therefore you say That a Church not erring in Fundamentalls doth as much as by Gods assistance lies in her power to doe This is manifestly untrue For Gods assistance is alwaies ready to promote her farther It is ready I say but on condition the Church does implore it on condition that when it is offered in the divine directions of Scripture and reason the Church be not negligent to follow it If therefore there be any Church which retaining the foundation builds hay and stubble upon it which believing what is precisely necessary erres shamefully and dangerously in other things very profitable This by no meanes argues defect of divine assistance in God but neglect of this assistance in the Church Neither is there any reason why such a Church should please her selfe too much for retaining Fundamentall truths while shee remaines so regardlesse of others For though the simple defect of some truths profitable onely and not simply necessary may consist with salvation Yet who is there that can giue her sufficient assurance that the neglect
may be a fault to be in error because many times it proceeds from a fault But sure the forsaking of error cannot be a sinne unlesse to be in error be a vertue And therefore to doe as you doe to damne men for false opinions and to call them Schismatiques for leaving them to make pertinacy in error that is an unwillingnesse to be convicted or a resolution not to be convicted the forme of Heresies and to find fault with men for being convicted in conscience that they are in error is the most incoherent and contradictious injustice that ever was heard of But Sir if this be a strange matter to you that which I shall tell you will be much stranger I know a man that of a moderate Protestant turn'd a Papist and the day that he did so as all things that are done are perfected some day or other was convicted in conscience that his yesterdaies opinion was an error and yet thinks hee was no Schismatique for doing sos and desires to bee informed by you whether or no hee was mistaken The same man afterwards upon better consideration became a doubting Papist and of a doubting Papist a confirm'd Protestant And yet this man thinks himselfe no more to blame for all these changes then a Travailer who using all diligence to find the right way to some remote Citty where he never had been as the party I speak of had never been in Heaven did yet mistake it and after finde his error and amend it Nay he stands upon his justification so farre as to maintain that his alterations not only to you but also from you by Gods mercy were the most satisfactory actions to himselfe that ever he did and the greatest victories that ever he obtained over himselfe and his affections to those things which in this world are most precious as wherein for Gods sake and as he was verily perswaded out of love to the Truth he went upon a certain expectation of those inconveniences which to ingenuous natures are of all most terrible So that though there were much weaknesse in some of these alterations yet certainly there was no wickednesse Neither does he yeeld his weaknesse altogether without apology seeing his deductions were rationall and out of Principles commonly received by Protestants as well as Papists and which by his education had got possession of his understanding 104 Ad § 40. 41. D. Potter p. 81. of his booke to prove our separation from you not only lawfull but necessary hath these words Although we confesse the Church of Rome in some sense to be a true Church and her error to some men not damnable yet for us who are convinced in conscience that she erres in many things a necessity lies upon us even under pain of damnation to forsake her in those errors He meanes not in the belief of those errors for that is presupposed to be done already for whosoever is convinc'd in conscience that she erres hath for matter of belief forsaken that is ceased to believe those errors This therefore he meant not nor could not meane but that whosoever is convinc'd in conscience that the Church of Rome erres cannot with a good conscience but forsake her in the profession and practice of these errors and the reason hereof is manifest because otherwise he must professe what he believes not and practise what he approves not Which is no more then you selfe in thesi have diverse times affirmed For in one place you say It is unlawfull to speak any the least untruth Now he that professeth your Religion and believes it not what else doth he but live in a perpetuall lye Again in another you have called them that professe one thing and believe another a damned crew of dissembling Sycophants And therefore in inveighing against Protestants for forsaking the Profession of these errors the beleefe whereof they had already forsaken what doe you but raile at them for not being a damned crew of dissembling Sycophants And lastly § 42. of this chap. within three leaves after this whereas D. Potter grants but only a necessity of peaceable externall obedience to the Declaration of the Church though perhaps erroneous provided it be in matter not of faith but of opinions or Rites condemning those men who by occasion of errors of this quality disturbe the Churches peace and cast off her communion Vpon this occasion you come upon him with this bitter sarcasme I thank you for your ingenuous confession in recompence whereof I will doe a deed of Charity by putting you in minde into what Labyrinths you are brought by teaching that the Church may erre in some points of faith and yet that it is not lawfull for any man to oppose his judgement or leave her Communion though he have evidence of Scripture against her Will you have such a man dissemble against his Conscience or externally deny Truth known to be contained in holy Scripture I Answer for him no It is not he but you that would have men doe so not he who saies plainly that whosoever is convinc'd in conscience that any Church erres is bound under pain of damnation to forsake her in her Profession and practice of these errors but you who finde fault with him and make long discourse against him for thus Affirming Not he who can easily winde himselfe out of your Imaginary Labyrinth by telling you that he no where denies it lawfull for any man to oppose any Church erring in matter of faith for that he speaks not of matters of faith at all but only of Rites and Opinions And in such matters he saies indeed at first It is not lawfull for any man to oppose his judgement to the publique But he presently explaines himselfe by saying not only that he may hold an opinion contrary to the Publique resolution but besides that he may offer it to be considered of so farre is he from requiring any sinfull dissimulation Provided he doe it with great Probability of Reason very modestly and respectfully and without separation from the Churches communion It is not therefore in this case opposing a mans private judgement to the publique simply which the Doctor findes fault with But the degree only and malice of this opposition opposing it factiously And not holding a mans own conceit different from the Church absolutely which here he censures But a factious advancing it and despising the Church so farre as to cast off her Communion because forsooth she erres in some opinion or useth some inconvenient though not impious rites and ceremonies Little reason therefore have you to accuse him there as if he required that men should dissemble against their conscience or externally deny a truth known to be contained in holy Scripture But certainly a great deale lesse to quarrell with him for saying which is all that here he saies that men under pain of demnation are not to dissemble but if they be convinc'd in conscience that your or any other Church for the
that although the Waldenses Wicliffe c. had agreed with Protestants in all points of doctrine yet they could not bragge of Succession from them because their doctrine hath not been free from interruption which necessarily crosseth Succession 24 And as want of Succession of Persons and Doctrine cannot stand with that Vniversality of Time which is inseparable from the Catholique Church so likewise the disagreeing Sectâ— which are dispersed throughout divers Countries and Nations cannot help towards that Vniversality of Place wherewith the true Church must be endued but rather such locall multiplication doth more more lay open their division want of Succession in Doctrine For the excellent Observation of S. Augustine doth punctually agree with all modern Heretiques wherein this holy Father having cited these words out of the Prophet Ezechiell My flocks are dispersed upon the whole face of the Earth he addes this remarkable sentence Not all Heretiques are spread over the face of the Earth and yet there are Heretiques spread over the whole face of the Earth some here some there yet they are wanting in no place they know not one another One Sect for example in Africa another Heresy in the East another in Egypt another in Mesopotamia In divers places they are divers one Mother pride hath begot them all as our own Mother the Catholique Church hath brought forth all faithfull people dispersed throughout the whole world No wonder then if Pride breed Dissention and Charity Vnion And in another place applying to Heretiques those words of the Canticles If thou know not thy selfe goe forth and follow after the steps of the flocks and feed thy kids he saith If thou know not thy selfe goe thou forth I doe not cast thee out but goe thou out that it may be said of thee They went from us but they were not of us Goe thou out in the steps of the flocks not in my steps but in the steps of the flocks nor of one flock but of divers and wandring flocks And feed thy Kids not as Peter to whom is said Feed my sheepe but seed thy Kids in the Tabernacles of the Pastors not in the Tabernacle of the Pastor where there is one flock and one Pastor In which words this holy Father doth set down the Markes of Heresy to wit going out from the Church and Want of Vnity among themselves which proceed from not acknowledging one supreme Visible Pastor and Head under Christ. And so it being Proved that Protestants having neither succession of Persons nor Doctrine nor Vniversality of Time or Place cannot avoid the just note of Heresy 25 Hitherto we have brought arguments to prove that Luther and all Protestants are guilty of Heresy against the Negative Precept of faith which obligeth us under pain of damnation not to imbrace any one errour contrary to any Truth sufficiently propounded as testified or revealed by Almighty God Which were enough to make good that among Persons who disagree many one point of Faith one part only can be saved Yet we will now prove that Whosoever erreth in any one point doth also break the Affirmative Precept of Faith whereby we are obliged positively to believe some revealed truth with an infallible and supernaturall Faith which is necessary to salvation even necessitate finis or meâ—ii as Divines speak that is so necessary that not any after he is come to the use of Reason was or can be saved without it according to the words of the Apostle Without Faith it is impossible to please God 26 In the beginning of this Chapter I shewed that to Christian Catholique faith are required Certainty Obscurtty Prudence and Supernaturality All which Conditions we will proue to bee wanting in the beliefe of Protestants even in those points which are true in themseluâ—s and to which they yeeld assent as hapeneth in all those particulars wherein they agree with us from whence it will follow that they wanting true Divine Faith want meanes absolutely necessary to salvation 27 And first that their beliefe wanteth Certainty I proue because denying the Vniversall infallibility of the Church can haue no certain grouÌ„nd to know what Objects are â—evealed or testified by God Holy Scripture is in it selfe most true and infallible but without the direction declaration of the Church we can neither haue certain means to know what Scripture is Canonicall nor what Translations be faithfull nor what is the true meaning of Scripture Every Protestant as I suppose is perswaded that his own opinions be true and that he hath used such means as are wont to be prescribed for understanding the Scripture as Prayer Conferring of divers Texts c. and yet their disagreements shew thaâ— some of them are deceaved And therefore it is cleer that they haue no one certain ground whereon to rely for understanding of Scripture And seeing they hold all the Articles of Faith even concerning fundamentall points upon the selfe same ground of Scripture interpreted not by the Churches Authority but according to some other Rules which as experience of their contradictions teach doe sometimes faile it is cleer that the ground of their faith is infallible in no point at all And albeit sometime it chance to hit on the truth yet it is likewise apt to lead them to errour As all Arch-heretiques believing some truths withall divers errours upon the same ground and motive have indeed no true divine infallible faith bâ—t only a fallible humane opinion and perswasion For if the ground upon which they rely were certain it could never produce any errour 28 Another cause of uncertainty in the faith of Protestants must rise from their distinction of points fundamentall and not fundamentall For since they acknowledge that every errour in fundamentall points destroyeth the substance of faith and yet cannot determine what points bee fundamentall it followeth that they must remain uncertain whether or no they be not in some fundamentall error and so want the substance of faith without which there can be no hope of Salvation 29 And that he who erreth against any one revealed truth as certainly some Protestants must doe because contradictory Propositions cannot both be true doth loose all Divine faith is a very true doctrine delivered by Catholique Divines with so generall a consent that the contrary is wont to be censured as temerarious The Angelicall Doctor S. Thomas proposeth this Question Whether he who denieth one Article of faith may retain faith in other Articles and resolveth that he cannot which he proveth Argumentâ— sed contra because As deadly sin is opposits to Charity so to deny one Article of faith is opposite to faith But Charity doth not remain with any one deadly sin therefore faith doth not remain after the deniall of any one Article of faith Whereof he gives this farther reason Because saith he the nature of every habit doth depend upon the formall Motiue and Obiect thereof which Motiue being taken away the
nature of the habit cannot remain But the formall Obiect of faith is the supreme truth as it is manifested in Scriptures and in the doctrine of the Church which proceeds from the same supreme verity Whosoever therefore doth not rely upon the doctrine of the Church which proceeds from the supreme verity manifested in Scripture as upon an infallible Rule hee hath not the habit of faith but belieues those things which belong to faith by some other me anes then by faith as if one should remember some Conclusion and not know the reason of that demonstration it is cleer that hee hath not certain knowledge but only Opinion Now it is manifest that hee who relies on the doctrine of the Church as upon an infallible Rule will yeeld his assent to all that the Church teacheth For if among those things which she teacheth he hold what he will and doth not hold what he will not hee doth not rely upon the doctrine of the Church as upon an infallible Rule but only upon his own will And so it is cleer that an Heretique who with pertinacity denieth one Article of faith is not ready to follow the doctrine of the Church in all things And therefore it is manifest that whosoever is an Heretique in any one Article of faith concerning other Articles hath not saith but a kind of Opinion or his own will Thus far S. Thomas And afterward A man doth belieue all the Articles of faith for one and the selfe same reason to wit for the Prime Verity proposed to us in the Scripture understood aright according to the Doctrine of the Church and therefore whosoever fals from this reason or motiue is totally deprived of faith From this true doctrine wee are to infer that to retain or want the substance of faith doth not consist in the matter or multitude of the Articles but in the opposition against Gods divine testimony which is involved in every least error against faith And since some Protestants must needs erre and that they haue no certain rule to knowe why rather one then another it manifestly follows that none of them haue any Certainty for the substance of their faith in any one point Moreover D. Potter being forced to confesse that the Roman Church wants not the substance of faith it follows that she doth not erre in any one point against faith because as we haue seen out of S. Thomas every such errour destroies the substance of faith Now if the Roman Church did not erre in any one point of faith it is manifest that Protestants erre in all those points wherein they are contrary to her And this may suffice to prove that the faith of Protestants wants Infallibility 30 And now for the second Condition of faith I say If Protestants haue Certainty they want Obscurity and so haue not that faith which as the Apostle saith is of things not appearing or not necessiâ—ating our Vnderstanding to an assent For the whole edifice of the faith of Protestants is setled on these two Principles These particular Books are Canonicall Scripture And the sense and meaning of these Canonicall Scriptures is cleer and evident at least in all points necessary to Salvation Now these Principles being once supposed it cleerly followeth that what Protestants belieue as necessary to salvation is evidently known by them to be true by this argument It is certain and evident that whatsoever is contained in the word of God is true But it is certain and evident that these Books in particular are the word of God Therefore it is certaine and evident that whatsoever is contained in these Books is true Which Conclusion I take for a Maior in a second Argument and say thus It is certain and evident that whatsoever is contained in these Books is true but it is certain and evident that such particular Articles for example the Trinity Incarnation Originall sin c. are contained in these Books Therefore it is certain and evident that these particular Objects are true Neither will it avail you to say that the said Principles are not evident by naturall discourse but onely to the eye of reason cleered by grace as you speak For supernaturall evidence no lesse yea rather more drawes and excludes obscurity then naturall evidence doth neither can the party so enlightned be said voluntarily to captivate his understanding to that light but rather his understanding is by a necessity made captive and forced not to disbelieve what is presented by so cleare a light And therefore your imaginary faith is not the true faith defined by the Apostle but an invention of your own 31 That the faith of Protestants wanteth the third Condition which was Prudence is deduced from all that hitherto hath been said What wisdome was it to forsake a Church confessedly very ancient and besides which there could be demonstrated no other visible Church of Christ upon earth A Church acknowledged to want nothing necessary to Salvation endued with Succession of Bishops with Visibility and Vniversality of Time and Place A Church which if it bee not the true Church her enemies cannot pretend to have any Church Ordination Scriptures Succession c. and are forced for their own sake to maintain her perpetuall Existence and Being To leave I say such a Church and frame a Community without either Vnity or means to procure it a Church which at Luthers first revolt had no larger extent then where his body was A Church without Vniversality of place or Time A Church which can pretend no Visibility or Being except only in that former Church which it opposeth A Church void of Succession of Persons oâ— Doctrine What wisedome was it to follow such men as Luther in an opposition against the visible Church of Christ begun upon meer passion What wisdome is it to receive from Vs a Church Ordination Scriptures Personall Succession and not Succession of Doctrine Is not this to verifie the name of Heresie which signifieth Election or Choice Whereby they cannot avoid that note of Imprudency or as S. Augustine calls it Foolishnesse set down by him against the Manichees and by me recited before I would not saith he belieue the Gospell unlesse the Authority of the Church did moue me Those therefore whom I obeyed saying Belieue the Gospel why should I not obey the same meÌ„ saying to me Doe not belieue Manichaeus Luther Calvin c. Choose what thou pleasest If thou say Belieue the Catholiques they warne me not to belieue thee Wherefore if I belieue them I cannot belieue thee If thou say Doe not belieue the Catholiques thou shalt not doe well in forcing me to the faith of Manichaeus because by the Preaching of Catholiques I believed the Gospell it selfe If thou say you did well to belieue them Catholiques commending the Gospell but you did not well to belieue them discommending Manichaeus dost thou think me so very FOOLISH that without any reason at all I should belieue what
they must of necessity affirme heretically with the Donatists that the true unspotted Church of Christ perished and that she which remained on earth was O Blasphemy anharlot By which words it seemes you are resolute perpetually to confound True and Vnspotted and to put no difference between a corrupted Church and none at all But what is this but to make no difference betwen a diseased and a dead man Nay what is it but to contradict your selves who cannot deny but that sinnes are as great staines and spots and deformities in the sight of God as errors and confesse your Church to be a congregation of men whereof every particular not one excepted and consequently the generality which is nothing but a collection of them is polluted and defiled with sinne You proceed 19 But say you The same heresy followes out of D. Potter and other Protestants that the Church may erre in points not fundamentall because we have shewed that every error against any revealed truth is Heresy and Damnable whether the matter be great or small And how can the Church more truly be said to perish then when she is permitted to maintaine damnable Heresy Besides we will hereafter prove that by every act of Heresy all divine faith is lost to maintaine a true Church without any faith is to fansy a living man without life Ans. what you have said before hath been answered before and what you shall say hereafter shall be confuted hereafter But if it be such a certain ground that every error against any one revealed truth is a damnable Heresy Then I hope I shall have your leave to subsume That the Dominicans in your account must hold a damnable heresy who hold an error against the immaculate Conception which you must needs esteeme a revealed truth or otherwise why are you so urgent and importunate to have it defined seeing your rule is nothing may be defined unlesse it be first revealed But without your leave I will make bold to conclude that if either that or the contrary assertion be a revealed truth you or they choose you whether must without contradiction hold a damnable Heresy if this ground be true that every contradiction of a revealed Truth is such And now I dare say for fear of inconvenience you will beginne to temper the crudenesse of your former assertion and tell us that neither of you are Heretiques because the Truth against which you erre though revealed is not sufficiently propounded And so say I neither is your Doctrine which Protestants contradict sufficiently propounded For though it be plain enough that your Church proposeth it yet still methinkes it is as plain that your Churche's proposition is not sufficient and I desire you would not say but prove the contrary Lastly to your Question How can the Church more truly be said to perish then when she is permitted to maintaine a damnable Heresy I Answer she may be more truly said to perish when she is not only permitted to doe so but defacto doth maintaine a damnable Heresy Again she may be more truly said to perish when she falls into an Heresy which is not only damnable in it selfe and ex natura rei as you speak but such an Heresy the belief of whose contrary Truth is necessary not only necessitate praecepti but medii and therefore the heresy so absolutely and indispensably destructive of salvation that no ignorance can excuse it nor any generall repentance without a dereliction of it can begge a pardon for it Such an heresy if the Church should fall into it might be more truly said to perish then if it fell only into some heresy of its own nature damnable For in that state all the members of it without exception all without mercy must needs perish for ever In this although those that might see the truth would not cannot upon any good ground hope for Salvation yet without question it might send many soules to heaven who would gladly have embrac'd the truth but that they wanted means to discover it Thirdly and lastly shee may yet more truly bee said to perish when shee Apostates from Christ absolutely or rejects even those Truths out of which her Heresies may bee reformed as if shee should directly deny Iesus to be the Christ or the Scripture to be the Word of God Towards which state of Perdition it may well be feared that the Church of Rome doth somewhat incline by her superinducing upon the rest of her errors the Doctrine of her own infallibility whereby her errors are made incurable and by her pretending that the Scripture is to be interpreted according to her doctrine and not her doctrine to be judg'd of by Scripture whereby she makes the Scripture uneffectuall for her Reformation 20 Ad § 18. I was very glad when I heard you say The Holy Scripture and ancient Fathers doe assigne Separation from the visible Church as a mark of Heresie for I was in good hope that no Christian would so bely the Scripture as to say so of it unlesse hee could have produced some one Text at least wherein this was plainly affirmed or from whence it might be undoubtedly and undeniably collected For assure your selfe good Sir it is a very haynous crime to say thus saith the Lord when the Lord doth not say so I expected therefore some Scripture should haue been alleaged wherein it should haue beene said whosoever separates from the Roman Church is an Heretique or the Roman Church is infallible or the Guide of faith or at least There shall be alwaies some visible Church infallible in matters of faith Some such direction as this I hoped for And I pray consider whether I had not reason The Evangelists and Apostles who wrote the New Testament we all suppose were good men and very desirous to direct us the surest and plainest way to heaven wee suppose them likewise very sufficiently instructed by the Spirit of God in all the necessary points of the Christian faith and therefore certainly not ignorant of this Vnum Necessarium this most necessary point of all others without which as you pretend and teach all faith is no Faith that is that the Church of Rome was designed by God the Guide of Faith Wee suppose thē lastly wise men especially being assisted by the spirit of wisdome and such as knew that a doubtfull questionable Guide was for mens direction as good as none at all And after all these suppositions which I presume no good Christian will call into question is it possible that any Christian heart can believe that not One amongst them all should ad rei memoriam write this necessary doctrine plainly so much as once Certainly in all reason they had provided much better for the good of Christians if they had wrote this though they had writ nothing else Me thinks the Evangelists undertaking to write the Gospell of Christ could not possibly haue omitted any One of them this most necessary point of
whatsoever it be All these Questions will be necessary to be discussed for the clearing of the truth of the Minor proposition of your former Syllogisme and your proofs of it and I will promise to debate them fairly with you if first you will bring some better proof of the Maior That want of Succession is a certain note of Heresy which for the present remaines both unprov'd and unprobable 40 Ad § 23. The Fathers you say assigne Succession as one mark of the true Church I confesse they did urge Tradition as an argument of the truth of their doctrine and of the falsehood of the contrary and thus farre they agree with you But now see the difference They urg'd it not against all Heretiques that ever should be but against them who rejected a great part of the Scripture for no other reason but because it was repugnant to their doctrine and corrupted other parts with their additions and detractions and perverted the remainder with divers absurd interpretations So Tertullian not a leafe before the words by you cited Nay they urg'd it against them who when they were confuted out of Scripture fell to accuse the 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 bee found out of them by those who know not Tradition for that it was not delivered in writing they did meane wholly but by word of mouth And that thereupon Paul also said wee speak wisdome amongst the perfect So Irenaeus in the very next Chapter before that which you alleage Against these men being thus necessitated to doe so they did urge Tradition but what or whose Tradition was it Certainly no other but the joint Tradition of all the Apostolique Churches with one mouth and one voice teaching the same doctrine Or if for brevity sake they produce the Tradition of any one Church yet is it apparent that that one was then in conjunction with all the rest Irenaeus Tertullian Origen testifie as much in the words cited and S. Austin in the place before alleaged by mee This Tradition they did urge against these men and in a time in comparison of ours almost contiguous to the Apostles So neare that one of them Irenaeus was Scholar to one who was Scholar to S. Iohn the Apostle Tertullian and Origen were not an age remov'd from him and the last of them all litle more then an age from them Yet after all this they urg'd it not as a demonstration but only as a very probable argument far greater then any their Adversaries could oppose against it So Tertullian in the place above quoted § 5. How is it likely that so many and so great Churches should erre in one faith it should be should have erred into on faith And this was the condition of this argument as the Fathers urg'd it Now if you having to deale with us who question no Booke of Scripture which was not anciently questioned by some whom you your selves esteem good Catholiques nay who refuse not to be tryed by your owne Canons your own Translations who in interpreting Scriptures are content to allow of all those rules which you propose only except that we will not allow you to be our Iudges if you will come fifteen hundred years after the Apostles a fair time for the purest Church to gather much drosse and corruption and for the mystery of iniquity to bring its work to some perfection which in the Apostles time began to work If I say you will come thus long after and urge us with the single Tradition of one of these Churches being now Catholique to it selfe alone and Hereticall to all the rest nay not only with her ancient and originall Traditions but also with her post-nate and introduc'd Definitions and these as we pretend repugnant to Scripture and ancient Tradition and all this to decline an indifferent tryall by Scripture under pretence wherein also you agree with the calumnie of the old Heretiques that all necessary truth cannot be found in them without recourse to Tradition If I say notwithstanding all these differences you will still be urging us with this argument as the very same and of the same force with that wherewith the fore-mentioned Fathers urg'd the old Heretiques certainly this must needs proceed from a confidence you have not only that we have no School-Divinity nor Metaphysicks but no Logick or common sense that we are but pictures of men and have the definition of rational creatures given us in vain 41 But now suppose I should be liberall to you and grant what you cannot prove that the Fathers make Succession a certain and perpetuall maâ—k of the true Church I beseech you what will come of it What that want of Succession is a certain signe of an Hereticall company Truly if you say so either you want Logick which is a certain signe of an ill disputer or are not pleas'd to use it which is a worse For speech is a certain signe of a living man yet want of speech is no sure argument that he is dead for he may be dumb and yet living still and we may have other evident tokens that hee is so as eating drinking breathing moving So though the constant and universall delivery of any doctrine by the Apostolique 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 wickednesse be contracted from its universality and interrupted in its perpetuity and so loose this argument and yet not want others to iustifie and support it self For it may be one of those principles which God hath written in all mens hearts or a conclusion evidently arising from them It may be either contain'd in Scripture in expresse terms or deducible from it by apparent consequence If therefore you intend to prove want of a perpetuall Succession of Professors a certain note of Heresie you must not content your self to shew that having it is one signe of truth but you must shew it to be the only signe of it and inseparable from it But this if you be well advis'd you will never undertake First because it is an impossible attempt and then because if you doe it you will marre all for by proving this an inseparable signe of Catholique doctrine you will prove your own which apparently wants it in many points not to be Catholique For whereas you say this Succession requires two things agreement with the Apostles doctrine and an uninterrupted conveyance of it down to them that challenge it It will be prov'd against you that you fail in both points and that some things wherein you agree with the Apostles have not been held alwaies as your condemning the doctrine of the Chiliasts and holding the Eucharist not necessary for Infants and that in many other things you agree not with them nor with the Church for many
certainty I prove because they denying the universall Infallibility of the Church can have no certain ground to know what objects are revealed or testified by God But if there be no other ground of certainty but your Churches infallibility upon what certain ground doe you know that your Church is infallible Upon what certain ground doe you know all those things which must be known before you can know that your Church is infallible As that there is a God that God hath promised his assistance to your Church in all her Decrees that the Scripture wherein this promise is extant is the word of God that those texts of Scripture which you alleage for your infallibility are incorrupted that that which you pretend is the true sense of them When you have produc'd certain grounds for all these things I doubt not but it will appeare that we also may have grounds certain enough to believe our whole Religion which is nothing else but the Bible without dependance on the Churches infallibility Suppose you should meet with a man that for the present believes neither Church nor Scripture nor God but is ready willing to believe them all if you can shew some sufficient grounds to build his faith upon will you tell such a man there are no certain grounds by which he may be converted or there are If you say the first you make all Religion an uncertain thing If the second then either you must ridiculously perswade that your Church is infallible because it is infallible or else that there are other certain grounds besides your Churches infallibility 46 But you proceed and tell us that Holy Scripture is in it selfe most true and infallible but without the direction and declaration of the Church we can neither have certain meanes to know what Scripture is Canonicall nor what Translations be faithfull nor what is the true meaning of Scripture Answ. But all these things must be known before we can know the direction of your Church to be infallible for no other proofe of it can be pretended but only some Texts of Canonicall Scripture truly interpreted Therefore either you are mistaken in thinking there is no other meanes to know these things but your Churches infallible direction or we are excluded from all meanes of knowing her direction to be infallible 47 But Protestants though as you suppose they are perswaded their own oponions are true and that they have used such meanes as are wont to be prescribed for understanding the Scripture as Prayer conferring of Texts c. Yet by their disagreement shew that some of them are deceived Now they hold all the Articles of their faith upon this only ground of Scripture interpreted by these rules and therefore it is cleere that the ground of their faith is infallible in no point at all The first of these suppositions must needs be true but the second is apparently false I mean that every Protestant is perswaded that he hath used those means which are prescribed for understanding of Scripture But that which you collect from these suppositions is cleerely inconsequent and by as good Logick you might conclude that Logick and Geometry stand upon no certain grounds that the rules of the one and the principles of the other doe sometimes faile because the disagreement of Logicians and Geometricians shew that some of them are deceived Might not a Iew conclude as well against all Christians that they have no certain ground whereon to rely in their understanding of Scripture because their disagreements shew that some are deceived because some deduce from it the infallibility of a Church and others no such matter So likewise a Turke might use the same argument against both Iewes and Christians and an Atheist against all Religions and a Sceptick against all reason Might not the one say Mens disagreement in Religion shew that there is no certainty in any and the other that experience of their contradictions teacheth that the rules of reason doe sometimes faile Doe not you see and feele how void of reason and how full of impiety your sophistry is And how transported with zeale against Protestants you urge arguments against them which if they could not be answered would overthrow not only your own but all Religion But God be thanked the answere is easy and obvious For let men but remember not to impute the faults of men but only to men and then it will easily appear that there may be sufficient certainty in reason in Religion in the rules of interpreting Scripture though men through their faults take not care to make use of them and so run into divers errors and dissentions 48 But Protestants cannot determine what points be fundamentall and therefore must remain uncertain whether or no they be not in some fundamentall error Ans. By like reason since you acknowledge that every error in points defin'd and declared by your Church destroies the substance of faith and yet cannot determine what points be defined it followeth that you must remain uncertain whether or no you be not in some fundamentall error and so want the substance of faith without which there can be no hope of Salvation Now that you are uncertain what points are defined appeares from your owne words c. 4. § 3. of your second Part where say you No lesse impertinent is your discourse concerning the difficulty to know what is Heresy For we grant that it is not alwaies easy to determine in particular occasions whether this or that Doctrine be such because it may be doubtfull whether it be against any Scripture or divine Tradition or Definition of the Church Neither were it difficult to extort from you this confession by naming diverse Points which some of you say are defin'd others the contrary And others hang in suspense and know not what to determine But this I have done elsewhere as also I have shewed plainly enough that though we cannot perhaps say in particular thus much and no more is fundamentall yet believing all the Bible we are certain enough that we believe all that is fundamentall As he that in a receit takes twenty ingredients whereoften only are necessary though he know not which those ten are yet taking the whole twenty he is sure enough that he has taken all that are necessary 49 Ad § 29. But that he who erreth against any one revealed truth looseth all Divine Faith is a very true doctrine delivered by Catholique Divines you mean your own with so generall a consent that the contrary is wont to be censur'd as temerarious Now certainly some Protestants must doe so because they hold contradictions which cannot all be true Therefore some of them at least have no divine faith Ans. I passe by your weaknesse in urging Protestants with the authority of your Divines which yet in you might very deservedly be censur'd For when D. Potter to shew the many actuall dissentions between the Romish Doctors notwithstanding their braggs of potentiall Vnity referres
Protestants which are dissembled by you and not put into the ballance Know then Sir that when I say The Religion of Protestants is in prudence to be preferr'd before yours as on the one side I doe not understand by your Religion the doctrine of Bellarmine or Baronius or any other privat man amongst you nor the Doctrine of the Sorbon or of the Iesuits or of the Dominicans or of any other particular Company among you but that wherein you all agree or professe to agree the Doctrine of the Councell of Trent so accordingly on the other side by the Religion of Protestants I doe not understand the Doctrine of Luther or Calvin or Melancthon nor the Confession of Augusta or Geneva nor the Catechisme of Heidelberg nor the Articles of the Church of England no nor the Harmony of Protestant Confessions but that wherin they all agree and which they all subscribe with a greater Harmony as a perfect rule of their Faith and Actions that is The BIBLE The BIBLE I say The BIBLE only is the Religion of Protestants Whatsoever else they believe besides it and the plain irrefragable indubitable consequences of it well may they hold it as a matter of Opinion but as matter of Faith and Religion neither can they with coherence to their own grounds believe it themselves nor require the beliefe of it of others without most high and most Schismaticall presumption I for my part after a long and as I verily believe hope impartiall search of the true way to eternall happinesse doe professe plainly that I cannot find any rest for the sole of my foot but upon this Rock only I see plainly and with mine own eyes that there are Popes against Popes Councells against Councells some Fathers against others the same Fathers against themselves a Consent of Fathers of one age against a Consent of Fathers of another age the Church of one age against the Church of another age Traditive interpretations of Scripture are pretended but there are few or none to be found No Tradition but only of Scripture can derive it selfe from the fountain but may be plainly prov'd either to have been brought in in such an age after Christ or that in such an age it was not in In a word there is no sufficient certainty but of Scripture only for any considering man to build upon This therefore and this only I have reason to believe This I will professe according to this I will live and for this if there be occasion I will not only willingly but even gladly loose my life though I should be sorry that Christians should take it from me Propose me any thing out of this book and require whether I believe it or no and seeme it never so incomprehensible to humane reason I will subscribe it with hand and heart as knowing no demonstration can be stronger then this God hath said so therefore it is true In other things I will take no mans liberty of judgement from him neither shall any man take mine from me I will think no man the worse man nor the worse Christian I will love no man the lesse for differing in opinion from me And what measure I meat to others I expect from them again I am fully assured that God does not and therefore that men ought not to require any more of any man then this To believe the Scripture to be Gods word to endeavour to find the true sense of it and to live according to it 57 This is the Religion which I have chosen after a long deliberation and I am verily perswaded that I have chosen wisely much more wisely thē if I had guided my selfe according to your Churches authority For the Scripture being all true I am secur'd by believing nothing else that I shall believe no falshood as matter of Faith And if I mistake the sense of Scripture and so fall into error yet am I secure from any danger thereby if but your grounds be true because endeavouring to finde the true sense of Scripture I cannot but hold my error without pertinacy and be ready to forsake it when a more true and a more probable sense shall appear unto mee And then all necessary truth being as I have prov'd plainly set down in Scripture I am certain by believing Scripture to believe all necessary Truth And he that does so if his life be answerable to his faith how is it possible he should faile of Salvation 58 Besides whatsoever may be pretended to gain to your Church the credit of a Guide all that much more may be said for the Scripture Hath your Church been ancient The Scripture is more ancient Is your Church a meanes to keep men at vnity So is the Scripture to keep those that believe it and wil obey it in unity of belief in matters necessary or very profitable and in unity of Charity in points unnecessary Is your Church universall for time or place Certainly the Scripture is more universall For all the Christians in the world those I mean that in truth deserve this name doe now and alwaies have believed the Scripture to be the word of God whereas only you say that you only are the Church of God all Christians besides you deny it 59 Thirdly following the Scripture I follow that whereby you prove your Churches infallibility whereof were it not for Scripture what pretence could you have or what notion could we have and by so doing tacitely confesse that your selves are surer of the truth of the Scripture then of your Churches authority For we must be surer of the proofe then of the thing proved otherwise it is no proofe 60 Fourthly following the Scripture I follow that which must be true if your Church be true for your Church gives attestation to it Whereas if I follow your Church I must follow that which though Scripture be true may be false nay which if Scripture be true must be false because the Scripture testifies against it 61 Fiftly to follow the Scripture I have Gods expresse warrant and command and no colour of any prohibition But to believe your Church infallible I have no cōmand at all much lesse an expresse cōmand Nay I have reason to fear that I am prohibited to doe so in these words call no man Master on earth They fell by infidelity Thou standest by faith Bee not high minded but feare The spirit of truth The world cannot receive 62 Following your Church I must hold many things not only above reason but against it if any thing be against it whereas following the Scripture I shall believe many mysteries but no impossibilities many things above reason but nothing against it many things which had they not been reveal'd reason could never have discover'd but nothing which by true reason may be confuted many things which reason cannot comprehend how they can be but nothing which reason can comprehend that it cannot be Nay I shall believe nothing which reason will not
Authority of defining some of you setling it in the Pope himselfe though alone without a Councell Others in a Councell though divided from the Pope Others only in the conjunction of Councell and Pope Others not in this neither but in the acceptation of the present Church Vniversall Lastly others not attributing it to this neither but only to the perpetuall Succession of the Church of all ages of which divided Company it is very evident and undeniable that every former may be and are obliged to hold many things defin'd and therefore necessary which the latter according to their own grounds have no obligation to doe nay cannot doe so upon any firme and sure and infallible foundation THE CONCLVSION ANd thus by Gods assistance and the advantage of a good cause I am at length through a passage rather tireing then difficult arriv'd at the end of my undertaken voyage and have as I suppose made appear to all dis-interessed and unprejudicate readers what in the begining I undertook that a vein of Sophistry and Calumny runs clean through this first part of your book wherein though I never thought of the directions you have been pleas'd to give mee in your Pamphlet entitled a Direction to N. N. yet upon consideration of my answer I finde that I have proceeded as if I had had it alwaies before my eyes and steer'd my course by it as by a card and compasse For first I have not proceeded by a meere destructive way as you call it nor objected such difficulties against your Religion as upon examination tend to the overthrow of all Religion but have shewed that the truth of Christianity is cleerely independent upon the truth of Popery and that on the other side the arguments you urge and the courses you take for the maintenance of your Religion doe manifestly tend if they be closely and consequently followed to the destruction of all religion and lead men by the hand to Atheisme and impiety whereof I have given you ocular demonstrations in divers places of my book but especially in my answer to your direction to N. N. Neither can I discover any repugnance between any one part of my answer and any other though I have used many more judicious and more searching eyes then mine owne to make if it were possible such a discovery and therefore am in good hope that though the musicke I have made be but dull and flat and even downright plain-song yet your curious and criticall eares shall discover no discord in it but on the other side I have charg'd you frequently and very justly with manifest contradiction and retractation of your own assertions and not seldome of the main grounds you build upon and the principall conclusions which you endeavour to maintain which I conceive my selfe to have made apparent even to the â—ye c. 2. § 5. c. 3. § 88. c. 4. § .14 24. c. 5. § 93. c. 6. § 6. 7. 12. 17. c. 7. § 29. and in many other parts of my answer And though I did never pretend to defend D. Potter absolutely and in all things but only so farre as he defends truth neither did D. Potter desire me nor any law of God or man oblige me to defend him any farther yet I doe not finde that I have cause to differ from him in any matter of moment particularly not concerning the infallibility of Gods Church which I grant with him to be infallible in fundamentalls because if it should erre in fundamentalls it were not the Church Nor concerning the supernaturality of Faith which I know believe as well as you to be the gift of God and that flesh blood reveal'd it not unto us but our Father which is in Heaven But now if it were demanded what defence you can make for deserting Ch. Mistaken in the main question disputed between him and D. Potter Whether Protestancy without a particular repentance and dereliction of it destroy Salvation whereof I have convinc'd you I believe your answer would be much like that which Vlysses makes in the Meâ—amorphosis for his running away from his friend Nestor that is none at all For Opposing the Articles of the Church of England the Approbation I presume cleeres my book from this imputation And whereas you give me a Caution that my grounds destroy not the belief of diverse Doctrines which all good Christians believe yea and of all verities that cannot be prov'd by naturall reason I professe syncerely that I doe not know nor believe that any ground laid by me in my whole Book is any way inconsistent with any one such Doctrine or with any verity revealed in the word of God though neuer so improbable or incomprehensible to Naturall Reason and if I thought there were I would deale with it as those primitive converts dealt with their curious Books in the Acts of the Apostles For the Ep. of S. Iames and those other Books which were anciently controverted and are now received by the Church of England as Canonicall I am so farre from relying upon any Principles which must to my apprehension bring with them the deniall of the authority of them that I my selfe believe them all to be Canonicall For the overthrowing the Infallibility of all Scripture my Book is so innocent of it that the Infallibility of Scripture is the chiefest of all my grounds And lastly for Arguments tending to prove an impossibility of all Divine Supernaturall Infallible Faith and Religion I assure my self that if you were ten times more a spider then you are you could suck no poyson from them My heart I am sure is innocent of any such intention and the searcher of all hearts knowes that I had no other end in writing this Book but to confirm to the uttermost of my ability the truth of the Divine and Infallible Religion of our dearest Lord and Saviour Christ Iesus which I am ready to seale and confirm not with my arguments only but my bloud Now these are directions which you have been pleas'd to give me whether out of a fear that I might otherwise deviate from them or out of a desire to make others think so But howsoever I have not to my understanding swarved from them in any thing which puts me in good hope that my Answer to this first Part of your Book will give even to you your self indifferent good satisfaction I have also provided though this were more then I undertook a just and punctuall examination and refutation of your second Part But if you will give your consent am resolv'd to suppresse it and that for divers sufficient and reasonable considerations First because the discussion of the Controversies entreated of in the first Part if we shall think fit to proceed in it as I for my part shall so long as I have truth to reply will I conceive be sufficient employment for us though wee cast off the burden of those many lesser dispuâ—es which remain behind in the Second And perhaps
wee may doe God and his Church more service by exactly discussing and fully clearing the truth in these few then by handling many after a sleight and perfunctory manner Secondly because the additioÌ„ of the Second Part whether for your purpose or mine is clearly unnecessary there being no understanding man Papist or Proâ—estant but will confesse that for as much as concernes the main Question now in agitation about the saveablenesse of Protestants if the first Part of your Book be answered there needes no reply to the Second as on the other side I shall willingly grant if I have not answered the First I cannot answer a great part of the Second Thirdly because the addition of the Second not only is unnecessary but in effect by your self confess'd to bee so For in your preamble to your Second Part you tell us That the substance of the present Controversie is handled in the first and therein also you pretend to have answered the chief grounds of D. Potters book So that in replying to your Second Part I shall doe litle else but pursue shadowes Fourthly because your Second Part setting aside Repetitions and References is in a manner made up of disputes about particular matters which you are very importunate to have forborn as suspecting at least pretending to suspect that they were brought in purposely by D. Potter to dazle the Reader 's eyes and distract his mind that hee might not see the clearnesse of the reasons brought in defence of the Generall Doctrine delivered in Charity Mistaken All which you are likely enough if there bee occasion to say again to mee and therefore I am resolv'd for once even to humour you so farre as to keepe my discourse within those very lists and limits which your self have prescrib'd and to deal with you upon no other arguments but only those wherein you conceive your chief advantage and principall strength and as it were your Sampson's lock to lye wherein if I gain the cause clearly from you as I verily hope by Gods help I shall doe it cannot but redound much to the honour of the truth maintain'd by me which by so weak a Champion can overcome such an Achilles for error even in his strongest holds For these reasons although I have made ready an answer to your Second Part and therein have made it sufficiently evident That for shifting evasions from D. Potters arguments for impertinent cavills and frivolous exceptions and injurious calumnies against him for misalleaging of Authors For proceeding upon false and ungrounded princiciples for making inconsequent and sophisticall deductions and in a word for all the vertues of an ill answer your Second Part is no way second to the First Yet notwithstanding all this anvantage I am resolv'd if you will give me leave either wholly to suppresse it or at least to deferre the publication of it untill I see what exceptions upon a twelve-months examinatioÌ„ for so long I am well assur'd you have had it in your hands you can take at this which is now published that so if my grounds bee discovered false I may give over building on them or if it shall be thought fit build on more securely when it shall appeare that nothing materiall and of moment is or can bee objected against them This I say upon a supposition that your self will allow these reasons for satisfying and sufficient and not repent of the motion which your self has made of reducing the Controversy between us to this short Issue But in case your mind be altered upon the least intimation you shall give mee that you doe not desire to have it out your desire shall prevail with me above all other reasons and you shall not fail to receive it with all convenient speed Only that my Answer may be compleat and that I may have all my work together and not be troubled my self nor enforc'd to trouble you with after-reckonings I would first entreat you to make good your Promise of not omitting to answer all the particles of D. Potters book which may any way import and now at least to take notice of some as it seemes to me not unconsiderable passages of it which between your first and second Part as it were betweene two stooles have beene suffer'd hitherto to fall to the ground and not beene vouchsaf'd any answer at all For after this neglectfull fashion you have passed by in silence First his discourse wherein he proves briefly but very effectually that Protestants may be sav'd and that the RomaÌ„ Church especially the Iesuits are very uncharitable S. 1. p. 6. 7. 8. 9. Secondly the authorities whereby he justifies That the ancient Fathers by the Roman understood alwaies a particular and never the Catholique Church to which purpose he alleageth the words of Ignatius Ambrose Innocentius Celestine Nicolaus S. 1. p. 10 Whereunto you say nothing neither doe you infringe his observation with any one instance to the contrary Thirdly the greatest and most substantiall part of his answers to the Arguments of Charity Mistaken built upon Deut. 17. Numb 16. Mat. 28. 20. Mat. 18. 17. and in particular many pregnant and convincing Texts of Scripture quoted in the margent of his book p. 25. to prove that the Iudges of the Synagogue whose Infallibility yet you make an Argument of yours and therefore must be more credible then yours are vainly pretended to have been infallible but as they were oblig'd to judg according to the Law so were obnoxious to deviations from it S. 2. p. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. Fourthly his discourse wherein hee shewes the difference betweene the Prayers for the Dead used by the Ancients and those now in use in the Roman Church Fiftly the Authority of three Ancient and above twenty moderne Doctors of your own Church alleag'd by him to shew that in their opinion even Pagans and therefore much more erring Christians if their lives were morally honest by Gods extraordinary mercy and Christs merit may be saved S. 2. p. 45. Sixtly a great part of his discourse whereby he declares that actuall and externall communion with the Church is not of absolute necessity to Salvation nay that those might be saved whom the Church utterly refus'd to admit to her Communion S. 2. p. 46. 47. 48. 49. Seaventhly his discourse concerning the Churches latitude which hath in it a cleare determination of the maine Controversy against you For therein he proves plainly that all appertain to the Church who believe that Iesus is the Christ the sonne of God and Saviour of the world with submission to his Doctrine in mind and will which hee irrefragably demonstrates by many evident Texts of Scripture containing the substance of his Assertion even in termes S. 4. p. 114. 115. 116. 117. Eightly that wherein he shewes by many pertinent examples that grosse error and true Faith may bee lodged together in the same mind And that men are not chargeable with the damnable consequences of their erroneous opinions S. 4.
And indeed take away the authority of Gods Church no man can be assured that any one Book or parcell of Scripture was written by divine inspiration or that all the contents are infallibly true which are the direct errors of Socinians If it were but for thiâ— reason alone no man who regards the eternall salvation of his soule would live or dye in Protestancy from which so vast absurdities as these of the Socinians must inevitably follow And it ought to be an unspeakable comfort to all us Catholiques while we consider that none can deny the infallible authority of our Church but joyntly he must be left to his own wit and waies and must abandon all infused faith and true Religion if he doe but understand himselfe aright In all which discourse the only true word you speak is This I say confidently As for proving evidently that I believe you reserved for some other opportunity for the present I am sure you have been very sparing of it 10 You say indeed confidently enough that the denyall of the Churches infallibility is the Mother Heresy from which all other must follow at ease Which is so farre from being a necessary truth as you make it that it is indeed a manifest falshood Neither is it possible for the wit of man by any good or so much as probable consequence from the deniall of the Churches Infallibility to deduce any one of the ancient Heresies or any one error of the Socinians which are the Heresies here entreated of For who would not laugh at him that should argue thus Neither the Church of Rome nor any other Church is infallible go The doctrine of Arrius Pelagius Eutyches Nestorius Photinus Manichaeus was true Doctrine On the other side it may be truly sayed and justified by very good and effectuall reason that he that affirms with you the Popes infallibility puts himself into his hands and power to be led by him at his ease and pleasure into all Heresy and even to Hell it self and cannot with reason say so long as he is constant to his grounds Domine cur ita facis but must believe white to be black and black to be white vertue to be vice and vice to be vertue nay which is a horrible but a most certain truth Christ to be Antichrist and Antichrist to be Christ if it be possible for the Pope to say so Which I say and will maintain howsoever you daube and disguise it is indeed to make men Apostate from Christ to his pretended Vicar but reall enemy For that name and no better if we may speak truth without offence I presume he deserves who under pretence of interpreting the law of Christ which Authority without any word of expresse warrant he hath taken upon himself doth in many parts evacuate and dissolve it So dethroning Christ from his dominion over mens consciences and in stead of Christ setting up himself In as much as he that requires that his interpretations of any law should be obeyed as true and genuine seeme they to mens understandings never so dissonant and discordant from it as the Bishop of Rome does requires indeed that his interpretations should be the Laws and he that is firmly prepared in mind to believe and receive all such interpretations without judging of them and though to his private judgment they seem unreasonable is indeed congruously disposed to hold adultery a veniall sin and fornication no sinne whensoever the Pope and his adherents shall so declare And whatsoever he may plead yet either wittingly or ignorantly he makes the Law and the Lawmaker both stales and obeyes only the interpreter As if I should pretend that I should submit to the Laws of the King of England but should indeed resolve to obey them in that sence which the King of France should put upon them what soever it were I presume every understanding man would say that I did indeed obey the King of France and not the King of England If I should pretend to believe the Bible but that I would understand it according to the sence which the chiefe Mufty should put upon it who would not say that I were a Christian in pretence only but indeed a Mahumetan 11 Nor will it be to purpose for you to pretend that the precepts of Christ are so plain that it cannot be feared that any Pope should ever goe about to dissolve them and pretend to be a Christian For not to say that you now pretend the contrary to wit that the law of Christ is obscure even in things necessary to be believed and done and by saying so have made a fair way for any fowleâ— interpretation of any part of it certainly that which the Church of Rome hath already done in this kind is an evident argument that if she once had this power unquestion'd and made expedite and ready for use by being contracted to the Pope she may doe what she pleaseth with it Who that had liv'd in the Primitive Church would not have thought it as utterly improbable that ever they should have brought in the worship of Images and picturing of God as now it is that they should legitimate fornication Why may we not think they may in time take away the whole Communion from the Laity as well as they have taken away half of it Why may we not think that any Text and any sence may not be accorded aswell as the whole 14. Ch. of the Ep. of S. Paul to the Corinth is reconcil'd to the Latine service How is it possible any thing should be plainer forbidden then the worship of Angels in the Ep. to the Colossians then the teaching for Doctrines mens commands in the Gospell of S. Mark And therefore seeing we see these things done which hardly any man would have believ'd that had not seen them why should we not fear that this unlimited power may not be us'd hereafter with as litle moderation Seeing devices have been invented how men may worship images without Idolatry and kill innocent men under pretence of heresie without murder who knowes not that some tricks may not be hereafter deuis'd by which lying with other mens wives shall be no Adultery taking away other mens goods no theft I conclude therefore that if Solomon himself were here and were to determine the difference which is more likely to be mother of all Heresy The deniall of the Churche's or the affirming of the Popes infallibility that he would certainly say this is the mother give her the child 12 You say again confidently that if this infallibility be once impeached every man is given â—ver to his own wit and discourse which if you mean discourse not guiding it selfe by Scripture but only by principles of nature or perhaps by prejudices and popular errors and drawing consequences not by rule but chance is by no means true if you mean by discourse right reason grounded on Divine revelation and common notions written by God in the hearts of all
neere his time denied the Divinity of the Sonne and the Holy Ghost Is it not the same great Cardinall in his Book of the Eucharist against M. du Plessis l. 2. c. 7 Who is it that pretends that Irenaeus hath said those things which he that should now hold would be esteem'd an Arrian Is it not the same Perron in his Reply to K. Iames in the fift Chap. of his fourth observation And does he not in the same place peach Tertullian also in a manner give him away to the Arrians And pronounce generally of the Fathers before the Councell of Nice That the Arrians would gladly be tryed by them And are not your fellow Iesuits also even the prime men of your Order prevaricators in this point as well as others Doth not your friend M. Fisher or M. Flued in his book of the Nine Questions proposed to him by K. Iames speak dangerously to the same purpose in his discourse of the Resolution of Faith towards the end Giving us to understand That the new Reformed Arrians bring very many testimonies of the ancient Fathers to prove that in this Point they did contradict themselves and were contrary one to another which places whosoever shall read will cleerely see that to common people they are unanswerable yea that common people are not capable of the answers that learned men yeeld unto such obscure passages And hath not your great Antiquary Petavius in his Notes upon Epiphanius in Haer. 69. been very liberall to the Adversaries of the Doctrine of the Trinity and in a manner given them for Patrons and Advocates first Iustin Martyr and then almost all the Fathers before the Councell of Nice whose speeches he saies touching this point cum Orthodoxae fidei regula minime consentiunt Hereunto I might adde that the Dominicans and Iesuits between them in another matter of great importance viz. Gods Prescience of future contingents give the Socinians the premises out of which their conclusion doth unavoidably follow For the Dominiâ—ans maintain on the one Side that God can foresee nothing but what he Decrees The Iesuits on the other Side that he doth not Decree all things And from hence the Socinians conclude as it is obvious for them to doe that he doth not foresee all things Lastly I might adjoyn this that you agree with one consent and settle for a rule unquestionable that no part of Religion can be repugnant to reason whereunto you in particular subscribe unawares in saying From truth no man can by good consequence inferre Falshood which is to say in effect that Reason can never lead any man to error And after you have done so you proclaime to all the world as you in this Pamphlet doe very frequently that if men follow their Reason and discourse they will if they understand themselves be led to Socinianisme And thus you see with what probable matter I might furnish out and justify my accusation if I should charge you with leading men to Socinianisme Yet I doe not conceive that I have ground enough for this odious imputation And much lesse should you have charg'd Protestants with it whom you confesse to abhorre and detest it and who fight against it not with the broken reeds and out of the paper fortresses of an imaginary Infallibility which were only to make sport for their Adversaries but with the sword of the Spirit the Word of God of which we may say most truly what David said of Goliah's sword offered him by Abilech non est sicut iste There is none comparable to it 19 Thus Protestants in generall I hope are sufficiently vindicated from your calumny I proceed now to doe the same service for the Divines of England whom you question first in point of learning and sufficiency and then in point of conscience and honesty as prevaricating in the Religion which they professe and inclining to Popery Their Learning you say consists only in some superficiall talent of preaching languages and elocution and not in any deep knowledge of Philosophy especially of Metaphysicks and much lesse of that most solid profitable subtile O reÌ„ ridiculaÌ„ Cato jocosaÌ„ succinct method of School-Divinity Wherein you have discovered in your self the true Genius and spirit of detraction For taking advantage from that wherein envy it self cannot deny but they are very eminent and which requires great sufficiency of substantiall learning you disparage them as insufficient in all things else As if forsooth because they dispute not eternally VtruÌ„ Chimaera bombinans in vacuo possit comedere secundas Intentiones Whether a Million of Angels may not sit upon a needles point Becuase they fill not their brains with notions that signify nothing to the utter extermination of all reason and common sence and spend not an Age in weaving and un-weaving subtile cobwebs fitter to catch flyes then Souls therefore they have no deepe knowledge in the Acroamaticall part of learning But I have too much honour'd the poornesse of this detraction to take notice of it 20 The other Part of your accusation strikes deeper and is more coÌ„siderable And that tels us that Protestantisme waxeth weary of it self that the Professors of it they especially of greatest worth learning and authority love temper and moderation and are at this time more unresolved where to fasten then at the infancy of their Church That their Churches begin to look with a new face Their wâ—lls to speak a new language Their Doctrine to be altered in many things for which their Progenitors forsook the then Visible Church of Christ For example the Pope not Antichrist Prayer for the dead Limbus Patrum Pictures That the Church hath Authority in determining Controversies of Faith and to interpret Scripture about Freewill Predestination Vniversall grace That all our works are not sinnes Merit of good works Inherent Iustice Faith alone doth not justify Charity to be preferr'd before knowledge Traditions Commandements possible to be kept That their thirty nine Articles are patient nay ambitious of some sence wherein they may seem Catholique That to alleage the necessity of wife and children in these dayes is but a weak plea for a married minister to compasse a Benefice That Calvinisme is at length accounted Heresy and little lesse then treason That men in talk and writing use willingly the once fearfull names of Priests and Altars That they are now put in mind that for exposition of Scripture they are by Canon bound to follow the Fathers which if they doe with syncerity it is easy to tell what doome will passe against Protestants seeing by the confession of Protestants the Fathers are on the Papists side which the Answerer to some so clearly demonstrated that they remain'd convinc'd In fine as the Samaritans saw in the Disciples countenances that they meant to goe to Hierusalem so you pretend it is even legible in the fore-heads of these men that they are even going nay making hast to Rome Which scurrilous libell void of all
rather to commend the vertue of an enemy then to flatter the vice and imbecility of a friend And so much for this matter 24 Again what if the names of Priests and Altars so frequent in the ancient Fathers though not in the now Popish sense be now resum'd and more commonly used in England then of late times they were that so the colourable argument of their conformity which is but nominall with the ancient Church and our inconformity which the Governors of the Church would not have so much as nominall may be taken away from them and the Church of England may be put in a state in this regard more justifiable against the Roman then formerly it was being hereby enabled to say to Papists whensoever these names are objected we also use the names of Priests and Altars and yet believe neither the corporall Presence nor any Proper and propitiatory Sacrifice 25 What if Protestants be now put in mind that for exposition of Scripture they are bound by a Canon to follow the ancient Fathers which whosoever doth with syncerity it is utterly impossible he should be a Papist And it is most falsely said by you that you know that to some Protestants I cleerly demonstrated or ever so much as undertook or went about to demonstrate the contrary What if the Centurists be censur'd somewhat roundly by a Protestant Divine for affrming that the keeping of the Lords day was a thing indifferent for two hundred yeares Is there in all this or any part of it any kind of proofe of this scandalous calumny Certainly if you can make no better arguments then these and have so little judgement as to think these any you have great reason to decline conferences and Signior Con to prohibite you from writing books any more 26 As for the points of Doctrine wherein you pretend that these Divines begin of late to falter and to comply with the Church of Rome upon a due examination of particulars it will presently appear First that part of them alwaies have been and now are held constantly one way by them as the Authority of the Church in determining Controversies of faith though not the infallibility of it That there is Inherent Iustice though so imperfect that it cannot justify That there are Traditions though none necessary That charity is to be preferr'd before knowledge That good Works are not properly meritorious And lastly that faith alone justifies though that faith justifies not which is alone And secondly for the remainder that they every one of them have been anciently without breach of charity disputed among Protestants such for example were the Questions about the Popes being the Antichrist The lawfulnesse of some kind of prayers for the dead the Estate of the Fathers souls before Christs ascention Freewill Predestination Vniversall grace The Possibility of keeping Gods commandements The use of Pictures in the Church Wherein that there hath been anciently diversity of opinion amongst Protestants it is justifyed to my hand by a witnesse with you beyond exception even your great friend M. Brerely whose care exactnesse and fidelity you say in your Preface is so extraordinary great Consult him therefore Tract 3. Sect. 7. of his Apology And in the 9. 10. 11. 14. 24. 26. 27. 37. Subdivisions of that Section you shall see as in a mirror your selfe prov'd an egregious calumniator for charging Protestants with innovation and inclining to Popery under pretence forsooth that their Doctrine beginnes of late to be altered in these points Whereas M. Brerely will informe you they have been anciently and even from the begining of the Reformation controverted amongst them though perhaps the stream and current of their Doctors runne one way and only some brooke or rivulet of them the other 27 And thus my Friends I suppose are cleerely vindicated from your scandalls and calumnies It remaines now that in the last place I bring my selfe fairely off from your foule aspersions that so my person may not be as indeed howsoever it should not be any disadvantage or disparagement to the cause nor any scandall to weake Christians 28 Your injuries then to me no way deserved by me but by differing in opinion from you wherein yet you surely differ from me as much as I from you are especially three For first upon heereâ—ay refusing to give me oportunity of begetting in you a better understanding of me you charge me with a great number of false and impious doctrines which I will not name in particular because I will not assist you so farre in the spreading of my own undeserved defamation but whosoever teaches or holds them let him be Anathema The summe of them all cast up by your selfe in your first chap. is this Nothing ought or can be certainly believed farther then it may be proved by evidence of Naturall reason where I conceive Naturall reason is oppos'd to supernaturall Revelation and whosoever holds so let him be Anathema And moreover to clear my selfe once for all from all imputations of this nature which charge me injuriously with deniall of Supernaturall Verities I professe syncerely that I believe all those Books of Scripture which the Church of England accounts Canonicall to be the Infallible word of God I believe all things evidently contained in them all things evidently or even probably deducible from them I acknowledge all that to be Heresy which by the Act of Parliament primo of Q. ELIZ. is declar'd to be so only to be so And though in such points which may he held diversly of divers men salvâ Fidei compage I would not take any mans liberty from him and humbly beseech all men that they would not take mine from me Yet thus much I can say which I hope will satisfy any man of reason that whatsoever hath been held necessary to salvation either by the Catholique Church of all ages or by the consent of Fathers measur'd by Vincentius Lyrinensis his rule or is held necessary either by the Catholique Church of this age or by the consent of Protestants or even by the Church of England that against the Socinians and all others whatsoever I doe verily believe and embrace 29 Another great and manifest injury you have done me in charging me to have forsaken your Religion because it condus'd not to my temporall ends and suted not with my desires and designes Which certainly is a horrible crime whereof if you could convince me by just and strong presumptions I should then acknowledge my selfe to deserve that opinion which you would faine induce your credents unto that I chang'd not your Religion for any other but for none at all But of this great fault my conscience acquits me and God who only knowes the hearts of all men knowes that I am innocent Neither doubt I but all they who know me and amongst them many Persons of place and quality will say they have reason in this matter to be my compurgators And for you though you are very
affirmative in your accusation yet you neither doe nor can produce any proof or presumption for it but forgeting your selfe as it is Gods will oftimes that slanderers should doe have let fall some passages which being well weighed will make considering men apt to believe that you did not believe your selfe For how is it possible you should believe that I deserted your Religion for ends against the light of my conscience out of a desire of preferment and yet out of scruple of conscience should refuse which also you impute to me to subscribe the 39 Articles that is refuse to enter at the only common dore which here in England leads to preferment Again how incredible is it that you should believe that I forsooke the profession of your Religion as not suting with my desires and designes which yet reconciles the enjoying of the pleasures and profits of sinne here with the hope of happinesse hereafter and proposes as great hope of great temporall advancements to the capable servants of it as any nay more then any Religion in the world and instead of this should choose Socinianisme a Doctrine which howsoever erroneous in explicating the mysteries of Religion and allowing greater liberty of opinion in speculative matters then any other Company of Christians doth or they should doe yet certainly which you I am sure will pretend and maintaine to explicate the Lawes of Christ with more rigor and lesse indulgence and condescendence to the desires of flesh and blood then your Doctrine doth And besides such a Doctrine by which no man in his right mind can hope for any honour or preferment either in this Church or State or any other All which cleerely demonstrates that this foule and false aspersion which you have cast upon mee proceeds from no other fountaine but a heart abounding with the gall and bitternesse of uncharitablenesse and even blinded with malice towards me or else from a perverse zeale to your superstition which secretly suggests this perswasion to you That for the Catholique cause nothing is unlawfull but that you may make use of such indirect and crooked arts as these to blast my reputation and to possesse mens minds with disaffection to my person least otherwise peradventure they might with some indifference hear reason from me God I hope which bringeth light out of darknesse will turne your counsells to foolishnesse and give all good men grace to perceive how weak and ruinous that Religion must be which needs supportance from such tricks and devices So I call them because they deserve no better name For what are all these Personall matters which hitherto you have spoke of to the businesse in hand If it could be prov'd that Cardinall Bellarmine was indeed a Iew or that Cardinall Perron was an Atheist yet I presume you would not accept of this for an answer to all their writings in defence of your Religion Let then my actions and intentions and opinions be what they will yet I hope truth is neverthelesse truth nor reason ever the lesse Reason because I speak it And therefore the Christian Reader knowing that his Salvation or damnation depends upon his impartiall and sincere judgment of these things will guard himself I hope from these impostures and regard not the person but the cause and the reasons of it not who speakes but what is spoken Which is all the favour I desire of him as knowing that I am desirous not to perswade him unlesse it be truth whereunto I perswade him 30 The third and laâ—t part of my Accusation was that I answer ouâ— of Principles which Protestants themselves will professe to detest which indeed were to the purpose if it could be justified But besides that it is confuted by my whole Book and made ridiculous by the Approbations premis'd unto it it is very easy for mee out of your own mouth and words to prove it a most injurious calumny For what one conclusion is there is the whole fabrick of my discourse that is not naturally deducible out of this one Principle That all things necessary to salvation are evidently contain'd in Scripture Or what one Conclusion almost of importance is there in your Book which is not by this one cleerly confutable Grant this and it will presently follow in opposition to your first Conclusion and the argument of your first Ch that amongst men of different opinions touching the obscure and controverted Questions of ReligioÌ„ such as may with probability be disputed on both Sides and such as are the disputes of Protestants Good men and lovers of truth of all Sides may bee sav'd because all necessary things being suppos'd evident concerning them with men so qualified there will be no difference There being no more certain signe that a Point is not evident then that honest and understanding and indifferent men and such as give themselves liberty of judgment after a mature consideration of the matter differ about it 31 Grant this and it will appear Secondly that the means whereby the revealed Truths of God are conveyed to our understanding and which are to determine all Controversies in Faith necessary to be determined may be for any thing you have said to the contrary not a Church but the Scripture which contradicts the Doctrine of your Second Chapter 32 Grant this and the distinction of points Fundamentall and not Fundamentall will appear very good and pertinent For those truths will be fundamentall which are evidently delivered in Scripture and commanded to be preach't to all men Those not fundamentall which are obscure And nothing will hinder but that the Catholique Church may erre in the latter kind of the said points because Truths not necessary to the Salvation cannot be necessary to the being of a Church and because it is not absolutely necessary that God should assist his Church any farther then to bring her to Salvation neither will there be any necessity at all of any infallible Guide either to consigne unwritten Traditions or to declare the obscurities of the faith Not for the former end because this Principle being granted true nothing unwritten can be necessary to be consign'd Nor for the latter because nothing that is obcsure can be necessary to be understood or not mistaken And so the discourse of your whole Third Chap will presently vanish 33 Fourthly for the Creed's containing the Fundamentals of simple belief though I see not how it may be deduc'd from this principle yet the granting of this plainly renders the whole dispute touching the Creed unnecessary For if all necessary things of all sorts whether of simple belief or practice be confess'd to bee cleerly contain'd in Scripture what imports it whether those of one sort bee contain'd in the Creed 34 Fiftly let this be granted and the immediate Corollary in opsition to your fift Ch will be and must be That not Protestants for rejecting but the Church of Rome for imposing upon the Faith of Christians Doctrines unwritten and unnecessary
and for disturbing the Churches peace and dividing Vnity for such matters is in a high degree presumptuous and Schismaticall 35 Grant this sixtly and it will follow unavoidably that Protestants cannot possibly be Heretiques seeing they believe all things evidently contain'd in Scripture which are suppos'd to be all that is necessary to be believed and so your Sixt Chapter is cleerly confuted 36 Grant this lastly and it will be undoubtedly consequent in contradiction of your seaventh Chapter that no man can shew more charity to himself then by continuing a Protestant seeing Protestants are suppos ' to believe and therefore may accordingly practise at least by their Religion are not hindred from practising and performing all things necessary to Salvation 37 So that the position of this one Principle is the direct overthrow of your whole Book and therefore I needed not nor indeed have I made use of any other Now this principle which is not only the corner stone or chief Pillar but even the base and adequate foundation of my Answer and which while it stands firme and unmoveable cannot but bee the supporter of my Book and the certain ruine of yours is so farre from being according to your pretence detested by all Protestants that all Protestants whatsoever as you may see in their Harmony of confessions unanimously professe and maintain it And you your selfe C. 6. § 30. plainly confesse as much in saying The whole Edifice of the faith of Protestants is setled on these two Principles These particular Books are Canonicall Scripture And the sense and meaning of them is plain and evident at least in all points necessary to Salvation 38 And thus your venome against me is in a manner spent saving only that there remain two litle impertinencies whereby you would disable me from being a fit advocate for the cause of Protestants The first because I refuse to subscribe the Artic. of the Ch. of England The second because I have set down in writing motives which sometime induc'd mee to forsake Protestantisme and hitherto have not answered them 39 By the former of which objections it should seeme that either you conceive the 39 Articles the common Doctrine of all Protestants and if they be why have you so often upbraided them with their many and great differences Or else that it is the peculiar defence of the Church of England and not the common cause of all Protestants which is here undertaken by me which are certainly very grosse mistakes And yet why hee who makes scruple of subscribing the truth of one or two Propositions may not yet bee fit enough to maintain that those who doe subscribe them are in a saveable condition I doe not understand Now though I hold not the Doctrine of all Protestants absoluetly true which with reason cannot bee requir'd of mee while they hold contradictions yet I hold it free from all impiety and from all error destructive of Salvation or in it self damnable And this I think in reason may sufficiently qualifie me for a maintainer of this assertion that Protestancie destroies not Salvation For the Church of England I am perswaded that the constant Doctrine of it is so pure and Orthodoxe that whosoever believes it and lives according to it undoubtedly he shall be saved and that there is no error in it which may necessitate or warrant any man to disturbe the peace or renounce the Communion of it This in my opinion is all intended by Subscription and thus much if you conceive mee not ready to subscribe your Charity I assure you is much mistaken 40 Your other objection against me is yet more impertinent and frivolous then the former Vnlesse perhaps it be a just exception against a Physitian that himself was sometimes in and recover'd himself from that disease which he undertakes to cure or against a guide in a way that at first before hee had experience himself mistook it and after wards found his error and amended it That noble writer Michael de Montai'gne was surely of a farre different mind for hee will hardly allow any Physitian competent but only for such diseases as himself had pass'd through And a farre greater then Montai'gne even he that said Tu conversus confirma fratres gives us sufficiently to understand that they which have themselves beene in such a state as to need conversion are not thereby made incapable of but rather engag'd and oblig'd unto and qualified for this charitable function 41 Neither am I guilty of that strange and preposterous zeale as you esteeme it which you impute to me for having been so long carelesse in removing this scandall against Protestants and answering my own Motives and yet now shewing such fervor in writing against others For neither are they other Motives but the very same for the most part with those which abused me against which this Book which I now publish is in a manner wholly imployed And besides though you Iesuits take upon you to have such large and universall intelligence of all state affaires and matters of importance yet I hope such a contemptible matter as an answer of mine to a litle peece of paper may very probably have been written and escaped your observation The truth is I made an answer to them three yeares since and better which perhaps might have been published but for two reasons one because the Motives were never publique untill you made them so the other because I was loath to proclaime to all the world so much weaknesse as I shewed in suffering my selfe to be abus'd by such silly Sophismes All which proceed upon mistakes and false suppositions which unadvisedly I took for granted as when I have set down the Motives in order by subsequent Answers to them I shall quickly demonstrate and so make an end The Motives then were these 1 Because perpetuall visible profession which could never be wanting to the Religion of Christ nor any part of it is apparently wanting to Protestant Religion so farre as concernes the points in contestation 2 Because Luther and his followers separating from the Church of Rome separated also from all Churches pure or impure true or false then being in the world upon which ground I conclude that either Gods promises did faile of performance if there were then no Church in the world which held all things necessary and nothing repugnant to Salvation or else that Luther and his Sectaries separating from all Churches then in the world and so from the true if there were any true were damnable Schismaticks 3 Because if any credit may be given to as creditable records as any are extant the Doctrine of Catholicks hath been frequently confirmed and the opposite doctrine of Protestants confounded with supernaturall and divine Miracles 4 Because many points of Protestant doctrine are the damned opinions of Hereticks condemned by the Primitive Church 5 Because the Prophecies of the old Testament touching the conversion of Kings and Nations to the true Religion of Christ
to doe it without all bitternesse or gall of invective words both for as much as may import either Protestants in generall or D. Potters person in particular unles for example he will call it bitternesse for me to terme a grosse impertinency a sleight or a corruption by those very names without which I doe not know how to expresse the things and yet therein I can truly affirme that I have studied how to deliver them in the most moderate way to the end I might give as little offence as possibly I could without betraying the Cause And if any unfit phrase may peradventure have escaped my pen as I hope none hath it was beside and against my intention though I must needs professe that D. Potter gives so many and so just occasions of being round with him as that perhaps some will judge me to have been rather remisse then moderate But since in the very title of my Reply I professe to maintaine Charity I conceive that the excesse will be more excusable amongst all kinds of men if it fall to be in mildnesse then if it had appeared in too much zeale And if D. Potter have a mind to charge me with ignorance or any thing of that nature I can and will ease him of that labour by acknowledging in my selfe as many and more personall defects then he can heap upon me Truth only and syncerity I so much valew and professe as that he shall never be able to prove the contrary in any one least passage or particle against me 9. In the third and last place I have thought fit to expresse my selfe thus If D. Potter or any other resolve to answere my Reply I desire that he will observe some things which may tend to his owne reputation the saving of my unnecessary paines and especially to the greater advantage of truth I wish then that he would be carefull to consider wherein the point of every difficulty consists and not impertinently to shoot at Rovers and affectedly mistake one thing for another As for example to what purpose for as much as concernes the question betweene D. Potter and Charity Mistaken doth he so often and seriously labour to proue that faith is not resolved into the authority of the Church as into the formall Obiect and Motive thereof Or that all points of Faith are contained in Scripture Or that the Church cannot make new Articles of Faith Or that the Church of Rome as it signifies that particular Church or Diocesse is not all one with the universall Church Or that the Pope as a private Doctor may erre With many other such points as will easily appeare in their proper places It will also be necessary for him not to put certaine Doctrines upon us from which he knowes we disclaime as much as himselfe 10 I must in like manner intreat him not to recite my reasons and discourses by halfes but to set them down faithfully and entirely for as much as in very deed concernes the whole substance of the thing in question because the want sometime of one word may chance to make void or lessen the force of the whole argument And I am the more solicitous about giving this particular caveat because I finde how ill he hath complied with the promise which he made in his Preface to the Reader not to omit without answere any one thing of moment in all the discourse of Charity Mistaken Neither will this course be a cause that his Reioynder grow too large but it will be occasion of brevity to him and free me also from the paines of setting downe all the words which he omits and himselfe of demonstrating that what he omitted was not materiall Nay I will assure him that if he keep himselfe to the point of every difficulty and not weary the Reader and overcharge his margent with unnecessary quotations of Authors in Greek and Latin and sometime also in Italian and French together with proverbs sentences of Poets and such grammaticall stuffe nor affect to cite a multitude of our Catholique Schoole divines to no purpose at all his Book will not exceed a competent size nor will any man in reason be offended with that length which is regulated by necessity Againe before he come to set downe his answere or propose his Arguments let him consider very well what may be replied and whether his own objections may not be retorted against himselfe as the Reader will perceiue to haue hapned often to his disadvantage in my Reply against him But especially I expect and Truth it selfe exacts at his hand that he speak cleerly and distinctly and not seek to walk in darknesse so to delude and deceiue his Reader now saying and then denying and alwaies speaking with such ambiguity as that his greatest care may seeme to consist in a certaine art to find a shift as his occasions might chance either now or heereafter to require and as he might fall out to be urged by diversity of severall arguments And to the end it may appear that I deale plainely as I would haue him also doe I desire that he declare himselfe concerning these points 11 First whether our Saviour Christ haue not alwaies had and be not ever to haue a visible true Church on earth and whether the contrary doctrine be not a damnable Heresy 12 Secondly what visible Church there was before Luther disagreeing from the Roman Church and agreeing with the pretended Church of Protestants 13 Thirdly Since he will be forced to grant that there cā be assigned no visible true Church of Christ distinct from the Church of Rome and such Churches as agreed with her when Luther first appeared whether it doe not follow that shee hath not erred fundamentally because every such errour destroies the nature and being of the Church and so our Saviour Christ should haue had no visible Church on earth 14 Fourthly if the Roman Church did not fall into any fundamentall errour let him tell us how it can be damnable to liue in her Communion or to maintaine errours which are knowne and confessed not to be fundamentall to damnable 15 Fiftly if her Errours were not damnable nor did exclude salvation how can they be excused from Schisme who forsooke her Communion upon pretence of errours which were not damnable 16 Sixtly if D. Potter haue a minde to say that her Errours are damnable or fundamentall let him doe us so much charity as to tell us in particular what those fundamentall errours be But he must still remember and my selfe must be excused for repeating it that if he say the Roman Church erred fundamentally he will not be able to shew that Christ our Lord had any visible Church on earth when Luther appeared and let him tell us how Protestants had or can haue any Church which was universall and extended her selfe to all ages if once he grant that the Roman Church ceased to be the true Church of Christ and consequently how they can hope
of the New Testament they giue a farre different rule saying All the Books of the New Testament as they are commonly received we doe receiue and account them Canonicall This I say is a rule much different from the former Of whose authority was NEVER any doubt in the Church For some Books might be said to be Commonly received although they were sometime doubted of by some If to be Commonly received passe for a good rule to know the Canon of the New Testament why not of the Old Aboue all we desire to know upon what infallible ground in some Bookes they agree with us against Luther and divers principall Lutherans and in others jump with Luther against us But seeing they disagree among themselues it is evident that they haue no certaine rule to know the Canon of Scripture in assigning whereof some of them must of necessity erre because of contradictory propositions both cannot be true 10 Moreover the letters syllables words phrase or matter contained in holy Scripture haue no necessary or naturall connection with divine Revelation or Inspiration and therefore by seeing reading or understanding them we cannot inferre that they proceed from God or be confirmed by divine authoritie as because Creatures involve a necessary relation connection and dependance on their Creator Philosophers may by the light of naturall reason demonstrate the existence of one prime cause of all things In Holy Wrâ—â— there are innumerable truths not surpassing the spheare of humane wit which are or may be delivered by Pagan Writers in the selfe same words and phrase as they are in Scripture And as for some truths peculiar to Christians for Example the mystery of the blessed Trinitie c. The only setting them down in Writing is not enough to be assured that such a Writing is the undoubted word of God otherwise some sayings of Plato Trisâ—egistus Sybils Ovid c. must be esteemed Canonicall Scripture because they fall upon some truths proper to Christian Religion The internall light and inspiration which directed and moved the Authors of Canonicall Scriptures is a hidden Qualitie infused into their understanding and will and hath no such particular sensible influence into the externall Writing that in it we can discover or from it demonstrate any such secret light and inspiration and therefore to be assured that such a Writing is divine we cannot know from it selfe alone but by some other extrinsecall authority 11 And here we appeale to any man of judgement whether it be not a vaine brag of some Protestants to tell us that they wot full well what is Scripture by the light of Scripture it selfe or as D. Potter words it by that glorious beame of divine light which shines therein even as our eye distinguisheth light from darknesse without any other help then light it selfe and as our eare knowes a voice by the voice it selfe alone But this vanity is refuted by what we said even now that the externall Scripture hath no apparent or necessary connection with divine inspiration or revelation Will D. Poiter hold all his Bretheren for blinde men for not seeing that glorious beam of divine light which shines in Scripture about which they cannot agree Corporall light may be discerned by it selfe alone as being evident proportionate and connaturall to our faculty of seeing That Scripture is Divine and inspired by God is a truth exceeding the naturall capacity and compasse of mans understanding to us obscure and to be believed by divine faith which according to the Apostle is argumentum non apparentium an argument or conviction of things not evident and therefore no wonder if Scripture doe not manifest it selfe by it selfe alone but must require some other meanes for applying it to our understanding Neverthelesse their own similitudes and instances make against themselues For suppose a man had never read or heard of Sunne Moone Fire Candle c. and should bee brought to behold a light yet in such sort as that the Agent or Cause efficient from which it proceeded were kept hidden from him could such a one by only beholding the light certainly know whether it were produced by the Sunne or Moone c. Or if one heare a voice and had never known the speaker could he know from whom in particular that voice proceeded They who look upon Scripture may well see that some one wrote it but that it was written by divine inspiration how shall they know Nay they cannot so much as know who wrote it unlesse they first know the writer and what hand he writes as likewise I cannot know whose voice it is which I heare unlesse I first both know the person who speakes and with what voice he useth to speak and yet even all this supposed I may perhaps be deceaved For there may be voices so like and Hand so counterfeited that men may be deceaved by them as birds were by the grapes of that skilfull Painter Now since Protestants affirme knowledge concerning God as our supernaturall end must be taken from Scripture they cannot in Scripture alone discerne that it is his voice or writing because they cannot know from whom a writing or vioce proceeds unlesse first they know the person who speakeâ— ' or writeth Nay I say more By Scripture alone they cannot so much as know that any person doth in it or by it speak any thing at all because one may write without intent to signifie or affirme any thing but onely to set downe or as it were paint such characters syllables and words as men are wont to set copies not caring what the signification of the words imports or as one transcribes a writing which himselfe understands not or when one writes what another dictates and in other such cases wherein it is cleare that the writer speakes or signifies nothing in such his writing and therefore by it we cannot heare or understand his voice With what certainty then can any man affirme that by Scripture it selfe they can see that the writers did intend to signifie any thing at all that they were Apostles or other Canonicall Authors that they wrote their own sense and not what was dictated by some other man and finally and especially that they wrote by the infallible direction of the Holy Ghost 12 But let us be liberall and for the present suppose not grant that Scripture is like to corporall light by it selfe alone able to determine and moue our understanding to assent yet the similitude proues against themselues For light is not visible except to such as haue eyes which are not made by the light but must be presupposed as produced by some other cause And therefore to hold the similitude Scripture can be cleare onely to those who are endued with the eye of faith or as D. Potter aboue cited saith to all that haue eyes to discerne the shining beames thereof that is to the believer as immediatly after he speaketh Faith then must not originally proceed from Scripture but
is to be presupposed before we can see the light thereof and consequently there must be some other meanes precedent to Scripture to beget Faith which can be no other then the Church 13 Others affirme that they know Canonicall Scriptures to be such by the Title of the Bookes But how shall we know such Inscriptions or Titles to be infallibly true From this their Answere our argument is strengthened because divers Apocryphall writings have appeared under the Titles and Names of sacred Authors as the Gospell of Thomas mentioned by S. Augustine the Gospell of Peter which the Nazaraei did use as Theodoret witnesseth with which Seraphion a Catholique Bishop was for some time deceived as may be read in Eusebius who also speaketh of the Apocalyps of Peter The like may be said of the Gospells of Barnabas Bartholomew and other such writings specified by Pope Gelasius Protestants reject likewise some part of Esther and Daniel which bear the same Titles with the rest of those Bookes as also both we and they hold for Apochryphall the third and fourth Bookes which goe under the name of Esdras and yet both of us receive his first and second book Wherefore Titles are not sufficient assurances what bookes be Canonicall which D. Covell acknowledgeth in these words It is not the word of God which doth or possibly can assure us that we doe well to think it is the word of God the first outward motion leading men so to esteem of the Scripture is the Authority of Gods Church which teacheth us to receive Marks Gospell who was not an Apostle and to refuse the Gospell of Thomas who was an Apostle and to retain Lukes Gospell who saw not Christ and to reiect the Gospell of Nicodemus who saw him 14 Another Answer or rather Objection they are wont to bring That the Scripture being a principle needs no proof among Christians So D. Potter But this is either a plain begging of the question or manifestly untrue and is directly against their own doctrine and practise If they mean that Scripture is one of those principles which being the first and the most known in all Sciences cannot be demonstrated by other Principles they suppose that which is in question whether there be not some principle for example the Church whereby we may come to the knowledge of Scripture If they intend that Scripture is a Principle but not the first and most known in Christianity then Scripture may be proved For principles that are not the first not known of themselves may and ought to be proved before we can yeild assent either to them or to other verities depending on them It is repugnant to their own doctrine and practise in as much as they are wont to affirme that one part of Scripture may be known to be Canonicall and may be interpreted by another And since every Scripture is a principle sufficient upon which to ground divine faith they must grant that one Principle may and sometime must be proved by another Yea this their Answer upon due ponderation falls out to prove what we affirme For since all Principles cannot be proved we must that our labour may not be endlesse come at length to rest in some principle which may not require any other proof Such is Tradition which involves an evidence of fact and from hand to hand and age to age bringing us up to the times and Persons of the Apostles and our Saviour himselfe cometh to be confirmed by all those miracles and other arguments whereby they convinced their doctrine to be true Wherefore the ancient Fathers avouch that we must receive the sacred Canon upon the credit of Gods Church S. Athanasius saith that only four Gospels are to be received because the Canons of the Holy and Catholique Church have so determined The third Councell of Carthage having set down the Bookes of holy Scripture gives the reason because We have received from our Fathers that these are to be read in the Church 8. Augustine speaking of the Acts of the Apostles saith To which book I must give credit if I give credit to the Gospell because the Catholique Church doth a like recommend to me both these Bookes And in the same place he hath also these words I would not believe the Gospell unles the authority of the Catholique Church did move me A saying so plain that Zuinglius is forced to cry out Heere I implore your equity to speak freely whether this saying of Augustine seem not overbold or else unadvisedly to have fallen from him 15 But suppose they were assured what Books were Canonicall this will little avail them unles they be likewise certain in what language they remain uncorrupted or what Translations be true Calvin acknowledgeth corruption in the Hebrew Text which if it be taken without points is so ambiguous that scarcely any one Chapter yes period can be securely understood without the help of some Translation If with points These were after S. Hieroms time invented by the perfidious Iewes who either by ignorance might mistake or upon malice force the Text to favour their impieties And that the Hebrew Text still retaines much ambiguity is apparent by the disagreeing Translation of Novelists which also proves the Greek for the New Testament not to be void of doubtfulnes as Calvin confesseth it to be corrupted And although both the Hebrew and Greeke were pure what doth this help if only Scripture be the rule of faith and so very few be able to examine the Text in these languages All then must be reduced to the certainty of Translations into other tongues wherein no private man having any premise or assurance of infallibility Protestants who rely upon Scripture alone will find no certain ground for their faith as accordingly Whitaker affirmeth Those who understand not the Hebrew and Greek doe erre often and unavoidably 16 Now concerning the Translations of Protestants it will be sufficient to set down what the laborious exact and jucicious Author of the Protestants Apology c. dedicated to our late King Iames of famous memory hath to this purpose To omit saith he particulars whose recitall would be infinite and to touch this point but generally only the Translation of the New Testament by Luther is condemned by Andreas O siander Keckermannus and Zuinglius who saith hereof to Luther Thou dost corrupt the word of God thou art seen to be a manifest and common corrupter of the holy Scriptures how much are we ashamed of thee who have hitherto esteemed thee beyond all measure and now prove thee to be such a man And in like manner doth Luther reject the Translation of the Zuinglians terming them in matter of Divinity fooles Asses Anuchrists deceavers and of Asse-like understanding In so much that when Froschoverus the Zwinglian Printer of Zurich sent him a Bible translated by the Divines there Luther would not receive the same but sending it
back reiected it as the Protestant Writers Hospinianus and Lavatherus witnesse The translation set forth by Oecolampadius and the Divines of Basil is reproved by Beza who affirmeth that the Basil Translation is in many places wicked and altogether differing from the mind of the Holy Ghost The translation of Castalio is condemned by Beza as being sacrilegious wicked and Ethnicall As concerning Calvins translation that learned Protestant Writer Carolus Molineus saith thereof Calvin in his Harmony maketh the text of the Gospell to leap up and down he useth violence to the letter of the Gospell and besides this addeth to the Text. As touching Bezas translation to omit the dislike had thereof by Selneccerus the German Protestant of the Vniversity of Iena the foresaid Molinaeus saith of him de facto mutat textum he actually changeth the text and giveth farther sundry instances of his corruptions as also Castalio that learned Calvinist and most learned in the tongues reprehendeth Beza in a whole book of this matter and saith that to note all his errours in translation would require a great volume And M. Parkes saith As for the Geneva Bibles it is to be wished that either they may be purged from those manifold errors which are both in the text and in the margent or else utterly prohibited All which confirmeth your Maiesties grave and learned Censure in your thinking the Geneva translation to be worst of all and that in the Marginall notes annexed to the Geneva translation some are very partiall untrue seditious c. Lastly concerning the English Translation the Puritans say Our translation of the Psalmes comprized in our Book of Common Prayer doth in addition subtraction and alteration differ from the Truth of the Hebrew in two hundred places at the least In so much as they doe therefore professe to rest doubtfull whether a man with a safe conscience may subscribe thereunto And M. Carlile saith of the English Translators that they have depraved the sense obscured the truth and deceived the ignorant that in many places they doe detort the Scriptures from the right sense And that they shew themselves to love darknesse more then light falshood more then truth And the Ministers of Lincolne Diocesse give their publike testimony terming the English Translation A Translation that taketh away from the Text that addeth to the Text and that sometime to the changing or obscuring of the meaning of the Holy Ghost Not without cause therefore did your Majesty affirme that you could never yet see a Bible well translated into English Thus farre the Author of the Protestants Apology c. And I cannot forbear to mention in particular that famous corruption of Luther who in the Text where it is said Rom. 3. v. 28. We accompt a man to be justified by faith without the works of the Law in favour of Iustification by faith alone translateth Iustified by faith ALONE As likewise the falsification of Zuinglius is no lesse notorious who in the Gospels of S. Matthew Mark and Luke and in S. Paul in place of This is my Body This is my Blood translates This signifies my Body This signifies my bloâ—d And here let Prorestants consider duely of these points Salvation cannot be hoped for without true faith Faith according to them relies upon Scripture alone Scripture must be delivered to most of them by the Translations Translations depend on the skill and honesty of men in whom nothing is more certain then a most certain possibility to erre and no greater evidence of truth then that it is evident some of them imbrace falshood by reason of their contrary translations What then remaineth but that truth faith salvation and all must in them rely upon a fallible and uncertain ground How many poore soules are lamentably seduced while from preaching Ministers they admire a multitude of Texts of divine Scripture but are indeed the false translations and corruptions of erring men Let them therefore if they will be assured of true Scriptures fly to the alwaies visible Catholique Church against which the gates of hell can never so farre prevaile as that she shall be permitted to deceive the Christian world with false Scriptures And Luther himselfe by unfortunate experience was at length forced to confesse thus much saying If the world last longer it will be again necessary to receive the decrees of Councels and to have recourse to them by reason of divers interpretations of Scripture which now raigne On the contrary side the Translation approved by the Roman Church is commended even by our adversaries and D. Covel in particular saith that it was used in the Church one thousand three hundred yeares agoe and doubteth not to prefer that Translation before others In so much that whereas the English translations be many and among themselves disagreeing he concludeth that of all those the approved translation authorized by the Church of England is that which commeth nearest to the vulgar and is commonly called the Bishops Bible So that the truth of that translation which we use must be the rule to judge of the goodnesse of their Bibles and therefore they are obliged to maintain our Translation if it were but for their own sake 17 But doth indeed the source of their manifold uncertainties stop here No The chiefest difficulty remaines concerning the true meaning of Scripture for attaining whereof if Protestants had any certainty they could not disagree so hugely as they doe Hence M. Hooker saith We are right sure of this that Nature Scripture and Experience have all taught the world to seek for the ending of contentions by submitting it selfe unto some iudiciall and definitive sentence whereunto neither part that contendeth may under any pretence refuse to stand D. Fields words are remarkable to this purpose Seeing saith he the controversies of Religion in our times are grown in number so many and in nature so intricate that few have time and leasure fewer strength of understanding to examine them what remaineth for men desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence but diligently to search out which among all the societies in the world is that blessed company of holy ones that houshold of Faith that Spouse of Christ and Church of the living God which is the Pillar and ground of Truth that so they may imbrace her communion follow her directions and rest in her iudgement 18 And now that the true Interpretation of Scripture ought to be received from the Church it is also proved by what we have already demonstrated that she it is who must declare what Bookes be true Scripture wherein if she be assisted by the Holy Ghost why should we not believe her to be infallibly directed concerning the true meaning of them Let Protestants therefore either bring some proofe out of Scripture that the Church is guided by the Holy Ghost in discerning true Scripture and not in delivering the true sense thereof Or else give us leave to apply against
them the argument which S. Augustine opposed to the Manicheans in these words I would not believe the Gospell unlesse the authority of the Church did move me Them therefore whom I obeyeâ— saying Believe the Gospell why should I not obey saying to me Doe not believe Manichaeus Luther Calvin c. Choose what thou pleasest If thou shalt say believe the Catholiques They warne me not to give any credit to you If therefore I believe them I cannot believe thee If thou say Do not believe the Catholiques thou shalt not doe well in forcing me to the faith of Manichaeus because by the preaching of Catholiques I believed the Gospell it selfe If thou say you did well to believe them Catholiques commending the Gospell but you did not well to believe them discommending Manichaeus Dost thou think me so very foolish that without any reason at all I should believe what thou wilt and not believe what thou wilt not And doe not Protestants perfectly resemble these men to whom S. Augustine spake when they will have men to believe the Roman Church delivering Scripture but not to believe her condemning Luther and the rest Against whom when they first opposed themselves to the Roman Church S. Augustine may seem to have spoken no lesse prophetically then doctrinally when he said Why should I not most diligently inâ—uire what Christ coÌ„manded of them before all others by whose authority I was moved to believe that Christ commanded any good thing Canst thou better declare to me what he said whom I would not have thought to have been or to be if the belief thereof had been recommended by thee to mee This therefore I believed by fame strengthned with celebrity consent Antiquity But every one may see that you so few so turbulent so new can produce nothing deserving authority What madnesse is this Believe them Catholiques that we ought to believe Christ but learn of us what Christ said Why I beseech thee Surely if they Catholiques were not at all and could not teach me any thing I would more easily perswade my selfe that I were not to believe Christ then that I should learn any thing concerning him from any other then them by whom I believed him If therefore we receive the knowledge of Christ and Scriptures from the Church from her also must we take his doctrine and the interpretation thereof 19 But besides all this the Scriptures cannot be Iudge of Controversies who ought to be such as that to him not only the learned or Veterans but also the unlearned and Novices may have recourse for these being capable of salvation and endued with faith of the same nature with that of the learned there must be some universall Iudge which the ignorant may understand and to whom the greatest Clerks must submit Such is the Church and the Scripture is not such 20 Now the inconveniences which follow by referring all Controversies to Scripture alone are very clear For by this principle all is finally in very deed and truth reduced to the internall private Spirit because there is really no middle way betwixt a publiquâ— externall and a private internall voyce and whosoever refuseth the one must of necessity adhere to the other 21 This Tenet also of Protestants by taking the office of Iudicature from the Church comes to conferre it upon every particular man who being driven from submission to the Church cannot be blamed if he trust himselfe as farre as any other his conscience dictating that wittingly he meanes not to cozen himself as others malitiously may doe Which inference is so manifest that it hath extorted from divers Protestants the open Confession of so vast an absurdity Hear Luther The Governours of Churches and Pastors of Christs sheep have indeed power to teach but the sheep ought to give judgement whether they propound the voice of Christ or of Aliens Lubertus saith As we have demonstrated that all publique Iudges may be deceived in interpreting so we affirme that they may erre in judging All faithfull men are private Iudges and they also have power to judge of doctrines and interpretations Whitaker even of the unlearned saith They ought to have recourse unto the more learned but in the meane time we must be carefull not to attribute to them over-much but so that still we retaine our owne freedome Bilson also affirmeth that The people must be discerners and Iudges of that which is taught This same pernicious doctrine is delivered by Brentius Zanchius Cartwright and others exactly cited by Brerely and nothing is more common in every Protestants mouth then that he admits of Fathers Councells Church c. as farre as they agree with Scripture which upon the matter is himselfe Thus Heresy ever fals upon extreames It pretends to have Scripture alone for judge of Controversies and in the meane time sets up as many Iudges as there are men and women in the Christian world What good Statesmen would they be who should ideate or fancy such a CoÌ„mon wealth as these men haue framed to themselues a Church They verifie what S. Augustine objecteth against certaine Heretiques You see that you goe about to overthrow all authority of Scripture and that every mans minde may be to himselfe a Rule what he is to allow or disallow in every Sâ—â—ipture 22 Moreover what confusion to the Church what danger to the Common wealth this deniall of the authority of the Church may bring I leaue to the consideration of any judicious indifferent man I will only set down some words of D. Potter who speaking of the Proposition of revealed Truths sufficient to proue him that gain-saith them to be an Heretique saith thus This Proposition of revealed truths is not by the infallible determination of Pope or Church Pope Church being excluded let us heare what more secure rule he will prescribe but by whatsoever meanes a man may be convinced in conscience of divine revelation If a Preacher doe clear any point of faith to his Hearers if a private Christian doe make it appeare to his Neighbour that any conclusion or point of faith is delivered by divine revelation of Gods word if a man himselfe without any Teacher 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 gainsaith any such proofe to be an Heretique and obstinate opposer of the faith Behold what goodly safe Propounders of faith arise in place of Gods universall visible Church which must yeeld to a single Preacher a Neighbour a man himselfe if he can read or at least haue eares to heare Scripture read Verily I doe not see but that every well-governed Civill Commonwealth ought to concurre towards the exterminating of this doctrine whereby the Interpretation of Scripture is taken from the Church and conferred upon every man who whatsoever is pretended to the contrary may be a passionate seditious creature 23 Moreover
servants and instruments alwaies prest and in readinesse to advance your designes and disabled wholly with mindes so qualified to prejudice or impeach them it is safe for you to put a crown on their head and a reed in their hands and to bow before them cry Haile King of the Iewes to pretend a great deale of esteem and respect reverence to them as here you doe But to little purpose is verball reverence without entire submission and syncere obedience and as our Saviour said of some so the Scripture could it speak I believe would say to you Why call ye mee Lord Lord and doe not that which I command you Cast away the vaine and arrogant pretence of Infallibility which makes your errors incurable Leave picturing God and worshipping him by pictures Teach not for Doctrine the Commandments of men Debarre not the Laity of the Testament of Christs blood Let your publique Prayers and Psalmes and Hymmes be in such language as is for the edification of the Assistants Take not from the Clergy that liberty of Marriage which Christ hath left them Doe not impose upon men that Humility of worshipping Angels which S. Paul condemnes Teach no more proper sacrifices of Christ but one Acknowledge them that dye in Christ to be blessed and to rest from their labours Acknowledge the Sacrament after consecration to be Bread and Wine as well as Christs body and blood Acknowledge the gift of continency without Marriage not to be given to all Let not the weapons of your warfare be carnall such as are Massacres Treasons Persecutions and in a word all meanes either violent or fraudulent These and other things which the Scripture commands you doe and then we shall willingly give you such Testimony as you deserve but till you doe so to talk of estimation respect and reverence to the Scripture is nothing else but talk 2 For neither is that true which you pretend That we possesse the Scripture from you or take it upon the integrity of your Custody but upon Vniversall Tradition of which you are but a little part Neither if it were true that Protestants acknowledged The integrity of it to have been guarded by your alone Custody were this any argument of your reverence towards them For first you might preserve them entire not for want of Will but of Power to corrupt them as it is a hard thing to poyson the Sea And then having prevailed so farre with men as either not to look at all into them or but only through such spectacles as you should please to make for them and to see nothing in them though as cleere as the sunne if it any way made against you you might keep them entire without any thought or care to conforme your doctrine to them or reforme it by them which were indeed to reverence the Scriptures but out of a perswasion that you could qualify them well enough with your glosses and interpretations and make them sufficiently conformable to your present Doctrine at least in their judgement who were preposses'd with this perswasion that your Church was to judge of the sense of Scripture not to be judged by it 3. For whereas you say No cause imaginable could avert your will from giving the function of supreme and sole Iudge to holy writ but that the thing is impossible and that by this meanes controversies are encreased and not ended you mean perhaps That you can or will imagine no other cause but these But sure there is little Reason you should measure other mens imaginations by your own who perhaps may be so clouded and vail'd with prejudice that you cannot or will not see that which is most manifest For what indifferent and unprejudicate man may not easily conceive another cause which I doe not say does but certainly may pervert your wills and avert your understandings from submitting your religion and Church to a tryall by Scripture I mean the great and apparent and unavoidable danger which by this meanes you would fall into of loosing the Opinion which men have of your Infallibility and consequently your power and authority over mens consciences and all that depends upon it so that though Diana of the Ephesians be cryed up yet it may be feared that with a great many among you though I censure or judge no man the other cause which wrought upon Demetrius and the Craftsmen may have with you also the more effectuall though more secret influence and that is that by this craft we have our living by this craft I mean of keeping your Proselytes from an indifferent tryall of your Religion by Scripture and making them yeeld up and captivate their judgement unto yours Yet had you only said de facto that no other cause did avert your own will from this but only these which you pretend out of Charity I should have believed you But seeing you speak not of your selfe but of all of your side whose hearts you cannot know and professe not only That there is no other cause but that No other is imaginable I could not let this passe without a censure As for the impossibility of Scriptures being the sole judge of Controversies that is the sole rule for man to Iudge them by for we mean nothing else you only affirme it without proofe as if the thing were evident of it selfe And therefore I conceiving the contrary to be more evident might well-content my selfe to deny it without refutation Yet I cannot but desire you to tell me If Scripture cannot be the Iudge of any Controversy how shall that touching the Church and the notes of it be determined And if it be the sole judge of this one why may it not of others Why not of All Those only excepted wherein the Scripture it selfe is the subject of the Question which cannot be determined but by naturall reason the only principle beside Scripture which is common to Christians 4 Then for the Imputation of increasing contentions and not ending them Scripture is innocent of it as also this opinion That controversies are to be decided by Scripture For if men did really and sincerely submit their judgements to Scripture and that only and would require no more of any man but to doe so it were impossible but that all controversies touching things necessary and very profitable should be ended and if others were continued or increased it were no matter 5 In the next wordes we have direct Boyes-play a thing given with one hand and taken away with the other an acknowledgement made in one line and retracted in the next We acknowledge say you Scripture to be a perfect rule for as much as a writing can be a Rule only wee deny that it excludes unwritten tradition A siâ— you should have said we acknowledge it to be as perfect a rule as a writing can be only we deny it to be as perfect a rule as a writing may be Either therefore you must revoke your acknowledgement or retract your
retractation of it for both cannot possibly stand together For if you will stand to what you have granted That Scripture is as perfect a rule of Faith as a writing can be you must then grant it both so Compleat that it needs no addition and so evident that it needs no interpretation For both these properties are requisite to a perfect rule and a writing is capable of both these properties 6 That both these Properties are requisite to a perfect rule it is apparent Because that is not perfect in any kind which wants some parts belonging to its integrity As he is not a perfect man that wants any part appertaining to the Integrity of a Man and therefore that which wants any accession to make it a perfect rule of it selfe is not a perfect Rule And then the end of a râ—le is to regulate and direct Now every instrument is more or lesse perfect in its kinde as it is more or lesse fit to attain the end for which it is ordained But nothing obscure or unevident while it is so is fit to regulate and direct them to whom it is so Therefore it is requisite also to a rule so farre as it is a Rule to be evident otherwise indeed it is no rule because it cannot serve for direction I conclude therefore that both these properties are required to a perfect Rule both to be so compleat as to need no Addition and to be so evident as to need no Interpretation 7 Now that a writing is capable of both these perfections it is so plain that I am even ashamed to prove it For he that denies it must say That something may be spoken which cannot be written For if such a compleat and evident rule of faith may be delivered by word of mouth as you pretend it may and is and whatsoever is delivered by word of mouth may also be written then such a compleat and evident rule of faith may also be written If you will have more light added to the Sunne answer me then to these Questions Whether your Church can set down in writing all these which she pretends to be divine unwritten Traditions and adde them to the verities already written And whether she can set us down such interpretations of all obscurities in the Faith as shall need no farther interpretations If shee cannot then she hath not that power which you pretend she hath of being an Infallible teacher of all divine verities and an infallible interpreter of obscurities in the faith for she cannot teach us all divine verities if she cannot write them down neither is that an interpretation which needs again to be interpreted If she can Let her doe it and then we shall have 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 whatsoever your Church can doe or not doe no man can without Blasphemy deny that Christ Iesus if he had pleas'd could have writ us a rule of Faith so plaine and perfect as that it should have wanted neither any part to make up its integrity nor any cleerenesse to make it sufficiently intelligible And if Christ could have done this then the thing might have been done a writing there might have been indowed with both these properties Thus therefore I conclude a writing may be so perfect a Rule as to need neither Addition nor Interpretation But the Scripture you acknowledge a perfect Rule for as much as a writing can be a Rule therefore it needs neither Addition nor Interpretation 8 You will say that though a writing be never so perfect a Rule of Faith yet it must be beholding to Tradition to give it this Testimony that it is a Rule of Faith and the Word of God I answere First there is no absolute necessity of this For God might if he thought good give it the attestation of perpetuall miracles Secondly that it is one thing to be a perfect Rule of Faith another to be proved so unto us And thus though a writing could not be proved to us to be a perfect rule of Faith by its own saying so for nothing is prov'd true by being said or written in a book but only by Tradition which is a thing credible of it selfe yet it may be so in it selfe and containe all the materiall objects all the particular articles of our Faith without any dependance upon Tradition even this also not excepted that this writing doth containe 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 prov'd by Scripture to a gainsayer that there is a God or that the book called Scripture is the word of God For he that will deny these Assertions when they are spoken will believe them never a whit the more because you can shew them written But their meaning is that the Scripture to them which presuppose it Divine and a Rule of Faith as Papists and Protestants doe containes all the materiall objects of Faith is a compleat and totall and not only an imperfect and a partiall Rule 9 But every Book and Chapter and Text of Scripture is infallible and wants no due perfection and yet excludes not the Addition of other bookes of Scripture Therefore the perfection of the whole Scripture excludes not the Addition of unwritten Tradition I answere Every Text of Scripture though it have the perfection belonging to a Text of Scripture yet it hath not the perfection requisite to a perfect Rule of Faith and that only is the perfection which is the subject of our discourse So that this is to abuse your Reader with the ambiguity of the word Perfect In effect as if you should say A text of Scripture may be a perfect Text though there be others beside it therefore the whole Scripture may be a perfect Rule of Faith though there be other parts of this Rule besides the Scripture and though the Scripture be but a part of it 10 The next Argument to the same purpose is for Sophistry cosen german to the former When the first bookes of Scripture were written they did not exclude unwritten Tradition Therefore now also that all the bookes of Scripture are written Traditions are not excluded The sense of which argument if it have any must be this When only a part of the Scripture was written then a part of the divine doctrine was unwritten Therefore now when all the Scripture is written yet some part of the divine doctrine is yet unwritten If you say your conclusion is not that it is so but without disparagement to Scripture may be so without disparagement to the truth of Scripture I grant it but without disparagement to the Scriptures being a perfect Rule I deny it And now the Question is not
may justly decline his sentence for feare temporall respects should either blinde his judgement or make him pronounce against it 20 Seaventhly In Civill Controversies it is impossible Titius should hold the land in question and Sempronius too and therefore either the Plaintiffe must injure the Defendant by disquieting his possession or the Defendant wrong the Plaintiffe by keeping his right from him But in Controversies of Religion the Case is otherwise I may hold my opinion and doe you no wrong and you yours and doe mee none Nay we may both of us hold our opinion and yet doe our selues no harme provided the difference be not touching any thing necessary to salvation and that we loue truth so well as to bee diligent to informe our Conscience and constant in following it 21 Eightly For the ending of Civill Controversies who does not see it is absolutely necessary that not only Iudges should bee appointed but that it should be known and unquestioned who they are Thus all the Iudges of our Land are known men known to be Iudges and no man can doubt or question but these are the Men. Otherwise if it were a disputable thing who were these Iudges and they had no certain warrant for their Authority but only some Topicall congruities would not any man say such Iudges in all likelyhood would rather multiply Controversies then end them 22 Ninthly and lastly For the deciding of Civill Controversies men may appoint themselues a judge But in matters of Religion this office may be given to none but whom God hath designed for it who doth not alwaies giue us those things which we conceiue most expedient for our selues 23 So likewise if our Saviour the King of Heaven had intended that all Controversies in Religion should be by some Visible Iudge finally determined who can doubt but in plaine termes hee would haue expressed himselfe about this matter He would haue said plainely The Bishop of Rome I haue appointed to decide all emergent Controversies For that our Saviour design'd the Bishop of Rome to this Office yet would not say so nor cause it to be written ad Rei memoriam by any of the Evangelists or Apostles so much as once but leaue it to bee drawn out of uncertain Principles by thirteen or fourteen more uncertain consequences He that can beleiue it let him All these Reasons I hope will convince you that though we haue and haue great necessity of Iudges in Civill and Criminall causes yet you may not conclude from thence that there is any publique authoriz'd Iudge to determine Controversies in Religion nor any necessity there should be any 24 But the Scripture stands in need of some watchfull and unerring eye to guard it by meanes of whose assured vigilancy we may undoubtedly receiue it syncere and pure Very true but this is no other then the watchfull eye of divine providence the goodnesse whereof will never suffer that the Scripture should be depraved and corrupted but that in them should be alwaies extant a conspicuous and plain way to eternall happinesse Neither can any thing be more palpably unconsistent with his goodnesse then to suffer Scripture to be undiscernably corrupted in any matter of moment and yet to exact of men the beliefe of those verities which without their fault or knowledge or possibility of prevention were defac'd out of them So that God requiring of men to belieue Scripture in its purity ingages himselfe to see it preserv'd in sufficient purity and you need not feare but he will satisfie his ingagement You say we can haue no assurance of this but your Churches Vigilancie But if we had no other we were in a hard case for who could then assure us that your Church has been so vigilant as to guard Scripture from any the least alteration There being various Lections in the ancient copies of your Bibles what security can your new rail'd Office of Assurance giue us that that reading is true which you now receiue and that false which you reject Certainly they that anciently received and made use of these divers Copies were not all guarded by the Churches vigilancy from having their Scripture alter'd from the puritie of the Originall in many places For of different readings it is not in nature impossible that all should bee false but more then one cannot possibly be true Yet the want of such a protection was no hinderance to their salvation and why then shall the having of it be necessary for ours But then this Vigilancy of your Church what meanes haue we to be ascertain'd of it First the thing is not evident of it selfe which is evident because many doe not belieue it Neither can any thing be pretended to giue evidence to it but only some places of Scripture of whose incorruption more then any other what is it that can secure me If you say the Churches vigilancy you are in a Circle proving the Scriptures uncorrupted by the Churches vigilancy the Churches vigilancy by the incorruption of some places of Scripture and againe the incorruption of those places by the Churches vigilancy If you name any other meanes then that meanes which secures mee of the Scriptures incorruption in those places will also serue to assure me of the same in other places For my part abstracting from Divine Providence which will never suffer the way to Heaven to bee block'd up or made invisible I know no other meanes I meane no other naturall and rationall meanes to be assured hereof then I haue that any other Book is uncorrupted For though I haue a greater degree of rationall and humane Assurance of that then this in regard of divers considerations which make it more credible That the Scripture hath been preserv'd from any materiall alteration yet my assurance of both is of the same kinde and condition both Morall assurances and neither Physicall or Mathematicall 25 To the next Argument the Reply is obvious That though we doe not belieue the books of Scripture to be Canonicall because they say so For other books that are not Canonicall may say they are and those that are so may say nothing of it yet we belieue not this upon the authority of your Church but upon the Credibilitie of Vniversall Tradition which is a thing Credible of it selfe and therefore fit to bee rested on whereas the Authority of your Church is not so And therefore your rest thereon is not rationall but meerly voluntary I might as well rest upon the judgement of the next man I meet or upon the chance of a Lottery for it For by this meanes I only know I might erre but by relying on you I know I should erre But yet to returne you one suppose for another suppose I should for this and all other things submit to her direction how could shee assure mee that I should not be mis-led by doing so She pretends indeed infallibility herein but how can she assure us that she hath it What by Scriptureâ—
That you say cannot assure us of its own Infallibility and therefore not of yours What then by Reason That you say may deceiue in other things and why not in this How then will she assure us hereof By saying so Of this very affirmation there will remain the same Question still How it can proue it selfe to be infallibly true Neither can there be an end of the like multiplied Demands till we rest in somthing evident of it selfe which demonstrates to the world that this Church is infallible And seeing there is no such Rock for the Infallibility of this Church to be setled on it must of necessity like the Iland of Delos flote up and down for ever And yet upon this point according to Papists all other Controversies in faith depend 26 To they 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. § The summe and substance of the Ten next Paragraphs is this That it appeares by the Confessions of some Protestants and the Contentions of others that the Questions about the Canon of Scripture what it is and about the Various reading and Translations of it which is true and which not are not to bee determined by Scripture and therefore that all Controversies of Religion are not decidable by Scripture 27 To which I have already answered saying That when Scripture is affirm'd to be the rule by which all controversies of Religion are to be decided Those are to be excepted out of this generality which are concerning the Scripture it selfe For as that generall saying of Scripture He hath put all things under his feet is most true though yet S. Paul tels us That when it is said he hath put all things under him it is manifest he is excepted who did put all things under him So when we say that all controversies of Religion are decidable by the Scripture it is manifest to all but cavillers that we doe and must except from this generality those which are touching the Scripture it selfe Iust as a Merchant shewing a ship of his own may say all my substance is in this ship and yet never intend to deny that his ship is part of his substance nor yet to say that his ship is in it selfe Or as a man may say that a whole house is supported by the foundation and yet never mean to exclude the foundation from being a part of the house or to say that it is supported by it selfe Or as you your selves use to say that the Bishop of Rome is head of the whole Church and yet would think us but captious sophisters should we inferre from hence that either you made him no part of the whole or else made him head of himselfe Your negative conclusion therefore that these Questions touching Scripture are not decidable by Scripture you needed not have cited any Authorities nor urged any reason to prove it it is evident of it selfe and I grant it without more adoe But your corollary from it which you would insinuate to your unwary reader that therefore they are to be decided by your or any visible Church is a meere inconsequence and very like his collection who because Pamphilus was not to have Glycerium for his wife presently concluded that he must have her as if there had been no more men in the world but Pamphilus and himselfe For so you as if there were nothing in the world capable of this office but the Scripture or the present Church having concluded against Scripture you conceive but too hastily that you have concluded for the Church But the truth is neither the one nor the other have any thing to doe with this matter For first the Question whether such or such a book be Canonicall Scripture though it may be decided negatively out of Scripture by shewing apparent and irreconcileable contradictions between it and some other book confessedly Canonicall yet affirmatively it cannot but only by the testimonies of the ancient Churches any book being to be received as undoubtedly Canonicall or to be doubted of as uncertain or rejected as Apocryphall according as it was received or doubted of or rejected by them Then for the Question of various readings which is the true it is in reason evident and confessed by your own Pope that there is no possible determination of it but only by comparison with ancient Copies And lastly for controversies about different translations of Scripture the learned have the same meanes to satisfy themselves in it as in the Questions which happen about the translation of any other Author that is skill in the language of the Originall and comparing translations with it In which way if there be no certainty I would know what certainty you have that your Doway old and Rhemish new Testament are true translations And then for the unlearned those on your side are subject to as much nay the very same uncertainty with those on ours Neither is there any reason imaginable why an ignorant English Protestant may not be as secure of the translation of our Church that it is free from errour if not absolutely yet in matters of moment as an ignorant English Papist can be of his Rhemist Testament or Doway Bible The best direction I can give them is to compare both together and where there is no reall difference as in the translation of controverted places I believe there is very little there to be confident that they are right where they differ there to be prudent in the choice of the guides they follow Which way of proceeding if it be subject to some possible errour yet is it the best that either we or you have and it is not required that we use any better then the best we have 28 You will say Dependance on your Churches infallibility is a better I answere it would be so if we could be infallibly certaine that your Church is infallible that is if it were either evident of it selfe and seen by its own light or could be reduc'd unto and setled upon some Principle that is so But seeing you your selves doe not so much as pretend to enforce us to the belief hereof by any proofes infallible and convincing but only to induce us to it by such as are by your confession only probable and principall motives certainly it will be to very little purpose to put off your uncertainty for the first turne and to fall upon it at the second to please your selves in building your house upon an imaginary Rock when you your selves see and confesse that this very Rock stands it selfe at the best but upō a frame of timber I answer secondly that this cannot be a better way because we are infallibly certain that your Church is not infallible and indeed hath not the reall prescription of this priviledge but only pleaseth her selfe with a false imagination and vaine presumption of it as I shall hereafter demonstrate by many unanswerable arguments 29 Now seeing I make no scruple or difficulty to grant the conclusion of this discourse
Ancient and Primitive Church Which though it be but a highly probable inducement and no demonstrative enforcement yet me thinks you should not denie but it may be a sufficient ground of faith Whose Faith even of the Foundation of all your Faith your Churches Authority is built lastly and wholly upon Prudentiall Motives 36 But by this Rule the whole booke of Esther must quit the Canon because it was excluded by some in the Church by Melito Athanasius and Gregory Nazianzen Then for ought I know he that should thinke he had reason to exclude it now might be still in the Church as well as Melito Athanasius Nazianzen were And while you thus inveigh against Luther and charge him with Luciferian heresies for doing that which you in this very place confesse that Saints in Heaven before him have done are you not partiall and a Iudge of evill thoughts 37 Luther's censures of Ecclesiastes Iob and the Prophets though you make such tragedies with them I see none of them but is capable of a tolerable construction and far from having in them any fundamentall heresie He that condemnes him for saying the booke of Ecclesiastes is not full That it hath many abrupt things condemnes him for ought I can see for speaking truth And the rest of the censure is but a bold and blunt expression of the same thing The booke of Iob may be a true History and yet as many true stories are and haue been an Argument of a Fable to set before us an example of Patience And though the books of the Prophets were not written by themselves but by their Disciples yet it does not follow that they were written casually Though I hope you will not damne all for Heretikes that say some books of Scripture were written casually Neither is there any reason they should the sooner be call'd in question for being written by their Disciples seeing being so written they had attestation from themselues Was the Prophesie of Ieremie the lesse Canonicall for being written by Baruch Or because S. Peter the Master dictated the Gospell and S. Marke the Scholler writ it is it the more likely to be called in Question 38 But leaving Luther you returne to our English Canon of Scripture And tell us that in the new testament by the above mentioned rule of whose Authority was never any doubt in the Church divers books must be canoniz'd Not so For I may believe even those questioned bookes to have been written by the Apostles and to be Canonicall but I cannot in reason believe this of them so undoubtedly as of those books which were never questioned At least I have no warrant to damne any man that shall doubt of them or deny them now having the example of Saints in Heaven either to justify or excuse such their doubting or deniall 39 You observe in the next place that our sixt Article specifying by name all the bookes of the Old Tstament shâ—ffles over these of the New with this generality All the books of the New Testament as they are commonly received we doe receive and account them Canonicall And in this you phansy to your selfe a mystery of iniquity But if this be all the shuffling that the Church of England is guilty of I believe the Church as well as the King may give for her Motto Honi soit qui mal â— pense For all the Bibles which since the composing of the Articles have been used and allowed by the Church of England doe testify and even proclaime to the World that by CoÌ„monly received they meant received by the Church of Rome and other Churches before the Reformation I pray take the paines to look in them and there you shall finde the bookes which the Church of England counts Apocryphall marked out and severed from the rest with this title in the begining The bookes called Apocrypha and with this close or seal in the end The end of the Apocrypha And having told you by name and in particular what bookes only shee esteemes Apocryphall I hope you will not put her to the trouble of telling you that the rest are in her judgement Canonicall 40 But if by Commonly received shee meant by the Church of Rome Then by the same reason must she receive divers books of the old Testament which she reiects 41 Certainly a very good consequence The Church of England receives the Bookes of the New Testament which the Church of Rome receives Therefore she must receive the bookes of the old Testament which she receives As if you should say If you will doe as we in one thing you must in all things If you will pray to God with us ye must pray to Saints with us If you hold with us when we have reason on our side you must doe so when we have no reason 42 The discourse following is but a vaine declamation No man thinks that this Controversie is to be tryed by most voices but by the Iudgement and Testimony of the ancient Fathers and Churches 43 But with what Coherence can we say in the former part of the Article That by Scripture we mean those Bookes that were never doubted of and in the latter say We receive all the bookes of the new Testament as they are commonly received whereas of them many were doubted I answere When they say of whose authority there was never any doubt in the Church They mean not those only of whose Authority there was simply no doubt at all by any man in the Church But such as were not at any time doubted of by the whole Church or by all Churches but had attestation though not universall yet at least sufficient to make considering men receive them for Canonicall In which number they may well reckon those Epistles which were sometimes doubted of by some yet whose number and authority was not so great as to prevaile against the contrary suffrages 44 But if to be commonly received passefor a good rule to know the Canon of the new Testament by why not of the Old You conclude many times very well but still when you doe so it is out of principles which no man grants For who ever told you that to be commonly received is a good Rule to know the Canon of the New Testament by Have you been train'd up in Schooles of subtilty and cannot you see a great difference between these two We receive the bookes of the new Testament as they are commonly received and we receive those that are commonly received because they are so To say this were indeed to make being commonly received a Rule or Reason to know the Canon by But to say the former doth no more make it a Rule then you should make the Church of England the rule of your receiving them if you should say as you may The bookes of the New Testament we receive for Canonicall as they are received by the Church of England 45 You demand upon what infallible ground we agree with Luther against
you in some and with you against Luther in others And I also demand upon what infallible ground you hold your Canon agree neither with us nor Luther For sure your differing from us both is of it selfe no more apparently reasonable then our agreeing with you in part and in part with Luther If you say your Churches infallibility is your ground I demand againe some infallible ground both for the Churches infallibility and for this that Yours is the Church and shall never cease multiplying demands upon demands untill you settle me upon a Rock I mean giue such an Answer whose Truth is so evident that it needs no further evidence If you say This is Vniversall Tradition I reply your Churches infallibility is not built upon it and that the Canon of Scripture as we receiue it is For wee doe not professe our selues so absolutely and and undoubtedly certain neither doe we urge others to be so of those Books which haue been doubted as of those that never haue 46 The Conclusion of your Tenth § is That the Divinity of a writing cannot be known from it selfe alone but by some extrinsecall authority Which you need not proue for no wise man denies it But then this authority is that of Vniversall Tradition not of your Church For to me it is altogether as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Gospell of Saint Mathew is the word of God as that all which your Church saies is true 47 That Believers of the Scripture by considering the divine matter the excellent precepts the glorious promises contained in it may be confirmed in their faith of the Scriptures divine Authority that among other inducements and inforcements hereunto internall arguments haue their place and force certainly no man of understanding can deny For my part I professe if the doctrine of the Scripture were not as good and as fit to come from the fountain of goodnesse as the Miracles by which it was confirm'd were great I should want one main pillar of my faith and for want of it I feare should be much stagger'd in it Now this and nothing else did the Doctor mean in saying The Belieuer sees by that glorious beam of divine light which shines in Scripture and by many internall Arguments that the Scripture is of Divine Authority By this saith he he sees it that is hee is moved to and strengthned in his beliefe of it and by this partly not wholly by this not alone but with the concurrence of other Arguments He that will quarrell with him for saying so must finde fault with the Master of the Sentences and all his Schollers for they all say the same The rest of this Paragraph I am as willing it should be true◠as you are to haue it and so let it passe as a discourse wherein we are wholy unconcern'd You might haue met with an Answerer that would not haue suffred you to haue said so much Truth together but to me it is sufficient that it is nothing to the purpose 48 In the next Division out of your liberality you will suppose that Scripture like to a corporall light is by it selfe alone able to determine and moue our understanding to assent yet notwithstanding this supposall Faith still you say must goe before Scripture because as the light is visible only to those that haue eyes so the Scripture onely to those that haue the Eye of Faith But to my understanding if Scripture doe moue and determine our Vnderstanding to assent then the Scripture and its moving must be before this assent as the cause must bee before its own effect now this very assent is nothing else but Faith and Faith nothing else then the Vnderstanding's assent And therefore upon this supposall Faith doth and must originally proceed from Scripture as the effect from its proper cause and the influence and efficacy of Scripture is to be presuppos'd before the assent of faith unto which it moues and determines and consequently if this supposition of yours were true there should need no other meanes precedent to Scripture to beget Faith Scripture it selfe being able as here you suppose to determine and moue the understanding to assent that is to belieue them and the Verities contained in them Neither is this to say that the eyes with which we see are made by the light by which we see For you are mistaken much if you conceiue that in this comparison Faith answers to the Eye But if you will not pervert it the Analogie must stand thus◠Scripture must answer to light The eye of the soule that is the Vnderstanding or the faculty of assenting to the bodily eye And lastly assenting or believing to the act of seeing As therefore the light determining the Eye to see though it presupposes the Eye which it determines as every Action doth the object on which it is imployed yet it selfe is presuppos'd and antecedent to the act of seeing as the cause is alwaies to its effect So if you will suppose that Scripture like light moues the understanding to assent The Vnderstanding that 's the eye and object on which it works must bee before this influence upon it But the Assent that is the beliefe whereto the Scripture moues and the understanding is mov'd which answers to the act of seeing must come after For if it did assent already to what purpose should the Scripture doe that which was done before Nay indeed how were it possible it should be so any more then a Father can beget a Sonne that he hath already Or an Architect build an house that is built already Or then this very world can bee made againe before it be unmade Transubstantiation indeed is fruitfull of such Monsters But they that haue not sworne themselues to the defence of Errour will easily perceiue that I am factum facere and Factum infectum facere are equally impossible But I digresse 49 The close of this Paragraph is a fit cover for such a dish There you tell us That if there must be some other meanes precedent to Scripture to beget faith this can be no other then the Church By the Church we know you doe and must understand the Roman Church so that in effect you say no man can haue faith but he must bee mou'd to it by your Churches Authority And that is to say that the King and all other Protestants to whom you write though they verily think they are Christians belieue the Gospell because they assent to the truth of it and would willingly dye for it yet indeed are Infidels and belieue nothing The Scripture tells us The heart of man knoweth no man but the spirit of man which is in him And who are you to take upon you to make us belieue that we doe not belieue what we know we doe But if I may think verily that I belieue the Scripture and yet not belieue it how know you that you belieue the Roman Church I am as verily and as
strongly perswaded that I belieue the Scripture as you are that you belieue the Church And if I may be deceived why may not you Againe what more ridiculous and against sense and experience then to affirme That there are not millions amongst you and us that belieue upon no other reason then their education and the authority of their Parents and Teachers and the opinion they haue of them The tendernesse of the subject and aptnesse to receiue impressions supplying the defect and imperfection of the Agent And will you proscribe from heaven all those believers of your own Creed who doe indeed lay the foundation of their Faith for I cannot call it by any other name no deeper then upon the Authority of their Father or Master or parish Priest Certainly if these haue no true faith your Church is very full of Infidels Suppose Xaverius by the holynesse of his life had converted some Indians to Christianity who could for so I will suppose haue no knowledge of your Church but from him and therefore must last of all build their Faith of the Church upon their Opinion of Xaverius Doe these remain as very Pagans after their conversion as they were before Are they brought to assent in their soules and obey in their liues the Gospell of Christ only to be Tantaliz'd and not saved and not benefited but deluded by it because forsooth it is a man and not the Church that begets faith in them What if their motiue to beleeue be not in reason sufficient Doe they therefore not belieue what they doe belieue because they doe it upon insufficient motiues They choose the Faith imprudently perhaps but yet they doe choose it Vnlesse you will haue us belieue that that which is done is not done because it is not done upoÌ„ good reason which is to say that never any man living ever did a foolish action But yet I know not why the Authority of one holy man which apparently has no ends upon me joyn'd with the goodnesse of the Christian faith might not be a far greater and more rationall motiue to me to imbrace Christianity then any I can haue to continue in Paganisme And therefore for shame if not for loue of Truth you must recant this fancie when you write again and suffer true faith to be many times where your Churches infallibility has no hand in the begetting of it And be content to tell us hereafter that we belieue not enough and not goe about to perswade us we belieue nothing for feare with telling us what we know to be manifestly false you should gain only this Not to be believed when you speak truth Some pretty sophismes you may happily bring us to make us belieue we belieue nothing but wise men know that Reason against Experience is alwaies Sophisticall And therefore as he that could not answer Zenoe's subtilities against the existence of Motion could yet confute them by doing that which he pretended could not be done So if you should giue me a hundred Arguments to perswade me because I doe not belieue Transubstantiation I doe not believe in God and the Knots of them I could not untie yet I should cut them in peeces with doing that and knowing that I doe so which you pretend I cannot doe 50 In the thirteenth division we haue again much adoe about nothing A great deal of stirre you keep in confuting some that pretend to know Canonicall Scripture to be such by the Titles of the Books But these men you doe not name which makes me suspect you cannot Yet it is possible there may be some such men in the world for Gusman de Alfarache hath taught us that the Fooles hospitall is a large place 51 In the fourteenth § we haue very artificiall jugling D. Potter had said That the Scripture hee desires to bee understood of those books wherein all Christians agree is a principle and needs not be proved among Christians His reason was because that needs no farther proofe which is believed already Now by this you say he meanes either that the Scripture is one of these first Principles and most known in all sciences which cannot be proved which is to suppose it cannot be proved by the Church and that is to suppose the Question Or hee meanes That it is not the most known in Christianity then it may be prov'd Where we see plainly That two most different things Most known in all Sciences Most known in Christianity are captiously confounded 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 Christianity and in all Sciences were all one That Scripture is a Principle among Christians that is so received by all that it need not be proved in any emergent Controversie to any Christian but may be taken for granted I think few will deny You your selues are of this a sufficient Testimony for urging against us many texts of Scripture you offer no proofe of the truth of them presuming we will not question it Yet this is not to deny that Tradition is a Principle more knowne then Scripture But to say it is a principle not in Christianity but in Reason nor proper to Christians but common to all men 52 But it is repugnant to our practice to hold Scripture a Principle because we are wont to affirme that one part of Scripture may be knowne to be Canonicall and may be interpreted by another Where the former device is againe put in practice For to be known to be Canonicall and to be interpreted is not all one That Scripture may be interpreted by Scripture that Protestants grant and Papists doe not deny neither does that any way hinder but that this assertion Scripture is the word of God may be among Christians a common Principle But the first â—That one part of Scripture may proue another part Canonicall and need no proofe of its own being so for that you haue produc'd divers Protestants that deny it but who they are that affirme it nondum Constat 53 It is superfluous for you to proue out of S. Athanasius S. Austine that we must receiue the sacred Canon upon the credit of Gods Church Vnderstanding by Church as here you explaine your selfe The credit of Tradition And that not the Tradition of the Present Church which we pretend may deviate from the Ancient but such a Tradition which involues an evidence of Fact and from hand to hand from age to age bringing us up to the times and persons of the Apostles and our Saviour himselfe commeth to be confirm'd by all these Miracles and other Arguments whereby they convinc'd their doctrine to be true Thus you Now proue the Canon of Scripture which you receive by such Tradition and we will allow it Proue your whole doctrine or the infallibility of your Church by such a Tradition we will yeeld to you in all
things Take the alleaged places of S. Athanasius and S. Austine in this sense which is your own and they will not presse us any thing at all We will say with Athanasius That only foure Gospels are to be received because the Canons of the Holy and Catholique Church understand of all Ages since the perfection of the Canon haue so determined 54 We will subscribe to S. Austin and say That we also would not belieue the Gospell unlesse the Authority of the Catholique Church did moue us meaning by the Church the Church of all Ages and that succession of Christians which takes in Christ himselfe and his Apostles Neither would Zwinglius haue needed to cry out upon this saying had he conceived as you now doe that by the Catholique Church the Church of all Ages since Christ was to be understood As for the Councell of Carthage it may speak not of such Books only as were certainly Canonicall and for the regulating of Faith but also of those which were onely profitable and lawfull to be read in the Church Which in England is a very slender Argument that the book is Canonicall where every body knowes that Apocryphall books are read as well as Canonicall But howsoever if you understand by Fathers not only their immediate Fathers and Predecessors in the Gospell but the succession of them from the Apostles they are right in the Thesis that whatsoever is received from these Fathers as Canonicall is to be so esteem'd Though in the application of it to this or that particular book they may happily erre and think that Book received as Canonicall which was only received as Profitable to be read and think that Book received alwaies and by all which was rejected by some and doubted of by many 55 But we cannot be certain in what language the Scriptures remaine uncorrupted Not so certain I grant as of that which wee can demonstrate But certain enough morally certain as certain as the nature of the thing will beare So certain we may be and God requires no more We may be as certain as S. Austin was who in his second book of Baptisme against the Donatists c. 3. plainly implies the Scripture might possibly be corrupted He meanes sure in matters of little moment such as concerne not the Covenant between God and Man But thus he saith The same S. Austin in his 48. Epist. cleerly intimates That in his judgement the only preservatiue of the Scriptures integritie was the translating it into so many Languages and the generall and perpetuall use and reading of it in the Church for want whereof the works of particular Doctors were more exposed to danger in this kinde but the Canonicall Scripture being by this meanes guarded with universall care and diligence was not obnoxious to such attempts And this assurance of the Scripture's incorruption is common to us with him we therefore are as certain hereof as S. Austin was that I hope was certain enough Yet if this does not satisfie you I say farther We are as certain hereof as your own Pope Sixtus Quintus was He in his Preface to his Bible tells us That in the pervestigation of the true and genuine Text it was perspicuously manifest to all men that there was no Argument more â—â—rme and certain to be relied upon then the Faith of Ancient Books Now this ground wee haue to build upon as well as He had and therefore our certainty is as great and stands upon as certain ground as his did 56 This is not all I haue to say in this matter For I will adde moreover that we are as certaine in what Language the Scripture is uncorrupted as any man in your Church was untill Clement the 8th set forth your own approved Edition of your Vulgar translation For you doe not nor cannot without extreme impudence deny that untill then there was great variety of Copies currant in divers parts of your Church and those very frequent in various lections all which Copies might possibly be false in some things but more then one sort of them could not possibly be true in all things Neither were it lesse impudence to pretend that any man in your Church could untill Clement's time haue any certainty what that one true Copie and reading was if there were any one perfectly true Some indeed that had got Sixtus his Bible might after the Edition of that very likely think them selues cock-sure of a perfect true uncorrupted Translation without being beholding to Clement but how fowly they were abused and deceived that thought so the Edition of Clemens differing from that of Sixtus in a great multitude of places doth sufficiently demonstrate 57 This certainty therefore in what language the Scripture remaines uncorrupted is it necessary to haue it or is it not If it be not I hope we may doe well enough without it If it be necessary what became of your Church for 1500 yeares together All which time you must confesse she had no such certainty no one man being able truly and upon good ground to say This or that Copy of the Bible is pure and perfect and uncorrupted in all things And now at this present though some of you are growne to a higher degree of Presumption in this point yet are you as farre as ever from any true and reall and rationall assurance of the absolute purity of your Authentique Translation which I suppose my selfe to haue prou'd unanswerably in divers places 58 In the sixteenth Division It is objected to Protestants in a long discourse transcrib'd out of the Protestants Apologie That their translations of the Scripture are very different and by each other mutually condemned Luthers Translation by Zwinglius and others That of the Zwinglians by Luther The Translation of Oecolampadius by the Divines of Basill that of Castalio by Beza That of Beza by Castalio That of Calvin by Carolus Molinaeus That of Geneva by M. Parks King Iames. And lastly one of our Translations by the Puritans 59 All which might haue been as justly objected against that great variety of Translations extant in the Primitive Church mâ—de use of by the Fathers and Doctors of it For which I desire not that my word but S. Austin's may be taken They which haue translated the Scriptures out of the Hebrew into Greek may be numbred but the Latine Interpreters are innumerable For whensoever any one in the first times of Christianity met with a Greek Bible and seem'd to himselfe to haue some ability in both Languages he presently ventur'd upon an Interpretation So He in his second book of Christian doctrine Cap. 11. Of all these that which was called the Italian Translation was esteemed best so we may learne from the same S. Austin in the 15. Chap. of the same book Amongst all these Interpretations saith he let the Italian be preferr'd for it keeps closer to the Letter and is perspicuous in the sense Yet so farre was the Church of that time
not so as if they did deny that some places might be translated more plainly some more properly whereof it were easy to produce innumerable examples And this he there professes to have learnt of Laines the then Generall of the Society who was a great part of that Councell present at all the Actions of it and of very great authority in it 77 To this so great authority he addes a reason of his opinion which with all indifferent men will be of a farre greater authority If the Councell saith he had purposed to approve an Edition in all respects and to make it of equall authority and credit with the Fountaines certainly they ought with exact care first to have corrected the errors of the Interpreter which certainly they did not 78 Lastly Bellarmine himselfe though he will not acknowledge any imperfection in the Vulgar Edition yet he acknowledges that the case may and does oft-times so fall out that it is impossible to discerne which is the true reading of the Vulgar Edition but only by recourse unto the Originalls and dependance upon them 79 From all which it may evidently be collected that though some of you flatter your selves with a vain imagination of the certain absolute purity and perfection of your Vulgar Edition yet the matter is not so certain and so resolved but that the best learned men amongst you are often at a stand and very doubtfull sometimes whether your Vulgar translation be true and sometimes whether this or that be your Vulgar Translatiō sometimes undoubtedly resolved that your Vulgar Translation is no true Translation nor consonant to the Originall as it was at first delivered And what thē can be alleadged but that out of your own grounds it may be inferred inforced upon you that not only in your Lay-men but your Clergy men Schollers Faith Truth and Salvation all depends upon fallible uncertain grounds And thus by ten severall retortions of this one Argument I have endeavoured to shew you how ill you have complyed with your own advise which was to take heed of urging arguments that might be return'd upon you I should now by a direct answer shew that it presseth not us at all but I have in passing done it already in the end of the second retortion of this argument and thither I referre the Reader 80 Whereas therefore you exhort them that will have assurance of true Scriptures to fly to your Church for it I desire to know if they should follow your advise how they should be assured that your Church can give them any such assurance which hath been confessedly so negligent as to suffer many whole books of Scripture to be utterly lost Again in those that remain confessedly so negligent as to suffer the Originalls of these that remain to be corrupted And lastly so carelesse of preserving the integrity of the Copies of her Translation as to suffer infinite variety of Readings to come in to them without keeping any one perfect Copy which might have been as the Standard and Polycletus his Canon to correct the rest by So that which was the true reading and which the false it was utterly undiscernable but only by comparing them with the Originalls which also she pretends to be corrupted 81 But Luther himselfe by unfortunate experience was at length enforced to confesse thus much saying If the world last longer it will be again necessary to receive the Decrees of Councells by reason of divers interpretations of Scripture which now reigne 82 And what if Luther having a Pope in his belly as he was wont to say that most men had and desiring perhaps to have his own interpretations passe without examining spake such words in heat of Argument Doe you think it reasonable that we should subscribe to Luther's divinations and angry speeches will you oblige your selfe to answer for all the assertions of your private Doctors If not why doe you trouble us with what Luther saies and what Calvin saies Yet this I say not as if these words of Luther made any thing at all for your present purpose For what if he feared or pretended to feare that the infallibility of Councells being rejected some men would fall into greater errors then were impos'd upon them by the Councells Is this to confesse that there is any present visible Church upon whose bare Authority we may infallibly receive the true Scriptures and the true sense of them Let the Reader judge But in my opinion to feare a greater inconvenience may follow from the avoiding of the lesse is not to confesse that the lesse is none at all 83 For D. Covels commending your Translation what is it to the businesse in hand or how proves it the perfection of it which is here contested any more then S. Augustine's commending the Italian Translation argues the perfection of that or that there was no necessity that S. Hierome should correct it D. Covell commends your Translation and so does the Bishop of Chichester and so does D. Iames and so doe I. But I commend it for a good Translation not for a perfect Good may be good and deserve commendations and yet better may be better And though he saies that the then approved Translation of the Church of England is that which cōmeth nearest the Vulgar yet he does not say that it agrees exactly with it So that whereas you inferre that the truth of your Translation must be the Rule to judge of the goodnesse of ours this is but a vain florish For to say of our Translations That is the best which comes nearest the Vulgar and yet it is but one man that saies so is not to say it is therefore the best because it does so For this may be true by accident and yet the truth of our Translation no way depend upon the truth of yours For had that been their direction they would not only have made a Translation that should come neere to yours but such a one which should exactly agree with it and be a Translation of your Translation 84 Ad 17. § In this Division you charge us with great uncertainty concerning the true meaning of Scripture Which hath been answered already by saying That if you speak of plain places and in such all things necessary are contained we are sufficiently certain of the meaning of them neither need they any Interpreter If of obscure and difficult places we confesse we are uncertaine of the sense of many of them But then we say there is no necessity we should be certain For if Gods will had been we should haue understood him more certainly he would haue spoken more plainly And we say besides that as we are uncertain so are You too which he that doubts of let him read your Commentators upon the Bible and obserue their various and dissonant interpretations and he shall in this point need no further satisfaction 85 But seeing there are contentions among us we are taught by nature
That the Church shall be infallibly guarded from giving any false sense of any Scripture and not infallibly assisted positively to give the true sense of all Scripture I put to you your own Question why should we believe the Holy Ghost will stay there Or why may we not as well think he will stay at the first thing that is in teaching the Church what Bookes be true Scripture For if the Holy Ghosts assistance be promised to all things profitable then will he be with them infallibly not only to guard them from all errors but to guide them to all profitable truths such as the true senses of all Scripture would be Neither could he stay there but defend them irresistibly from all Vices Nor there neither but infuse into them irresistibly all Vertues for all these things would be much for the benefit of Christians If you say he cannot doe this without taking away their free will in living I say neither can he necessitate men to believe aright without taking away their freewill in believing and in professing their belief 97 To the place of S. Austine I answere That not the authority of the present Church much lesse of a Part of it as the Roman Church is was that which alone mov'd Saint Austine to believe the Gospell but the perpetuall Tradition of the Church of all Ages Which you your selfe have taught us to be the only Principle by which the Scripture is prov'd and which it selfe needs no proof and to which you have referred this very saying of S. Austine Ego vero Evangelio non crederem nisi c. p. 55. And in the next place which you cite out of his book De Vtil Cred. c. 14. he shewes that his motives to believe were Fame Celebrity Consent Antiquity And seeing this Tradition this Consent this Antiquity did as fully and powerfully move him not to believe Manichaeus as to believe the Gospell the Christian Tradition being as full against Manichaeus as it was for the Gospell therefore he did well to conclude upon these grounds that he had as much reason to disbelieve Manichaeus as to believe the Gospell Now if you can truly say that the same Fame Celebrity Consent Antiquity that the same Vniversall and Originall Tradition lyes against Luther and Calvin as did against Manichaeus you may doe well to apply the Argument against them otherwise it will be to little purpose to substitute their names in steade of Manichaeus unlesse you can shew the thing agrees to them as well as him 98 If you say that S. Austin speakes here of the authority of the Present Church abstracting from consent with the Ancient and therefore you seeing you have the present Church on your side against Luther and Calvin as S. Austin against Manichaeus may urge the same words against them which S. Austin did against him 99 I answer First that it is a vaine presumption of yours that the Catholique Church is of your side Secondly that if S. Austine speake here of that present Church which moved him to believe the Gospel without consideration of the Antiquity of it its both Personall and Doctrinall succession from the Apostles His argument will be like a Buskin that will serve anylegge It will serve to keepe an Arrian or a Grecian from being a Roman Catholique as well as a Catholique from being an Arrian or a Grecian In as much as the Arrians and Grecians did pretend to the title of Catholiques and the Church as much as the Papists now doe If then you should haue come to an ancient Goth or Vandall whom the Arrians converted to Christianity and should haue mov'd him to your Religion might he not say the very same words to you as S. Austin to the Manichaeans I would not beleive the Gospell unlesse the authority of the Church did move me Them therefore whom I obeyed saying beleive the Gospell why should I not obey saying to me doe not beleive the Homoousians Choose what thou pleasest if thou shalt say beleive the Arrians they warne me not to give any credit to you If therefore I beleive them I cannot beleive thee If thou say doe not beleive the Arriās thou shalt not doe well to force me to the faith of the Homoousians because by the preaching of the Arrians I beleived the Gospell it selfe If you say you did well to beleive them commending the Gospell but you did not well to beleive them discommending the Homoousians Doest thou think me so very foolish that without any reason at all I should beleive what thou wilt and not beleive what thou wilt not It were easie to put these words into the mouth of a Grecian Abyssine Georgian or any other of any Religion And I pray bethinke your selves what you would say to such a one in such a case and imagine that we say the very same to you 100 Whereas you aske Whether Protestants doe not perfectly resemble those men to whom S. Austine spake when they will have men to believe the Roman Church delivering Scripture but not to believe her condemning Luther I demand againe whether you be well in your wits to say that Protestants would have men believe the Roman Church delivering Scripture whereas they accuse her to deliver many bookes for Scripture which are not so and doe not bid men to receive any book which she delivers for that reason because she delivers it And if you meant only Protestants will have men to believe some bookes to be Scripture which the Roman Church delivers for such may not we then aske as you doe Doe not Papists perfectly resemble these men which will have men believe the Church of England delivering Scripture but not to believe her condemning the Church of Rome 101 And whereas you say S. Austine may seeme to have spoken Prophetically against Protestants when he said Why should I not most diligently enquire what Christ commanded of them before all others by whose Authority I was moved to believe that Christ Commanded any good thing I answer Vntill you can shew that Protestants believe that Christ commanded any good thing that is That they believe the truth of Christian Religion upon the Authority of the Church of Rome this place must be wholly impertinent to your purpose which is to make Protestants believe your Church to be the infallible expounder of Scriptures and judge of Controversies nay rather is it not directly against your purpose For why may not a member of the Church of England who received his baptisme education and Faith from the Ministery of this Church say just so to you as S. Austine here to the Manichees Why should I not most diligently inquire what Christ commanded of them the Church of England before all others by whose Authority I was mov'd to believe that Christ commanded any good thing Can you F. or K. or whosoever you are better declare to me what he said whom I would not have thought to have been or to be if the belief
thereof had been recommended by you to me This therefore that Christ Iesus did those miracles and taught that Doctrine which is contained evidently in the undoubted Bookes of the New Testament I believed by Fame strengthned with Celebrity Consent even of those which in other things are at infinite variance one with another and lastly by Antiquity which gives an universall and a constant attestation to them But every one may see that you so few in comparison of all those upon whose consent we ground our belief of Scripture so turbulent that you damne all to the fire and to Hell that any way differ from you that you professe it is lawfull for you to use violence and power whensoever you can have it for the planting of your own doctrine and the extirpation of the contrary lastly so new in many of your Doctrines as in the lawfulnesse and expedience of debarring the Laity the Sacramentall Cup the lawfulnesse and expedience of your Latine Service Transubstantiation Indulgences Purgatory the Popes infallibility his Authority over Kings c. so new I say in comparison of the undoubted bookes of Scripture which evidently containeth or rather is our Religion and the sole and adequate object of our faith I say every one may see that you so few so turbulent so new can produce nothing deserving Authority with wise and considerate men What madnesse is this Believe them the consent of Christians which are now and have been ever since Christ in the World that we ought to believe Christ but learn of us what Christ said which contradict and damne all other parts of Christendome Why I beseech you Surely if they were not at all and could not teach me any thing I would more easily perswade my selfe that I were not to believe in Christ then that I should learn any thing concerning him from any other then them by whom I believed him at least then that I should learn what his Religion was from you who have wronged so exceedingly his Miracles and his Doctrine by forging so evidently so many false Miracles for the Confirmation of your new Doctrine which might give us just occasion had we no other assurance of them but your Authority to suspect the true ones Who with forging so many false Stories and false Authors have taken a faire way to make the faith of all Stories questionable if we had no other ground for our belief of them but your Authority who have brought in Doctrines plainly and directly contrary to that which you confesse to be the word of Christ 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 suspicious men believe that Christian Religion was a humane invention taught by some cunning Impostors only to make themselves rich and powerfull who make a profession of corrupting all sorts of Authors a ready course to make it justly questionable whether any remain uncorrupted For if you take this Authority upon you upon the sixe Ages last past how shall we know that the Church of that time did not usurpe the same authority upon the Authors of the sixe last Ages before them and so upwards untill we come to Christ himselfe Whose question'd Doctrines none of them came from the fountain of Apostolike tradition but have 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 Embrio's yet hatching and in the shell as the Popes infallibility the Blessed Virgins immaculate conception the Popes power over the Temporalties of Kings the Doctrine of Predetermination c. all which yet are or in time may be impos'd upon Christians under the Title of Originall and Apostolike Tradition and that with that necessity that they are told they were as good believe nothing at all as not believe these things to have come from the Apostles which they know to have been brought in but yesterday which whether it be not a ready and likely way to make men conclude thus with themselves I am told that I were as good believe nothing at all as believe some points which the Church teaches me and not others somethings which she teaches to be Ancient and Certain I plainly see to be New False therefore I will believe nothing at all Whether I say the foresaid grounds be not a ready and likely way to make men conclude thus and whether this conclusion be not too often made in Italy Spain and France and in England too I leave it to the judgement of those that have wisdome and experience Seeing therefore the Roman Church is so farre 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 receive not the knowledge of Christ and Scriptures from the Church of Rome neither from her must we take his Doctrine or the Interpretation of Scripture 102 Ad. § 19. In this number this Argument is contained The Iudge of Controversies ought to be intelligible to learned and unlearned The Scripture is not so and the Church is so Therefore the Church is the Iudge and not the Scripture 103 To this I answere As to be understandible is a condition requisite to a Iudge so is not that alone sufficient to make a Iudge otherwise you might make your selfe Iudge of Controversies by arguing The Scripture is not intelligible by all but I am therefore I am Iudge of Controversies If you say your intent was to conclude against the Scripture and not for the Church I demand why then but to delude the simple with sophistry did you say in the close of this § Such is the Church and the Scripture is not such but that you would leave it to them to inferre in the end which indeed was more then you undertook in the beginning Therefore the Church is Iudge and the Scripture not I say Secondly that you still runne upon a false supposition that God hath appointed some Iudge of all Controversies that may happen among Christians about the sense of obscure Texts of Scripture whereas he has left every one to his liberty herein in those words of S. Paul Quisque abundet in sensu suo c. I say thirdly Whereas some Protestants make the Scripture Iudge of Controversies that they have the authority of Fathers of warrant their manner of speaking as of Optatus 104 But speaking truly and properly the Scripture is not a Iudge nor cannot be but only a sufficient Rule for those to judge by that believe it to be the word of God as the Church of England and the Church of Rome both doe what they are to believe and what they are not to believe I say sufficiently perfect and sufficiently intelligible in things necessary to all that have
understanding whether they be learned or unlearned And my reason hereof is convincing and Demonstrative because nothing is necessary to be believed but what is plainly revealed For to say that when a place of Scripture by reason of ambiguous termes lies indifferent between divers senses whereof one is true and the other is false that God obliges men under pain of damnation not to mistake through error and humane frailty is to make God a Tyrant and to say that he requires us certainly to attain that end for the attaining whereof we have no certain meanes which is to say that like Pharaoh he gives no straw and requires brick that he reapes where he sowes not that he gathers where he strewes not that he will not be pleas'd with our utmost endeavours to please him without full and exact and never failing performance that his will is we should doe what he knowes we cannot doe that he will not accept of us according to that which we have but requireth of us what we have not Which whether it can consist with his goodnes with his wisdome with his word I leave it to honest men to judge If I should send a servant to Paris or Rome or lerusalem and he using his utmost diligence not to mistake his way yet notwithstanding meeting often with such places where the road is divided into severall waies whereof every one is as likely to be true and as likely to be false as any other should at length mistake and goe out of the way would not any man say that I were an impotent foolish and unjust master if I should be offended with him for doing so And shall we not tremble to impute that to God which we would take in foule scorne if it were imputed to our selves Certainly I for my part fear I should not loue God if I should think so strangely of him 105 Againe When you say that unlearned and ignor an t men cannot understand Scripture I would desire you to come out of the clouds and tell us what you meane Whether that they cannot understand all Scripture or that they cannot understand any Scripture or that they cannot understand so much as is sufficient for their direction to Heaven If the first I believe the Learned are in the same case If the Second every mans experience will confute you for who is there that is not capable of a sufficient understanding of the Story the Precepts the Promises and the Threats of the Gospell If the third that they may understand something but not enough for their Salvations I aske you first Why then doth S. Paul say to Timothy The Scriptures are able to make him wise unto Salvation Why does Saint Austine say Eaquae manifestâ— posita sunt in sacris Scripturis omnia continent quae pertinent and Fidem Moresque vivendi Why does every one of the four Evangelists intitle their book The Gospell if any necessary and essentiall part of the Gospell were left out of it Can we imagine that either they omitted something necessary out of ignorance not knowing it to be necessary Or knowing it to be so malitiously concealed it Or out of negligence ' did the work they had undertaken by halfes If none of these things can without Blasphemy be imputed to them considering they were assisted by the Holy Ghost in this work then certainly it most evidently followes that every one of them writ the whole Gospell of Christ I mean all the essentiall and necessary parts of it So that if we had no other book of Scripture but one of them alone we should not want any thing necessary to Salvation And what one of them has more then another it is only profitable and not necessary Necessary indeed to be believed because revealed but not therefore revealed because necessary to be believed 106 Neither did they write only for the learned but for all men This being one especial meanes of the preaching of the Gospel which was commanded to be preached not only to learned men but to all men And therefore unlesse we will imagine the Holy Ghost and them to have been wilfully wanting to their own desire and purpose we must conceive that they intended to speak plain even to the capacity of the simplest at least touching all things necessary to be published by them and believed by us 107 And whereas you pretend it is so easie and obvious both for the learned and the ignorant both to know which is the Church and what are the Decrees of the Church and what is the sense of those Decrees I say this is a vaine pretense 108 For first How shall an unlearned man whom you haue supposed now ignorant of Scripture how shall he know which of all the Societies of Christians is indeed the Church You will say perhaps he must examine them by the notes of the Church which are perpetuall Visibilitie Succession Conformitie with the ancient Church c. But how shall he know first that these are the notes of the Church unlesse by Scripture which you say he understands not You may say perhaps he may be told so But seeing men may deceive and be deceived and their words are no demonstrations how shall he be assured that what they say is true So that at the first he meets with an impregnable difficulty and cannot know the Church but by such notes which whether they be the notes of the Church he cannot possibly know But let us suppose this Isthmus digged through and that he is assured these are the notes of the true Church How can he possible be a competent Iudge which society of Christians hath title to these notes and which hath not Seeing this triall of necessity requires a great sufficiency of knowledge of the monuments of Christian Antiquity which no unlearned can haue because he that hath it cannot be unlearned As for example how shall he possibly be able to know whether the Church of Rome hath had a perpetuall Succession of Visible Professors which held alwayes the same Doctrine which they now hold without holding any thing to the contrary unlesse 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 work then 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 understanding may judge 108 Let us imagine him advanc'd a step farther and to know which is the Church how shall he know what that Church hath decreed seeing the Church hath not been so carefull in keeping of her decrees but that many are lost and many corrupted Besides when even the Learned among you are not agreed concerning divers things whether they be De Fide or not how shall the unlearned doe Then for the sense of the Decrees how can he be more capable of the understanding of them then
doubtfull whether they be spoken of the Church of Christ if they be whether they mean as you pretend You say the Church saies so which is infallible Yea but that is the Question and therefore not to be begg'd but proved Neither is it so evident as to need no proofe otherwise why brought you this Text to proue it Nor is it of such a strange quality aboue all other Propositions as to bee able to proue it selfe What then remaines but that you say Reasons drawn out of the Circumstances of the Text will evince that this is the sense of it Perhaps they will But Reasons cannot convince mee unlesse I judge of them by my Reason and for every man or woman to relye on that in the choice of their Religion and in the interpreting of Scripture you say is a horrible absurditie and therefore must neither make use of your own in this matter nor desire mee to make use of it 119 But Vniversall Tradition you say and so doe I too is of it selfe credible and that has in all ages taught the Churches infallibility with full consent If it haue I am ready to belieue it But that it has I hope you would not haue me take upon your word for that were to build my selfe upon the Church and the Church upon You. Let then the Tradition appeare for a secret Tradition is somewhat like a silent Thunder You will perhaps produce for the confirmation of it some sayings of some Fathers who in every Age taught this Doctrine as Gualterius in his Chronologie undertakes to doe but with so ill successe that I heard an able Man of your Religion professe that in the first three Centuries there was not one Authority pertinent but how will you warrant that none of them teach the contrary Again how shall I be assured that the places haue indeed this sense in them Seeing there is not one Father for 500. yeares after Christ that does say in plain termes The Church of Rome is infallible What shall wee belieue your Church that this is their meaning But this will be again to goe into the Circle which made us giddy before To proue the Church Infallible because Tradition saies so Tradition to say so because the Fathers say so The Fathers to say so because the Church saies so which is infallible Yea but reason will shew this to be the meaning of them Yes if we may use our Reason and rely upon it Otherwise as light shewes nothing to the blinde or to him that uses not his eyes so reason cannot proue any thing to him that either has not or uses not his reason to judge of them 120 Thus you haue excluded your selfe from all proofe of your Churches infallibility from Scripture or Tradition And if you flye lastly to Reason it selfe for succour may not it justly say to you as Iephte said to his Brethren Yee haue cast me out and banished me and doe you now come to me for succour But if there be no certainty in Reason how shall I be assured of the certainty of those which you alleage for this purpose Either I may judge of them or not if not why doe you propose them If I may why doe you say I may not and make it such a monstrous absurdity That men in the choyce of their Religion should make use of their Reason which yet without all question none but unreasonable men can deny to haue been the chiefest ende why Reason was given them 122 Ad § 22. An Heretique he is saith D. Potter who opposeth any truth which to be a divine revelation he is convinced in conscience by any meanes whatsoever Be it by a Preacher or Lay-man be it by reading Scripture or hearing them read And from hence you infer that he makes all these safe propounders of Faith A most strange and illogicall deduction For may not a private man by evident reason convince another man that such or such a Doctrine is divine revelation and yet though he be a true propounder in this point yet propound another thing falsely and without proofe and consequently not be a safe propounder in every point Your Preachers in their Sermons do they not propose to men divine Revelations and doe they not sometimes convince men in conscience by evident proofe from Scripture that the things they speak are Divine revelations And whosoever being thus convinc'd should oppose this Divine revelation should hee not be an Heretique according to your own grounds for calling Gods own Truth into question And would you think your selfe well dealt with if I should collect from hence that you make every Preacher a safe that is an infallible Propounder of Faith Be the meanes of Proposall what it will sufficient or insufficient worthy of credit or not worthy though it were if it were possible the barking of a Dog or the chirping of a Bird or were it the discourse of the Divell himselfe yet if I be I will not say convinc'd but persuaded though falsly that it is a Divine revelation and shall deny to belieue it I shall be a formall though not a materiall Heretique For he that believes though falsly any thing to be Divine revelation yet will not believe it to be true must of necessity believe God to be false which according to your own Doctrine is the formality of an Heretique 123 And how it can be any way advantagious to Civill government that men without warrant from God should usurpe a tyranny over other mens consciences and prescribe unto them without reason and sometimes against reason what they shall believe you must shew us plainer if you desire we should believe For to say Verily I doe not see but that it must be so is no good demonstration For whereas you say that a man may be a passionate seditious creature from whence you would have us inferre that he may make use of his interpretation to satisfie his passion and raise sedition There were some colour in this consequence if we as you doe made private men infallible interpreters for others for then indeed they might lead Disciples after them and use them as instruments for their vile purposes But when we say they can only interpret for themselves what harme they can doe by their passionate or seditious interpretations but only endanger both their temporall and eternall happinesse I cannot imagine For though we deny the Pope or Church of Rome to be an infallible Iudge yet we doe not deny but that there are Iudges which may proceed with certainty enough against all seditious Persons such as draw men to disobedience either against Church or State as well as against Rebells and Traytors and Theeves and Murderers 124 Ad § 23. The next § in the begining argues thus For many ages there was no Scripture in the World and for many more there was none in many places of the world yet men wanted not then and then some certain direction what to believe
know we doe so Our Saviour our only hath left a generall injunction by S. Paul Let All things bee done decently and in Order But what Order is fittest i. e. what Time what Place what Manner c. is fittest that he hath left to the discretion of the Governers of the Church But if you mean that hee hath only concerning maters of faith the subject in Question prescribed in generall that we are to heare the Church and left it to the Church to determine what particulars we are to belieue The Church being nothing else but an aggregation of Believers this in effect is to say He hath left it to all Believers to determine what Particulars they are to believe Besides it is so apparently false that I wonder you could content your selfe or think we should be contented with a bare saying without any shew or pretence of proofe 143 As for D. Potters objection against this Argument That as well you might inferre that Christians must haue all one King because the Iewes had so For ought I can perceive notwithstanding any thing answered by you it may stand still in force though the truth is it is urg'd by him not against the Infallibility but the Monarchy of the Church For whereas you say the disparity is very cleare Hee that should urge this argument for one Monarch over the whole world would say that this is to deny the Conclusion and reply unto you that there is disparity as matters are now order'd but that there should not be so For that there was no more reason to believe that the Ecclesiasticall government of the Iews was a Pattern for the Ecclesiasticall government of Christians then the Civill of the Iewes for the Civill of the Christians He would tell you that the Church of Christ and all Christian Commonwealths and Kingdomes are one and the same thing and therefore he sees no reason why the Synagogue should be a Type and Figure of the Church and not of the Commonwealth He would tell you that as the Church succeeded the Iewish Synagogue so Christian Princes should succeed to Iewish Magistrates that is the Temporal Governours of the Church should be Christians He would tell you that as the Church is compar'd to a house a Kingdome an Army a Body so all distinct Kingdomes might and should be one Armie one Familie c. and that it is not so is the thing he complaines of And therefore you ought not to think it enough to say it is not so but you should shew why it should not be so and why this argument will not follow The Iewes had one King therefore all Christians ought to haue as well as this The Iewes had one High Priest over them all therefore all Christians also ought to haue Hee might tell you moreover that the Church may haue one Master one Generall one Head one King and yet he not be the Pope but Christ. He might tell you that you beg the Question in saying without proof that it is necessary to salvation that all whether Christians or Churches have recourse to one Church if you mean by one Church one particular Church which is to govern and direct all others and that unlesse you mean so you say nothing to the purpose And besides he might tell you and that very truly that it may seeme altogether as available for the Temporall good of Christians to be under one Temporall Prince or Comonwealth as for their salvatiō to be subordinate to one Visible Head I say as necessary both for the prevention of the effusion of the Blood of Christians by Christians for the defence of Christendome from the hostile invasions of Turks Pagans And frō al this he might infer that though now by the fault of men there were in severall Kingdomes severall Lawes Governments and Powers yet that it were much more expedient that there were but one Nay not only expedient but necessary if once your ground be setled for a generall rule that what kinde of government the Iewes had that the Christians must haue And if you limit the generality of this Proposition and frame the Argument thus What kinde of Ecclesiasticall government the Iews had that the Christians must haue But They were governed by one High Priest therefore These must be so He will say that the first proposition of this syllogisme is altogether as doubtfull as the conclusion and therefore neither fit nor sufficient to prove it untill it selfe be proved And then besides that there is as great reason to believe this That what kinde of Civill government the Iews had that the Christians must haue And so D. Potters objection remaines still unanswered That there is as much reason to conclude a necessity of one King over all Christian Kingdomes from the Iews having one King as one Bishop over all Churches from their being under our High Priest 144 Ad § 24. Neither is this Discourse confirm'd by Irenaeus at all Whether by this discourse you mean that immediatly forgoing of the analogy between the Church and the Synagogue to which this speech of Irenaeus alleadged here by you is utterly and plainly impertinent Or whether by this discourse you mean as I think you doe not your discourse but your conclusion which you discourse on that is that Your Church is the infallible Iudge in Controversies For neither has Irenaeus one syllable to this purpose neither can it be deduced out of what he saies with any colour of consequence For first in saying What if the Apostles had not left Scripture ought we not to have followed the order of Tradition And in saying That to this order many Nations yeild assent who believe in Christ having Salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit of God without Letters or Inke and diligently keeping ancient Tradition Doth he not plainly shew that the Tradition he speakes of is nothing else but the very same that is written nothing but to believe in Christ To which whether Scripture alone to them that believe it be not a sufficient guide I leave it to you to judge And are not his wordes just as if a man should say If God had not given us the light of the Sunne we must have made use of candles and torches If we had had no eyes we must have felt out our way If we had no leggs we must have used crutches And doth not this in effect import that while we have the Sunne we need no candles While we have 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 have followed Tradition and they that have none doe well to doe so doth he not plainly import that to them that have Scripture and believe it Tradition is unnecessary which could not be if the Scripture did not contain evidently the whole tradition Which whether Irenaeus believed or no these words
know it to be so because the Church saies so which is Infallible If I aske what meane You by your Church You can tell me nothing but the company of Christians which adhere to the Pope I demaund then lastly Why should I beleive this company to be the infallible Propounder of Divine Revelation And then you tell me that there are many Motives to induce a man to this beleife But are these Motives lastly infallible No say you but very credible Well let them passe for such because now we have not leasure to examine them Yet me thinks seeing the Motives to believe the Churches infallibility are only very credible it should also be but as credible that your Church is Infallible and as credible and no more perhaps somewhat lesse that her proposals particularly Transubstantiation are Divine Revelations And me thinks You should require only a Morall and modest assent to them and not a Divine as you call it and infallible Faith But then of these Motives to the Churches Infallibility I hope you will give us leave to consider and judge whether they be indeed Motives and sufficient or whether they be not Motives at all or not sufficient or whether these Motives or inducements to your Church be not impeached and opposed with Compulsives and enforcements from it or lastly whether these Motives which You use be not indeed only Motives to Christianity and not to Popery giue me leave for distinction sake to call your Religion so If we may not judge of these things how can my judgment be moved with that which comes not within its cognizance If I may then at least I am to be a Iudge of all these Controversies 1. Whether every one of these Motives be indeed a Motive to any Church 2. If to some whether to Yours 3. If to Yours whether sufficient or insufficient 4. Whether other Societies haue not as many and as great Motives to draw me to them 5. Whether I haue not greater reason to beleive you doe erre then that you cannot And now Sir I pray let me trouble You with a few more Questions Am I a sufficient Iudge of these Controversies or no If of these why shall I stay here why not of others Why not of all Nay doth not the true examining of these few containe and lay upon me the examination of all What other Motives to your Church have you but your Notes of it Bellarmine gives some 14. or 15. And one of these fifteene containes in it the examination of all controversies and not only so but of all uncontroverted Doctrines For how shall I or can I know the Church of Romes conformity with the Ancient Church unlesse I know first what the Ancient Church hid hold and then what the Church of Rome doth hold and lastly whether they be conformable or if in my judgment they seeme not conformable I am then to think the Church of Rome not to be the Church for want of the Note which she pretends is proper and perpetuall to it So that for ought I can see Iudges we are and must be of all sides every one for himselfe and God for us all 155 Ad § 26. I answere This assertion that Scripture alone is Iudge of all Controversies in Faith if it be taken properly is neither a Fundamentall nor Vnfundamentall point of Faith nor no point of Faith at all but a plaine falshood It is not a Iudge of Controversies but a Rule to Iudge them by and that not an absolutly perfect Rule but as perfect as a written Rule can be which must alwayes need something else which is either evidently true or evidently credible to give attestation to it and that in this case is Vniversall Tradition So that Vniversall Tradition is the Rule to judge all Controversies by But then because nothing besides Scripture comes to us with as full a streame of Tradition as Scripture Scripture alone and no unwritten Doctrine nor no Infallibility of any Church having attestation from Tradition truely Vniversall for this reason we conceive as the Apostles persons while they were liuing were the only Iudges of controversies so their Writings now they are dead are the only Rule for us to judge them by There being nothing unwritten which can goe in upon halfe so faire cards for the title of Apostolike Tradition as these things which by the confession of both Sides are not so I mean the doctrine of the Millenaries and of the necessity of the Eucharist for Infants 156 Yet when we say the Scripture is the only Rule to judge all Controversies by me thinks you should easily conceiue that wee would be understood of all those that are possible to be judg'd by Scripture and of those that arise among such as believe the Scripture For if I had a controversie with an Atheist whether there were a God or no I would not say that the Scripture were a Rule to judge this by seeing that doubting whether there be a God or no he must needs doubt whether the Scripture be the word of God or if hee does not hee grants the Question and is not the man we speak of So likewise if I had a controversie about the Truth of Christ with a lew it would be vainly done of me should I presse him which the Authority of the new Testament which he believes not untill out of some principles common to us both I had persuaded him that it is the Word of God The New Testament therefore while he remaines a Iew would not be a fit Rule to decide this Controversie In as much as that which is doubted of it selfe is not fit to determine other doubts So likewise 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 believe a book of S. Austines to containe nothing but the Truth of God yet not to haue been inspired by God himselfe against such men therefore there were no disputing out of the Bible because nothing in question can be a proof to it selfe When therefore we say the Scripture is a sufficient meanes to determine all controversies we say not this either to Atheists Iewes Turks or such Christians if there be any such as believe not Scripture to be the word of God But among such men only as are already agreed upon this That the Scripture is the Word of God we say all controversies that arise about Faith are either not at all decidable consequently not necessary to be believed one way or other or they may be determined by Scripture In a Word That all things necessary to be believed are evidently contain'd in Scripture and what is not there evidently contained cannot be necessary to be believed And our reason hereof is convincing because nothing can challenge our beliefe but what hath descended to us from Christ by Originall and Vniversall
every one is obliged not to believe the contrary of any one point known to be testified by God For that were in fact to affirme that God could be deceived or would deceive which were to overthrow the whole certainty of our faith wherein the thing most principall is not the point which we believe which Divines call the Materiall Object but the chiefest is the Motive for which we believe to wit Almighty Gods infallible revelation or authority which they terme the Formall Object of our faith In two senses therefore and with a double relation points of faith may be called fundamentall and necessary to salvation The one is taken with reference to the Affirmative Precept when the points are of such quality that there is obligation to know and believe them explicitely and severally In this sense we grant that there is difference betwixt points of faith which D. Potter to no purpose laboureth to prove against his Adversary who in expresse words doth grant and explicate it But the Doctor thought good to dissemble the matter and not to say one pertinent word in defence of his distinction as it was impugned by Charity Mistaken and as it is wont to be applied by Protestants The other sense according to which points of faith may be called Fundamentall and necessary to salvation with reference to the Negative precept of faith is such that we cannot without grievous sinne and forfeiture of salvation disbelieve any one point sufficiently propounded as revealed by Almighty God And in this sense we avouch that there is no distinction in points of faith as if to reject some must bee damnable and to reject others equally proposed as Gods word might stand with salvation Yea the obligation of the Negative precept is farre more strict then is that of the Affirmative which God freely imposed and may freely release But it is impossible that he can dispense or give leave to disbelieue or deny what he affirmeth in this sense sin damnation are more inseparable from error in points not fundamentall then from ignorance in Articles fundamentall All this I shew by an example which I wish to be particularly noted for the present and for divers other occasions hereafter The Creed of the Apostles containes divers fundamentall points of faith as the Deity Trinity of Persons Incarnation Passion and Resurrection of our Saviour Christ c. It containes also some points for their matter and nature in themselves not fundamentall as under what Iudge our Saviour suffered that he was buried the circumstance of the time of his Resurrection the third day c. But yet neverthelesse whosoever once knowes that these points are contained in the Apostles Creed the deniall of them is damnable and is in that sense a fundamentall error and this is the precise point of the present question 3 And all that hitherto hath been said is so manifestly true that no Protestant or Christian if he doe but understand the termes and state of the Question can possibly deny it In so much as I am amazed that men who otherwise are endued with excellent wits should so enslave themselves to their Predecessors in Protestantismeâ— as still to harp on this distinction and never regard how impertinently untruly it was implied by them at first to make all Protestants seem to be of one fayth because forsooth they agree in fundamentall points For the difference among Protestants consists not in that some believe some points of which others are ignorant or not bound expressely to know as the distinction ought to be applied but that some of them disbelieve and directly wittingly and willingly oppose what others doe believe to be testified by the word of God wherein there is no difference between points fundamentall and not fundamentall Because till points fundamentall be sufficiently proposed as revealed by God it is not against faith to reject them or rather without sufficient proposition it is not possible prudently to believe them and the like is of points not fundamentall which assoone as they come to be sufficiently propounded as divine Truths they can no more be denyed then points fundamentall propounded after the same manner Neither will it avayle them to their other end that for preservation of the Church in being it is sufficient that she doe not erre in points fundamentall Foâ— if in the mean time she maintain any one Errour against Gods revelation be the thing in it selfe never so small her Errour is damnable and destructive of salvation 4 But D. Potter forgetting to what purpose Protestants make use of their distinction doth finally overthrow it and yields to as much as we can desire For speaking of that measure Quantity of faith without which none can be saved he sayth It is enough to believe some things by a vertuall faith or by a generall and as it were a negative faith whereby they are not denyed or contradicted Now our question is in case that divine truths although not fundamentall be denied and contradicted aad therefore even according to him all such deniall excludes salvation After he speaks more plainly It is true saith he whatsoever is revealed in Scripture or propoundid by the Church out of Scripture is in some sense fundamentall in regard of the divine authority of God and his word by which it is recommended that is such as may not be deâ—ied or contradicted without Infidelity such as every Christian is bound with humility and reverence to believe whensoever the knowledge thereof is offered to him And further Where the revealed will or word of God is sufficiently propounded there he that opposeth is convinced of error and he who is thus convinced is an Heretique and Heresie is a work of the flesh which excludeth from heaven Gal. 5. 20. 21. And hence it followeth that it is FVNDAMENTALL to a Christians FAITH and necessary for his salvation that he believe all revealed Truths of God whereof he may be convinced that they are from God Can any thing be spoken more clearly or directly for us that it is a Fundamentall error to deny any one point though never so small if once it be sufficiently propounded as a divine truth and that there is in this sense no distinction betwixt points fundamentall and not fundamentall And if any should chance to imagine that it is against the foundation of faith not to believe points Fundamentall although they be not sufficiently propounded D. Potter doth not admit of this difference betwixt points fundamentall and not fundamentall For he teacheth that sufficient proposition of revealed truth is required before a man can be convinced and for want of sufficient conviction he excuseth the Disciples from heresy although they believed not our Saviours Resurrection which is a very fundamentall point of faith Thus then I argue out of D. Potters own confession No error is damnable unlesse the contrary truth be sufficiently propounded as revealed by God Every error is
the totall deniall of Christ will not exclude one from being a member of the true Church S. Hilary maketh it of equall necessity for Salvation that we believe our Saviour to be true God and true Man saying This manner of Confession we are to hold that we remember him to be the Sonne of God and the Sonne of Man because the one without the other can giue no hope of Salvatioâ— And yet D. Potter saith of the aforesaid doctrine of Hooker and Morton The Reader may be pleased to approue or reject it as he shall finde cause And in another place he sheweth so much good liking of this doctrine that he explicateth and proveth the Churches perpetuall Visibility by it And in the second Edition of his book he is carefull to declare and illustrate it more at large then he had done before howsoever this sufficiently sheweth that they haue no certainty what points be fundamentall As for the Arians in particular the Author whom D. Potter cites for a moderate Catholique but â—s indeed a plain Heretique or rather Atheist Lucian like jesting at all Religion placeth Arianisme among fundamentall Errours But contrarily an English Protestant Divine masked under the name of Irenaeus Philalethes in a little Book in Latine intituled Dissertatio de pace concordia Ecclesiae endeavoureth to proue that even the deniall of the blessed Trinity may stand with salvation Divers Protestants haue taught that the Roman Church erreth in fundamentall points But D. Potter and others teach the contrary which could not happen if they could agree what be fundamentall points You brand the Donatists with the note of an Errour in the matter and the nature of it properly hereticall because they taught that the Church remained only with them in the part of Donatâ—â— And yet many Protestants are so farre from holding that Doctrine to be a fundamentall errour that themselves goe further and say that for divers ages before Luther there was no â—rue Visible Church at all It is then too too apparent that you haue no agreement in specifying what be fundamentall points neither haue you any meanes to determine what they be for if you have any such meanes why doe you not agree You tell us the Creed containes all points fundamentallâ— which although it were true yet you see it serves not to bring you to a particular knowledge agreement in such points And no wonder For besides what I haue said already in the begining of this Chapter and am to deliver more at large in the next after so much labour and spent paper to prove that the Creed containes all fundamentall points you conclude It remaines very probable that the Creed is the perfect Summary of those fundamentall truths whereof consists the Vâ—â—ty of faith and of the Catholique Church Very probable Then according to all good Logick the contrary may remain very probable and so all remain as full of uncertainty as before The whole Rule say you the sole Iudge of your faith must be Scripture Scripture doth indeed deliver divine Truths but seldome doth qualify them or declare whether they be or be not absolutely necessary to salvation You fall heavy upon Charity Mistaken because he demands a particular Catalogue of fundamentall points which yet you are obliged in conscience to doe if you be able For without such a Catalogue no man can be assured whether or no he haue faith sufficient to Salvation And therefore take it not in ill part if we againe and againe demand such a Catalogue And that you may see we proceed fairely I will performe on our behalfe what we request of you and doe here deliver a Catalogue wherein are comprized all points by us taught to be necessary to Salvation in these words We are obliged under paine of damnation to believe whatsoever the Catholique visible Church of Christ proposeth as revealed by Almighty God If any be of another minde all Catholiques denounce him to be no Catholique But enough of this And I go forward with the Infallibility of the Church in all points 20 For euen out of your own doctrine that the Church cannot erre in points necessary to salvation any wise man will inferre that it behoves all who haue care of their soules not to forsake her in any one point 1. Because they are assured that although her doctrine proved not to be true in some point yet even according to D. Potter the errour cannot be fundamentall nor destructiue of faith and salvation neither can they be accused of any least imprudence in erring if it were possible with the universall Church Secondly since she is under paine of eternall damnation to be believed and obeyed in some things wherein confessedly she is endued with infallibilitie I cannot in wisedome suspect her credit in matters of lesse moment For who would trust another in matters of highest consequence and be affraid to rely on him in things of lesse moment Thirdly since as I said we are undoubtedly obliged not to forsake her in the chiefest or fundamentall points and that there is no Rule to know precisely what and how many those fundamentall points be I cannot without hazard of my soule leaue her in any one point least perhaps that point or points wherein I forsake her proue indeed to be fundamentall and necessary to salvation Fourthly that visible Church which cannot erre in points fundamentall doth without distinction propound all her Definitions concerning matters of faith to be believed under Anathema's or Curses esteeming all those who resist to be deservedly cast out of her Communion and holding it a point necessary to salvation that we believe she cannot erre wherein if she speak true then to deny any one point in particular which she defineth or to affirm in generall that she may erre puts a man into state of damnation Whereas to belieue her in such points as are not necessary to salvation cannot endanger salvation and likewise to remain in her Communion can bring no great harme because she cannot maintain any damnable errour or practise but to be divided from her she being Christs Catholique Church is most certainly damnable Fifthly the true Church being in lawfull and certain possession of Superiority and Power to command and require Obedience from all Christians in some things I cannot without grievous sinne withdraw my obedience in any one unlesse I evidently know that the thing commanded comes not within the compasse of those things to which her Power extendeth And who can better inform me how far God's Church can proceed then Gods Church her selfe Or to what Doctour can the Children and Schollers with greater reason and more security fly for direction then to the Mother and appointed Teacher of all Christians In following her I shall sooner be excused then incleaving to any particular Sâ—ct or Person teaching or applying Scriptures against her doctrine or interpretation Sixtly the fearfull examples of innumerable persons who forsaking the
Truth and will not use them they conceive though their case be dangerous yet if they dye with a generall repentance for all their sinnes knowne and unknowne their Salvation is not desperate The Truths which they hold of Faith in Christ and Repentance being as it were an antidote against their errors and their negligence in seeking the Truth Especially seeing by confession of both sides we agree in much more thē is simply indispēsably necessary to salvatiō 13 But seeing we make such various use of this distinction is it not prodigiously strange that we will never be induc'd to give in a particular Catalogue what points be fundamentall And why I pray is it so prodigiously strange that we give no answer to an unreasonable demand God himself hath told us That where much is given much shall be required where litle is given litle shall be required To Infants Deafe-men Mad-men nothing for ought wee knowe is given and if it bee so of them nothing shall be required Others perhaps may have meanes only given them to beleive That God is and that he is a rewarder of them that seeke him and to whom thus much only is given to them it shall not be damnable that they beleive but only thus much Which methinks is very manifest from the Apostle in the Epist. to the Heb where having first said that without faith it is impossible to please God he subjoynes as his reason for whosoever commeth unto God must beleive that God is and that he is a rewarder of them that seeke him Where in my opinion this is plainly intimated that this is the minimum quòd sic the lowest degree of Faith wherewith in men capable of Faith God will be pleased and that with this lowest degree he will be pleased where meanes of rising higher are deficient Besides if without this beliefe that God is and that he is a rewarder of them that seeke him God will not be pleased then his will is that we should beleive it Now his will it cannot be that we should beleive a falshood It must be therefore true that he is a rewarder of them that seeke him Now it is possible that they which never heard of Christ may seek God therefore it is true that even they shall please him and be rewarded by him I say rewarded not with bringing them immediatly to salvation without Christ but with bringing them according to his good pleasure first to faith in Christ and so to salvation To which beleife the story of Cornelius in the 10. chap. of the Acts of the Apostles and S. Peter's words to him are to me a great inducement For first it is evident he beleeved not in Christ but was a meer Gentile one that knew not but men might be worshipped and yet we are assured that his prayers and almes even while he was in that state came up for a memoriall before God That his prayer was heard and his Almes had in remembrance in the sight of God v. 4. that upon his Then fearing God and working righteousnesse such as it was he was accepted with God But how accepted Not to be brought immediatly to salvation but to be promoted to a higher degree of the knowledge of Gods will For so it is in the 4. 5. v. Call for Simon whose sirname is Peter he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to doe and at the 33. vers We are all here present before God to heare all things that are cōmanded thee of God So that though even in his Gentilisme he was accepted in his present state yet if he had continued in it refused to beleive in Christ after the sufficient revelation of the Gospell to him and Gods will to have him beleive it he that was accepted before would not have continued accepted still for then that condemnation had come upon him that light was come unto him and he loved darknesse more then light So that to proceed a step farther to whom faith in Christ is sufficiently propounded as necessary to Salvation to them it is simply necessary Fundamentall to believe in Christ that is to expect remission of sinnes and Salvation from him upon the performance of the conditions he requires among which conditions one is that we believe what he has revealed when it is sufficiently declared to have been revealed by him For by doing so we set to our seale that God is true and that Christ was sent by him Now that may be sufficiētly declared to one all things considered which all things considered to another is not sufficiently declared and consequently that may be Fundamentall and necessary to one which to another is not so Which variety of circumstances makes it impossible to set down an exact Catalogue of Fundamentalls and proves your request as reasonable as if you should desire us according to the Fable to make a coat to fit the Moon in all her changes or to giue you a garment that will fit all statures Or to make you a dyall to serve all meridians or to designe particularly what provision will serve an army for a year whereas there may be an army of ten thousand there may be of 100000. And therefore without seting downe a catalogue of Fundamentalls in particular because none that can be given can universally serve for all men God requiring more of them to whom he gives more and lesse of them to whom he gives lesse we must content our selves by a generall description to tell you what is Fundamentall And to warrant us in doing so we have your own example § 19. where being engaged to giue us a catalogue of Fundamentalls in stead thereof you tell us only in generall that all is fundamentall and not to be disbeleeved under pain of damnation which the Church hath defin'd As you therefore think it enough to say in generall that all is Fundamentall which the Church has defined without setting down in particular a compleat-Catalogue of all things which in any age the Church has defined which I believe you will not undertake to doe and if you doe it will be contradicted by your Fellowes So in reason you might think it enough for us also to say in generall that it is sufficient for any mans salvation to believe that the Scripture is true and containes all things necessary for salvation and to doe his best endeavour to find and believe the true sense of it without delivering any particular catalogue of the Fundamentalls of Faith 14 Neither doth the want of such a catalogue leave us in such a perplexed uncertainty as you pretend For though perhaps we cannot exactly distinguish in the Scripture what is revealed because it is necessary from what is necessary consequently and accidentally meerely because it is revealed yet we are sure enough that all that is necessary any way is there and therefore in believing all that is there we are sure to believe all that is necessary And if we
all things in their own hands may have altered them for their purpose If to this he answer again that the Church is infallible and therefore cannot doe so I hope it would be apparent that he runs round in a circle and proves the Scriptures incorruption by the Churches infallibility and the Churches infallibility by the Scriptures incorruption and that is in effect the Churches infallibility by the Churches infallibility and the Scriptures incorruption by the Scriptures incorruption 28 Now for your observation that some Bookes which were not alwaies known to be Canonicall have been afterwards received for such But never any book or syllable defined for Canonicall was afterwards questioned or rejected for Apocryphall I demand touching the first sort whether they were commended to the Church by the Apostles as Canonicall or not If not seeing the whole faith was preached by the Apostles to the Church and seeing after the Apostles the Church pretends to no new Revelations how can it be an Article of faith to believe them Canonicall And how can you pretend that your Church which makes this an article of faith is so assisted as not to propose any thing as a divine truth which is not revealed by God If they were how then is the Church an infallible keeper of the CanoÌ„ of Scripture which hath suffered some Bookes of Canonicall Scripture to be lost others to loose for a long time their being Canonicall at least the necessity of being so esteemed and afterwards as it were by the law of Post liminium hath restored their Authority and Canonicalnesse unto them If this was delivered by the Apostles to the Church the point was sufficiently discussed and therefore your Churches omission to teach it for some ages as an article of faith nay degrading it from the number of articles of faith and putting it among disputable problems was surely not very laudable If it were not revealed by God to the Apostles and by the Apostles to the Church then can it be no Revelation and therefore her presumption in proposing it as such is inexcusable 19 And then for the other part of it that never any book or syllable defined for Canonicall was afterwards question'd or rejected for Apocryphall Certainly it is a bold asseveration but extreamly false For I demand The Book of Ecclesiasticus and Wisdome the Epistle of Saint Iames and to the Heb. were they by the Apostles appoved for Canonicall or no If not with what face dare you approve them and yet pretend that all your doctrine is Apostolicall Especially seeing it is evident that this point is not deducible by rationall discourse from any other defined by them If they were approved by them this I hope was a sufficient definition and therefore you were best rub your forehead hard and say that these Books were never questioned But if you doe so then I shall be bold to aske you what bookes you meant in saying before Some bookes which were not alwaies known to be Canonicall have been afterwards received Then for the book of Macchabes I hope you will say it was defin'd for Canonicall before S. Gregories time and yet he lib. 19. Moral c. 13. citing a testimony out of it prefaceth to it after this manner Concerning which matter we doe not amisse if we produce a testimony out of Bookes although not Canonicall yet set forth for the edification of the Church For Eleazar in the Book of Machabees c. Which if it be not to reject it from being Canonicall is without question at least to question it Moreover because you are so punctuall as to talk of words and syllables I would know whether before Sixtus Quint us his time your Church had a defined Canon of Scripture or not If not then was your Church surely a most Vigilant keeper of Scripture that for 1500 yeares had not defined what was Scripture and what was not If it had then I demand was it that set forth by Sixtus or that set forth by Clement or a third different from both If it were that set forth by Sixtus then is it now condemned by Clement if that of Clement it was condemned I say but sure you will say contradicted and question'd by Sixtus If different from both then was it question'd and condemned by both and still lies under the condemnation But then lastly suppose it had been true That both some Book not known to be Canonicall had been received and that never any after receiving had been questioned How had this been a signe that the Church is infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost In what mood or figure would this conclusion follow out of these Premises Certainly your flying to such poor signes as these are is to me a great signe that you labour with penury of better arguments and that thus to catch at shadowes and bulâ—ushes is a shrewd signe of a sinking cause 30 Ad § 13. We are told here That the generall promises of Infallibility to the Church must not be restrained only to points fundamentall Because then the Apostles words and writings may also be so restrained The Argument put in forme and made compleat by supply of the concealed Proposition runs thus The Infallibility promised to the present Church of any age is as absolute and unlimited as that promised to the Apostles in their Preaching and Writings But the Apostles Infallibility is not to be limited to Fundamentalls Therefore neither is the Churches Infallibility thus to be limited Or thus The Apostles Infallibility in their Preaching and writing may be limited to Fundamentalls as well as the Infallibility of the present Church But that is not to be done Therefore this also is not to be done Now to this Argument I answere that if by may be as well in the major Proposition be understood may be as possibly it is true but impertinent If by it we understand may be as iustly and rightly It is very pertinent but very false So that as D. Potter limits the infallibility of the Present Church unto Fundamentalls so another may limit the Apostles unto them also He may doe it de facto but de iure he cannot that may be done and done lawfully this also may be done but not lawfully That may be done and if it be done cannot be confuted This also may be done but if it be done may easily be confuted It is done to our hand in this very Paragraph by five words taken out of Scripture All Scripture is divinely inspired Shew but as much for the Church Shew where it is written That all the decrees of the Church are divinely inspired and the Controversy will be at an end Besides there is not the same reason for the Churches absolute infallibility as for the Apostles and Scriptures For if the Church fall into error it may be reformed by comparing it with the rule of the Apostles doctrine and Scripture But if the Apostles have erred in delivering the doctrine of Christianity to whom
shall we have recourse for the discovering and correcting their error Again there is not so much strength required in the Edifice as in the Foundation and if but wisemen have 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 And though the building be to be of Brick or Stone and perhaps of wood yet if it may be possibly they will have a rock for their foundation whose stability is a much more indubitable thing then the adherence of the structure to it Now the Apostles Prophets and Canonicall Writers are the foundation of the Church according to that of S. Paul built upon the foundation of Apostles and Prophets therefore their stability in reason ought to be greater then the Churches which is built upon them Again a dependent Infallibility especially if the dependance be voluntary cannot be so certain as that on which it depends But the Infallibility of the Church depends upon the Infallibility of the Apostles as the streightnesse of the thing regulated upon 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 else but an aggregation of men of which every one has free will and is subject to passions and errour Therefore the Churches infallibility is not so certain as that of the Apostles 31 Lastly Quid verba audiam cum fact a videam If you be so Infallible as the Apostles were shew it as the Apostles did They went forth saith S. Marke and Preached every where the Lord working with them and confirming their words with Signes following 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 therefore it was intirely true and in no part either false or uncertain I say in no part of that which they delivered constantly as a certain divine Truth and which had the Atteâ—tation of Divine Miracles For that the Apostles themselves even after the sending of the holy Ghost were and through inadvertence or prejudice continued for a time in an errour repugnant to a revealed Truth it is as I have already noted unanswerably evident from the story of the Acts of the Apostles For notwithstanding our Saviours expresse warrant injunction to goe and Preach to all Nations yet untill S. Peter was better informed by a vision from Heaven and by the conversion of Cornelius both he and the rest of the Church held it unlawfull for them to goe or preach the Gospell to any but the Iewes 32 And for those things which they professe to deliver as the dictates of humane reason and prudence and not as divine Revelations why we should take them to be divine revelations I see no reason nor how we can doe so and not contradict the Apostles and God himselfe Therefore when S. Paul saies in the 1. Epist. to the Cor. 7. 12. To the rest speak I not the Lord And again concerning Virgins I have no commandement of the Lord but I deliver my Iudgement If we will pretend that the Lord did certainly speak what S. Paul spake and that his judgement was Gods commandement shall we not plainly contradict S. Paul and that spirit by which he wrote which moved him to write as in other places divine Revelations which he certainly knew to be such so in this place his own judgement touching some things which God had not particularly revealed unto him And if D. Potter did speak to this purpose that the Apostles were Infallible only in these things which they spake of certain knowledge I cannot see what danger there were in saying so Yet the truth is you wrong D. Potter It is not he but D. Stapleton in him that speakes the words you cavill at D. Stapleton saith he p. 140. is full and punctuall to this purpose then sets down the effect of his discourse l. 8. Princ. Doct. 4. c. 15. and in that the words you cavill at and then p. 150. he shuts up this paragraph with these words thus D. Stapleton So that if either the Doctrine or the reason be not good D. Stapleton not D. Potter is to answer for it 33 Neither doe D. Potter's ensuing words limit the Apostles infalbilitie to truths absolutely necessary to salvation if you read them with any candor for it is evident he grants the Church infallible in Truths absolutely necessary and as evident that he ascribes to the Apostles the spirits guidance and consequently infallibility in a more high and absolute manner then any since them From whence thus I argue Hee that grants the Church infallible in Fundamentals and ascribes to the Apostles the infallible guidance of the Spirit in a more high and absolute manner then to any since them limits not the Apostles infallibility to Fundamentals But D. Potter grants to the Church such a limited infallibility and ascribes to the Apostles The Spirits infallible guidance in a more high and absolute manner therefore hee limits not the Apostles infallibility to Fundamentals I once knew a man out of curtesie help a lame dog over a stile and he for requitall bit him by the fingers Iust so you serue D. Potter He out of curtesie grants you that those words The Spirit shall lead you into all Truth and shall abide with you ever though in their high and most absolute sense they agree only to the Apostles yet in a conditionall limited moderate secundary sense they may be understood of the Church But saies that if they be understood of the Church All must not be simply all No nor so large an All as the Apostles All but all necessary to salvation And you to requite his curtesie in granting you thus much cavill at him as if hee had prescribed these bounds to the Apostles also as well as the present Church Whereas he hath explained himselfe to the contrary both in the clause fore-mentioned The Apostles who had the spirits guidance in a more high and absolute manner then any since them and in these words ensuing whereof the Church is simply ignorant and againe wâ—erewith the Church is not acquainted But most clearly in those which being most incompatible to the Apostles you with an c I cannot but feare craftily haue conceal'd How many obscure Texts of Scripture which she understands not How many Schoole Questions which she hath not happily cannot determine And for matters of fact it is apparent that the Church may erre and then concludes That we must understand by All truths not simply All But if you conceiue the words as spoken of the Church All Truth absolutely necessary to salvation And yet beyond all this the negative part of his answer agrees very well to the Apostles themselues for
knowledge or belief of it though it were a profitable thing yet it was not necessary I hope you will not challenge such authority over us as to oblige us to impossibilities to doe that which you cannot doe your selves It is therefore requisite that you make this command possible to be obeyed before you require obedience unto it Are you able then to instruct us so well as to be fit to say unto us Now ye know what withholdeth Or doe you your selves know that ye may instruct us Can yee or dare you say this or this was this hindrance which S. Paul here meant and all men under pain of damnatioÌ„ are to believe it Or if you cannot as I am certain you cannot goe then vaunt your Church for the only Watchfull Faithfull Infallible keeper of the Apostles Traditions when here this very Tradition which here in particular was deposited with the Thessalonians and the Primitive Church you have utterly lost it so that there is no footstep or print of it remaining which with Divine faith we may rely upon Blessed therefore be the goodnesse of God who seeing that what was not written was in such danger to be lost took order that what was necessary should be written Saint Chrysostomes counsell therefore of accounting the Churches Traditions worthy of belief we are willing to obey And if you can of any thing make it appear that it is Tradition we will seek no farther But this we say withall that we are perswaded you cannot make this appear in any thing but only the Canon of Scripture and that there is nothing now extant and to be known by us which can put in so good plea to be the unwritten word of God as the unquestioned Books of Canonicall Scripture to be the written word of God 47 You conclude this Parag. with a sentence of S. Austin's who saies The Church doth not approve nor dissemble nor doe these things which are against Faith or good life and from hence you conclude that it never hath done so nor ever can doe so But though the argumâ—â—â— hold in Logick à non posse ad non esse yet I never heard that it would hold back again à no nesse 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 never doe it nor can never doe it this I believe will hardly follow In the Epistle next before to the same Ianuarius writing of the same matter he hath these words It remaines that the things you enquire of must be of that third kind of things which are different in divers places Let every one therefore doe that which he findes done in the Church to which he comes for none of them is against Faith or good manners And why doe you not inferre from hence that no particular Church can bring up any Custome that is against faith or good manners Certainly this consequence has as good reason for it as the former If a man say of the Church of England what S. Austine of the Church that she neither approves nor dissembles nor does any thing against faith or good manners would you collect presently that this man did either make or think the Church of England infallible Furthermore it is observable out of this and the former Epistle that this Church which did not as S. Austine according to you thought approve or dissemble or doe any thing against faith or good life did yet tolerate and dissemble vain superstitions and humane presumptions and suffer all places to be full of them and to be exacted as nay more severely then the commandements of God himselfe This S. Austine himselfe professeth in this very Epistle This saith he I doe infinitely grieve at that many most wholsome precepts of the divine Scripture are little regarded and in the mean time all is so full of so many presumptions that he is more grievously found fault with who during his octaves toucheth the earth with his naked foot then he that shall bury his soul in drunkennesse Of these he saies that they were neither contained in Scripture decreed by Councells nor corroborated by the Custome of the Vniversall Church And though not against faith yet unprofitable burdens of Christian liberty which made the condition of the Iewes more tolerable then that of Christians And therefore he professes of them Approbare non possum I cannot approve them And ubi facult as tribuitur resecanda existimo I think they are to be cut off wheresoever we have power Yet so deeply were they rooted and spread so farre through the indiscreet devotion of the people alwaies more prone to superstition then true piety and through the connivence of the Governors who should have strangled them at their birth that himselfe though he grieved at them and could not allow them yet for fear of offence he durst not speak against them multa hujusmodi propter nonnuâ—aruÌ„ vel sanctaruÌ„ vel turbulentarum personarum scandala devitanda liberius improbare noâ— audeo Many of these things for fear of scandalizing many holy persons or provoking those that are turbulent I dare not freely dâ—sallow Nay the Catholique Church it selfe did see and dissemble and tolerate them for these are the things of which he presently saies after the Church of God and you will have him speak of the true Catholique Church placed between Chaffe Tares tolerates many things Which was directly against the command of the holy spirit given the Church by S. Paul To stand fast in that liberty wherewith Christ hath made her free and not to suffer her selfe to be brought in bondage to these servile burdens Our Saviour tels the Scribes and Pharises that in vain they worshipped God teaching for Doctrines mens Commandements For that laying aside the Commandments of God they held the Traditions of men as the washing of pots and cups and many other such like things Certainly that which S. Austine complaines of as the generall fault of Christians of his time was paralell to this Multa saith he quae in divinis libris saluberrima praecepta sunt minus curantur This I suppose I may very well render in our Saviours words The commandements of God are laid aside and then tam multis presumptionibus sic plena sunt omnia all things or all places are so full of so many presumptions and those exacted with such severity nay with Tyranny that he was more severely censur'd who in the time of his Octaves touched the earth with his naked feet then hee which drâ—wned and buried his soul in drink Certainly if this be not to teach for Doctrines mens Commandements I know not what is And therefore these superstitious Christians might be said to worship God in vain as well as Scribes and Phraises And yet great variety of superstitions of this kind were then already spread over the Church being different in divers places This is plain from these words
of S. Austin of them diversorum locorum diversis moribus innumerabiliter variantur and apparent because the stream of them was grown so violent that he durst not opopose it liberiùs improbare non audeâ— I dare not freely speak against them So that to say the Catholique Church tolerated all this and for fear of offence durst not abrogate or condemne it is to say if we judge rightly of it that the Church with silence and connivence generally tolerated Christians to worship God in vain Now how this tolerating of Vniversall superstition in the Church can consist with the assistance and direction of Gods omnipotent spirit to guard it from superstition with the accomplishment of that pretended prophecy of the Church I have set watchmen upon thy walls O Ierusalem which shall never hold their peace day nor night besides how these superstitions being thus noutished cherished and strengthened by the practise of the most and urged with great violence upon others as the commandements of God and but fearfully opposed or contradicted by any might in time take such deepe roote and spread their branches so farre as to passe for universall Customes of the Church he that does not see sees nothing Especially considering the catching and contagious nature of this sinne and how fast ill weeds spread and how true and experimented that rule is of the Historian Exempla non consistunt ubi incipiunt sed quamlibâ—t in tenuem recepta tramitem latissimè evagandi sibi faciunt potestatem Nay that some such superstition had not already even in S. Austins time prevailed so farre as to be Consâ—etudine universae Ecclesiae roboratum who can doubt that considers that the practise of Communicating Infants had even then got the credit and authority not only of an uniuersall Custome but also of an Apostolique Tradition 48 But you will say notwithstanding all this S. Austin here warrants us that the Church can never either approue or dissemble or practise any thing against faith or goodlife and so long you may rest securely upon it Yea but the same S. Austine tels us in the same place that the Church may tolerate humane presumptions and vain superstitions and those urg'd more severely then the Commandements of God And whether superstition be a sinne or no I appeal to our Saviours words before cited and to the consent of your Schoolmen Besides if we consider it rightly we shall finde that the Church is not truly said only to tolerate these things but rather that a part and farre the lesser tolerated and dissembled them in silence and a part a farre greater publiquely vowed and practis'd them and urg'd them upon others with great violence and that continued still a part of the Church Now why the whole Church might not continue the Church and yet doe so as well as a part of the Church might continue a part of it and yet doe so I desire you to inform me 49 But now after all this adoe what if S. Austine saies not this which is pretended of the Church viz. That she neither approues nor dissembles nor practises any thing against Faith or good life but onely of good men in 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 quae sunt contra Fidem bonam vitam nec bonus approbat c. The Church tolerates many things and yet what is against faith or good life a good man will neither approue nor dissemble nor practise 50 Ad § 17. That Abraham begat Isaac is a point very far from being Fundamentall and yet I hope you will grant that Protestants believing Scripture to be the word of God may bee certain enough of the truth and certainty of it For what if they say that the Catholique Church and much more themselues may possibly erre in some unfundamentall points is it therefore consequent they can be certaine of none such What if a wiser man then I may mistake the sense of some obscure place of Aristotle may I not therefore without any arrogance or inconsequence conceiue my selfe certain that I understand him in some plain places which carry their sense before them And then for points Fundamentall to what purpose doe you say That we must first know what they be before we can be assured that wee cannot erre in understanding the Scripture when we pretend not at all to any assurance that we cannot erre but only to a sufficient certainty that we doe not erre but rightly understand those things that are plain whether Fundamentall or not Fundamentall That 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 These wee conceive both true because the Scripture saies so and Truths Fundamentall because they are necessary parts of the Gospell whereof our Saviour saies Qui non crediderit damnabitur All which we either learne from Scripture immediately or learne of those that learne it of Scripture so that neither Learned nor Vnlearned pretend to know these things independently of Scripture And therefore in imputing this to us you cannot excuse your selfe from having done us a palpable injury 51 Ad § 18. And I urge you as mainly as you urge D. Potter other Protestants that you tell us that all the Traditions and all the Definitions of the Church are FundameÌ„tal points we cannot wrest from you a list in particular of all such Traditions and Definitions without which no man can tell whether or no he erre in points fundamentall and be capable of salvation For I hope erring in our fundamentals is no more exclusiue of salvation theÌ„ erring in yours And which is most lamentable insteed of giving us such a Catalogue you also fall to wrangle among your selues about the making of it Some of you as I haue said aboue holding somethings to be matters of Faith which others deny to be so 52 Ad § 19. I answ That these differences between Protestants concerning Errours damnable and not damnable Truths fundamentall and not fundamentall may be easily reconcil'd For either the Errour they speak of may be purely and simply involuntary or it may be in respect of the cause of it voluntary If the cause of it be some voluntary and avoidable fault the Errour is it selfe sinfull and consequently in its own nature damnable As if by negligence in seeking the Truth by unwillingnesse to finde it by pride by obstinacy by desiring that Religion should be true which sutes best with my ends by feare of mens ill opinion or any other worldly feare or any other worldly hope I betray my selfe to any error contrary to any divine revealed Truth that Errour may be justly stiled a sinne and consequently of it selfe to
but seldom qualifies them or declares whether they be or be not absolutely necessary to salvation Yet not so seldome but that out of it I could giue you an abstract of the Essentiall part of Christianity if it were necessary but I haue shewed it not so by confuting your reason pretended for the necessity of it at this time I haue no leasure to doe you curtesies that are so troublesome to my selfe Yet thus much I will promise that when you deliver a particular Catalogue of your Church Proposals with one hand you shall receiue a particular Catalogue of what I conceiue Fundamentall with the other For as yet I see no such faire proceeding as you talke of nor any performance on your own part of that which so clamorously you require on ours For as for the Catalogue which heâ—e you haue given us in saying You are obliged under pain of damnation to belieue whatsoever the Catholique visible Church of Christ proposeth as revealed by Almighty God it is like a covey of one Patridg or a flock of one sheep or a Fleet compos'd of one ship or an Army of one man The Author of Charity mistaken demands a particular Catalogue of Fundamentall points And We say you again and again demand such a Catalogue And surely if this one Proposition which here you think to stop our mouthes with be a Catalogue yet at least such a Catalogue it is not and therefore as yet you haue not perform'd what you require For if to set down such a PropositioÌ„ wherein are compriz'd all points taught by us to be necessary to salvation will serue you insteed of a Catalogue you shall haue Catalogues enough As we are oblig'd to belieue all under pain of damnation which God commands us to belieue There 's one Catalogue We are oblig'd under pain of damnation to belieue all whereof we may be sufficiently assured that Christ taught it his Apostles his Apostles the Church There 's another We are oblig'd under pain of damnation to belieue Gods word all contained in it to be true There 's a third If these generalities will not satisfie you but you will be importuning us to tell you in particular what they are which Christ taught his Apostles and his Apostles the Church what points are contained in Gods word Then I beseech you doe us reason and giue us a particular and exact Inventory of all your Church Proposalls without leaving out or adding any such a one which all the Doctors of your Church will subscribe to if you receiue not then a Catalogue of Fundamentals I for my part will giue you leaue to proclaim us Banckrupts 54 Besides this deceitfull generality of your Catalogue as you call it another main fault we finde with it that it is extreamly ambiguous and therefore to draw you out of the clouds giue me leaue to propose some Questions to you concerning it I would know therefore whether by believing you mean explicitely or implicitely If you mean implicitely I would know whether your Churches infallibility be under pain of damnation to be believed explicitely or no Whether any other point or points besides this be under the same penalty to be believed explicitely or no And if any what they bee I would know what you esteem the Proposalls of the Catholike visible Church In particular whether the Decree of a Pope ex Cathedra that is with an intent to oblige all Christians by it be a sufficient and an obliging proposall Whether men without danger of damnation may examine such a Decree and if they think they have just cause refuse to obey it Whether the Decree of a Councell without the Popes confirmation be such an obliging proposall or no Whether it be so in case there be no Pope or in case it be doubtfull who is Pope Whether the Decree of a generall Councell confirm'd by the Pope be such a Proposall and whether he be an Heretique that thinks otherwise Whether the Decree of a particular Councell confirm'd by the Pope be such a proposall Whether the Generall uncondemn'd practise of the Church for some ages be such a sufficient Proposition Whether the consent of the most eminent Fathers of any age agreeing in the affirmation of any doctrine not contradicted by any of their Contemporaries be a sufficient Proposition Whether the Fathers testifying such or such a doctrine or practise to be Tradition or to bee the Doctrine or practise of the Church be a sufficient assurance that it is so Whether we be bound under pain of damnation to belieue every Text of the vulgar Bible now authoriz'd by the Roman Church to bee the true translation of the Originalls of the Prophets and Evangelists and Apostles without any the least alteration Whether they that lived wheÌ„ the Bible of Sixtus was set forth were bound under pain of damnation to believe the same of that And if not of that of what Bible they were bound to believe it Whether the Catholique visible Church be alwaies that Society of Christians which adheres to the Bishop of Rome Whether every Christian that hath ability and oportunity be not bound to endeavour to know explicitely the Proposalls of the Church Whether Implicite Faith in the Churches Veracity will not saue him that Actually and Explicitely disbelieves some doctrine of the Church not knowing it to be so and Actually belieues some damnable Heresie as that God has the shape of a man Whether an ignorant man be bound to believe any point to be decreed by the Church when his Priest or Ghostly Father assures him it is so Whether his Ghostly Father may not erre in telling him so and whether any man can be oblig'd under pain of damnation to belieue an Errour Whether he be bound to believe such a thing defined when a number of Priests perhaps ten or twenty tell him it is so And what assurance he can haue that they neither erre nor deceive him in this matter Why Implicite Faith in Christ or the Scriptures should not suffice for a mans salvation as well as implicit faith in the Church Whether when you say Whatsoever the Church proposeth you meane all that ever she propos'd or that only which she now proposeth and whether shee now proposeth all that ever she did propose Whether all the Books of Canonicall Scripture were sufficiently declared to the Church to be so and propos'd as such by the Apostles And if not from whom the Church had this declaration afterwards If so whether all men ever since the Apostles time were bound under paine of damnation to believe the Epistle of S. Iames and the Epistle to the Hebrews to be Canonicall at least not to disbelieve it believe the contrary Lastly why it is not sufficient for any mans salvation to use the best meanes he can to inform his conscience and to follow the direction of it To all these demands when you haue given faire and ingenuous answers you shall heare further from me 55 Ad
their communion and divide himselfe from all other Communions from which they were divided which was a condition both unnecessary and unlawfull to be required and therefore the exacting of it was directly opposite to the Churches Catholicisme in the very same nature with their Errours who required Circumcision and the keeping of the Law of Moses as necessary to salvation For whosoever requires harder or heavier conditions of men then God requires of them he it is that is properly an Enemie of the Churches Vniversality by hindering either Men or Countries from adjoyning themselves to it which were it not for these unnecessary and therefore unlawful conditions in probability would haue made thē members of it And seeing the present Church of Rome perswades men they were as good for any hope of Salvation they haue not to be Christians as not to be Roman Catholiques believe nothing at all as not believe all which they impose upon them Be absolutely out of the Churches Communion as be out of their Communion or be in any other whether they be not guilty of the same crime with the Donatists those Zelots of the Mosaicall Law I leave it to the judgement of those that understand reason This is sufficient to shew the vanity of this Argument But I adde moreover that you neither haue named those Protestants who held the Church to haue perished for many ages who perhaps held not the destruction but the corruption of the church not that the true Church but that the pure Church perished or rather that the Church perished not from its life and existence but from its purity and integrity or perhaps from its splendour and visibility Neither have you proved by any one reason but only affirmed it to be a fundamentall Errour to hold that the Church militant may possibly bee driven out of the world and abolished for a time from the face of the earth 65 But to accuse the Church of any Errour in faith is to say she lost all faith For this is the Doctrine of Catholique Divines that one Errour in faith destroyes faith To which I answer that to accuse the Church of some Errour in faith is not to say she lost all faith For this is not the doctrine of Catholique Divines But that he which is an Heretique in one Article may haue true faith of other Articles And the contrary is only said and not shewed in Charity Mistaken 66 Ad § 21. D. Potter saies We may not depart from the Church absolutely and in all things and from hence you conclude Therefore we may not depart from it in any thing And this Argument you call a Demonstration But a Fallacy à dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid was not used heretofore to be called a Demonstration D. Potter sayes not that you may not depart from any opinion or any practise of the Church for you tell us in this very place that he saies even the Catholique may erre and every man may lawfully depart from Errour He only sayes you may not cease to be of the Church nor depart from those things which make it so to be and from hence you inferre a necessity of forsaking it in nothing Iust as if you should argue thus You may not leaue your friend or brother therefore you may not leave the Vice of your friend or the Errour of your brother What he saies of the Catholique Church p. 75. the same hee extends presently after to every true though never so corrupted part of it And why doe you not conclude from hence that no particular Church according to his judgement can fall into any Errour and call this a Demonstration too For as he saies p. 75. That there can be no just cause to depart from the whole Church of Christ no more then from Christ himselfe So p. 76. He tells you that whosoever forsakes any one true member of this body for sakes the whole So that what he saies of the one hee saies of the other and tells you that neither Vniversall nor Particular Church so long as they continue so may bee forsaken hee meanes Absolutely no more then Christ himselfe may be forsaken absolutely For the Church is the body of Christ and whosoever forsakes either the Body or his coherence to any one part of it must forsake his subordination and relation to the Head Therefore whosoever forsakes the Church or any Christian must forsake Christ himselfe 67 But then he tells you plainly in the same place That it may be lawfull and necessary to depart from a Particular Church in some Doctrines and Practises And this he would haue said even of the Catholike Church if there had been occasion but there was none For there he was to declare and justifie our departure not from the Catholique Church but the Roman which we maintain to be a particular Church But in other places you confesse his doctrine to be that even the Catholique church may erre in points not Fundamentall which you doe not pretend that he ever imputed to Christ himselfe And therefore you cannot with any candor interpret his words as if he had said We may not forsake the Church in any thing no more then Christ himselfe but only thus We may not cease to be of the Church nor forsake it absolutely and totally no more then Christ himselfe And thus we see sometimes a mountain may travail and the production may be a mouse 68 Ad § 22. But D. Potter either contradicts himselfe or else 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 Answer This Argument to giue it the right name is an obscure and intricate nothing And to make it appeare so let us suppose in contradiction to your supposition either that the Catholique Church may erre but doth not but that the Roman actually doth or that the Catholique Church doth erre in some few things but that the Roman erres in many more And is it not apparent in both these cases which yet both suppose the Churches Fallibility a man may truly say unlesse I dissent in some opinions from the Roman Church I cannot agree with the Catholique Either therefore you must retract your imputation laid upon D. Potter or doe that which you condemne in him and be driven to say that the same man may hold some errours with the Church of Rome and at the same time with the Catholique Church not hold but condemne them For otherwise in neither of these cases is it possible for the same man at the same time to agree both with the Roman and the Catholique 69 In all these Texts of Scripture which are here alleaged in this last Section of this Chapter or in any one of them or in any other doth God say cleerly and plainly The Bishop of Rome and that Society of Christians which adheres to him shall bee ever
of the Councell of Trent and the Pope that confirmed them are they meanes to conserve you in Unity and keepe you from Error or are they not Peradventure you will say their Decree◠are but not their Persons but you will not deny I hope that you owe your Vnity and freedome from Error to the Persons that made these Decrees neither will you deny that the writings which they have left behind them are sufficient for this purpose And why may not then the Apostles writings be as fit for such a purpose as the Decrees of your Doctors Surely their intent in writing was to conserve us in Vnity of Faith and to keep us from errour and we are sure God spake in them but your Doctors from whence they are we are not so certain Was the Holy-Ghost then unwilling or unable to direct them so that their writings should be fit and sufficient to attain that end they aimed at in writing For if he were both able and willing to doe so then certainly he did doe so And then their writings may be very sufficient meanes if we would use them as we should doe to preserve us in Vnity in all necessary points of Faith and to guard us from all pernitious Error 81 If yet you be not satisfied but will still pretend that all these words by you cited seem clearly enough to prove that the Church is Vniversally infallible without which Vnity of Faith could not be conserved against every wind of Doctrine I Ans. That to you which will not understand that there can be any meanes to conserve the Vnity of Faith but only that which conserves your authority over the Faithfull it is no marvell that these words seem to prove that the Church nay that your Church is universally infallible But we that have no such end no such desires but are willing to leave all men to their liberty provided they will not improve it to a Tyranny over others we find it no difficulty to discern between dedit and promisit he gave at his Ascention and he Promised to the worlds end Besides though you whom it concernes may happily flatter your selves that you have not only Pastors and Doctors but Prophets and Apostles and Evangelists and those distinct from the former still in your Church yet we that are disinteressed persons cannot but smile at these strange imaginations Lastly though you are apt to think your selves such necessary instruments for all good purposes and that nothing can be well done unlesse you doe it that no unity or constancy in Religion can be maintained but inevitably Christendome must fall to ruine and confusion unlesse you support it yet we that are indifferent and impartiall and well content that God should give us his owne favours by means of his own appointment not of our choosing can easily collect out of these very words that not the infallibility of your or of any Church but the Apostles and Prophets and Evangelists c. which Christ gave upon his Ascention were designed by him for the compasing all these excellent purposes by their preaching while they lived and by their writings for ever And if they faile hereof the Reason is not any insufficiency or invalidity in the meanes but the voluntary perversenesse of the subjects they have to deal with who if they would be themselves and be content that others should be in the choice of their Religion the servants of God and not of men if they would allow that the way to heaven is no narrower now then Christ left it his yoak no heavier then he made it that the belief of no more difficulties is required now to Salvation then was in the Primitive Church that no errour is in it selfe destructive and exclusive from Salvation now which was not then if instead of being zealous Papists earnest Calvinists rigid Lutherans they would become themselves and be content that others should be plain and honest Christians if all men would believe the Scripture and freeing themselves from prejudice and passion would syncerely endeavour to finde the true sense of it and live according to it and require no more of others but to doe so nor denying their Communion to any that doe so would so order their publique seruice of God that all which doe so may without scruple or hypocrisy or protestation against any part of it joyne with them in it who does not see that seeing as we suppose here and shall prove hereafter all necessary truths are plainly and evidently set down in Scripture there would of necessity be among all men in all things necessary Vnity of Opinion And notwithstāding any other differences that are or could be Vnity of Communion and Charity and mutuall toleration By which meanes all Schisme and Heresy would be banished the world and those wretched contentions which now rend and teare in pieces not the coat but the members and bowels of Christ which mutuall pride and Tyranny and cursing and killing and damning would fain make immortall should speedily receive a most blessed catastrophe But of this hereafter when we shall come to the question of Schisme wherein I perswade my selfe that I shall plainly shew that the most vehement accusers are the greatest offenders and that they are indeed at this time the greatest Schismatiques who make the way to heaven narrower the yoak of Christ heavier the differences of Faith greater the conditions of Ecclesiasticall government harder and stricter then they were made at the begining by Christ and his Apostles they who talk of Unity but aime at Tyranny and will have peace with none but with their slaves and vassals In the mean while though I have shewed how Vnity of Faith Vnity of Charity too may be preserved without your Churches infallibility yet seeing you modestly conclude from hence not that your Church is but only seemes to be universally infallible meaning to your selfe of which you are a better judge then I Therefore I willingly grant your conclusion and proceed 82 Whereas you say That D. Potter limits those promises and privileges to fundamentall points The truth is with some of them hee meddles not at all neither doth his Adversary giue him occasion Not with those out of the Epistle to Timothy and to the Ephesians To the rest he giues other answer besides this 83 But the words of Scripture by you alleaged are Vniversall and mention no such restraint to Fundamentals as D. Potter applies to them I answer That of the fiue Texts which you alleage four are indefinite and only one universall and that you confesse is to be restrained and are offended with D. Potter for going about to proue it And Whereas you say they mention no restraint intimating that therefore they are not to be restrained I tell you this is no good consequence for it may appeare out of the matter and circumstances that they are to be understood in a restrained sense notwithstanding no restraint be mentioned That place quoted by S.
is explained by other Creeds For these words who spake by the Prophets are no waies contained in the Apostles Creed and therefore contain an Addition not an Explanation thereof 23 But how can it be necessary saith D. Potter for any Christian to haue more in his Creed then the Apostles had and the Church of their times I answer You trifle not distinguish between the Apostles beliefe and that abridgment of some Articles of faith which we call the Apostles Creed and withall you beg the question by supposing that the Apostles believed no more then is contained in their Creed which every unlearned person knowes and belieues and I hope you will not deny but the Apostles were endued with greater knowledge then ordinarie persons 24 Your pretended proof out of the Acts that the Apostles revealed to the Church the whole counsell of God keeping back nothing with your glosse needfull for our salvation is no proofe unlesse you still beg the question and doe suppose that whatsoever the Apostles revealed to the Church is contained in the Creed And I wonder you doe not reflect that those words were by S Paul particularly directed to Pastors and Governours of the Church as is cleere by the other words He called the Ancients of the Church And afterward Take heed to your selues and to the whole flock wherein the holy Ghost hath placed you Bishops to rule the Church And your selfe say that more knowledge is necessary in Bishops and Priests to whom is committed the government of the Church and the care of soules then in vulgar Laicks Doe you think that the Apostles taught Christians nothing but their Creed Said they nothing of the Sacraments Commandements Duties of Hope Charity c. 25 Vpon the same affected ambiguity is grounded your other objection To say the whole faith of those times is not contained in the Apostles Creed is all one as if a man should say this is not the Apostles Creed but a part of it For the faith of the Apostles is not all one with that which we commonly call their Creed Did not I pray you S. Mathew and S. Iohn belieue their writings to be Canonicall Scripture and yet their writings are not mentioned in the Creed It is therefore more then cleere that the Faith of the Apostles is of larger extent then the Apostles Creed 26 To your demand why amongst many things of equall necessity to be believed the Apostles should so diâ—tinctly set down some and be altogether silent of others I answer That you must answer your own demand For in the Creed there be divers points in their nature not fundamentall or necessary to be explicitely and distinctly believed 〈◊〉 aboue wee shewâ—d why are these points which are not fundamentall expressed rather then other 〈◊〉 the same quality Why our Saviours descent to Hell and Buriall expressed and not his Circumcision his Manifestation to the three Kings working of Miracles c. Why did they not expresse Scriptures Sacraments and all fundamentall points of Faith tending to practise as well as those which rest in beliefe Their intention was particularly to deliver such Articles as were fittest for those times concerning the Deity Trinity and Messias as heretofore I haue declared leaving many things to be taught by the Catholique Church which in the Creed we all professe to belieue Neither doth it follow as you infer That as well nay better they might have given no Article but that of the Church sent us to the Church for all the rest For in setting down others besides that and not all they make us believe we haue all when we haue not all For by this kind of arguing what may not be deduced One might quite contrary to your inference say If the Apostles Creed contain all points necessary to salvation what need we any Church to teach us and consequently what need of the Article concerning the Church What need we the Creeds of Nice Constantinople c. Superfluous are your Catechismes wherein besides the Articles of the Creed you adde divers other particulars These would be poore consequences and so is yours But shall I tell you newes For so you are pleased to esteem it We grant your inference thus far That our Saviour Christ referred us to his Church by her to be taught and by her alone For she was before the Creed and Scriptures And she to discharge this imposed office of instructing us hath delivered us the Creed but not it alone as if nothing else were to be believed We haue besides it holy Scripture we haue unwritten Divine Apostolicall Ecclesiasticall Traditions It were a childish argument The Creed containes not all things which are necessary to be believed Ergo it is not profitable Or The Church alone is sufficient to teach us by some convenient meanes Ergo she must teach us without all meanes without Creeds without Councels without Scripture c. If the Apostles had expressed no Article but that of the Catholique Church she must have taught us the other Articles in particular by Creeds or other meanes as in fact we have even the Apostles Creed from the Tradition of the Church If you will believe you have all in the Creed when you have not all it is not the Apostles or the Church that makes you so believe but it is your owne errour whereby you will needs believe that the Creed must contain all For neither the Apostles nor the Church nor the Creed it selfe tell you any such matter and what necessity is there that one meanes of instruction must involve whatsoever is contained in all the rest Wee are not to recite the Creed with anticipated perswasion that it must contain what we imagin it ought for better maintaining some opinions of our own but we ought to say and belieue that it containes what we finde in it of which one Article is to belieue the Catholique Church surely to be taught by her which presupposeth that we need other instruction beside the Creed and in particular we may learn of her what points be contained in the Creed what otherwise and so we shall not be deceaved by believing we haue all in the Creed when we have not all and you may in the same manner say As well nay better the Apostles might haue given us no Articles at all as haue left out Articles tending to practise For in setting down one sort of Articles and not the others they make us belieue we haue all when we haue not all 27 To our argument that Baptisme is not contained in the Creed D. Potter besides his answer that Sacraments belong rather to practise then faith which I haue already confuted and which indeed maketh against himselfe and serveth only to shew that the Apostles intended not to comprize all points in the Creed which we are bound to belieue adds that the Creed of Nice expressed Baptisme by name confesse one Baptisme for the remission of sinnes
Which answer is directly against himselfe and manifestly proues that Baptisme is an Article of faith and yet is not contained in the Apostles Creed neither explicitely nor by any necessary consequence from other Articles expressed therein If to make it an Article of faith be sufficient that it is contained in the Nicene Councell he will finde that Protestants maintain many errours against faith as being repugnant to definitions of Generall Councels as in particular that the very Councell of Nice which saith M. Whitgift is of all wise and learned men reverenced esteemed and imbraced next unto the Scriptures themselues decreed that to those who were chosen to the Ministry unmarried it was not lawfull to take any wife afterward is affirmed by Protestants And your grand Reformer Luther lib. de Conciliis part prima saith that he understand not the Holy Ghost in that Councell For in one Canon it saith that those who haue gelded themselues are not fit to be made Priests in another it forbids them to haue wiues Hath saith he the Holy Ghost nothing to doe in Councells but to binde and load his Ministers with impossible dangerous and unnecessary lawes I forbeare to shew that this very Article I confesse one Baptisme for the Remission of sinnes will be understood by Protestants in a far different sense from Catholiques yea Protestants among themselues doe not agree how Baptisme forgiues sinnes nor what grace it conferres Only concerning the Vnity of Baptisme against rebaptization of such as were once baptized which I noted as a point not contained in the Apostles Creed I cannot omit an excellent place of S. Augustine where speaking of the Donatists he hath these words They are so bold as to rebaptize Catholiques wherein they shew themselues to be the greater Heretiques since it hath pleased the universall Catholique Church not to make Baptisme void even in the very Heretiques themselues In which few words this holy Father delivereth against the Donatists these points which doe also make against Protestants That to make an Heresie or an Heretique known for such it is sufficient to oppose the definition of Gods Church That a proposition may be Hereticall though it be not repugnant to any Texts of Scripture For S. Augustine teacheth that the doctrine of rebaptization is hereticall and yet acknowledgeth it cannot be convinced for such out of Scripture And that neither the Heresie of rebaptization of those who were baptized by Heretiques nor the contrary Catholique truth being expressed in the Apostles Creed it followeth that it doth not contain all points of faith necessary to salvation And so we must conclude that to belieue the Creed is not sufficient for Vnitie of faith and Spirit in the same Church unlesse there be also a totall agreement both in beliefe of other points of faith and in externall profession and Communion also whereof we are to speak in the next Chapter according to the saying of S. Augustine You are with us in Baptisme and in the Creed but in the Spirit of Vnity and bond of peace and lastly in the Catholique Church you are not with us THE ANSVVER TO THE FOVRTH CHAPTER Wherein is shewed that the Creed containes all necessary points of meere belief 1 AD § 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Concerning the Creeds containing the Fundamentalls of Christianity this is D. Potters assertion delivered in the 207. p. of his book The Creed of the Apostles as it is explained in the latter Creeds of the Catholique Church is esteemed a sufficient summary or Catalogue of Fundamentalls by the best learned Romanists and by Antiquity 2 By Fundamentalls he understands not the Fundamentall rules of good life and action though every one of these is to be believed to come from God therefore vertually includes an Article of Faith but the Fundamentall doctrines of Faith such as though they have influence upon our lives as every essentiall doctrine of Christianity hath yet we are commanded to believe them and not to doe them The assent of our understandings is required to them but no obedience from our wills 3 But these speculative Doctrines again he distinguishes out of Aquinas Occham and Canus and others into two kinds of the first are those which are the obiects of Faith in and for themselves which by their own nature and Gods prime intention are essentiall parts of that Gospell such as the teachers in the Church cannot without Mortall sinne omit to teach the learners such as are intrinsecall to the Covenant between God and man and not only plainly revealed by God and so certain truths but also commanded to be preacht to all men and to be believed distinctly by all and so necessary truths Of the second sort are Accidentall Circumstantiall Occasionall objects of faith milliōs whereof there are in holy Scripture such as are to be believed not for themselves but because they are joyned with others that are necessary to be believed and delivered by the same Authority which delivered these Such as we are not bound to know to bee divine Revelations for without any fault we may be ignorant hereof nay believe the contrary such as we are not bound to examine whether or no they be divine Revelations such as Pastors are not bound to teach their Flock nor their Flock bound to know and remember no nor the Pastors themselves to know them or believe them or not to disbelieve them absolutely and alwaies but then only when they doe see and know them to be delivered in Scripture as divine Revelations 4 I say when they doe so and not only when they may doe For to lay an obligation upon us of believing or not disbelieving any Verity sufficient Revelation on Gods part is not sufficient For then seeing all the expresse Verities of Scripture are either to all men or at least to all learned men sufficiently revealed by God it should be a damnable sinne in any learned man actually to disbelieve any one particular Historicall verity contained in Scripture or to believe the contradiction of it though he knew it not to be there contained For though he did not yet he might have known it it being plainly revealed by God and this revelation being extant in such a Book wherein he might have found it recorded if with diligence he had perused it To make therefore any points necessary to be believed it is requisite that either we actually know them to be divine Revelations and these though they be not Articles of faith nor necessary to be believed in and for themselves yet indirectly and by accident and by consequence they are so The necessity of believing them being inforced upon us by a necessity of believing this Essentiall and Fundamentall article of Faith That all Divine Revelations are true which to disbelieve or not to believe is for any Christian not only impious but impossible Or else it is requisite that they be First actually revealed by God Secondly commanded under pain of damnation to
the main Question in this businesse is not what divine Revelations are necessary to be believed or not rejected when they are sufficiently proposed for all without exception all without question are so But what Revelations are simply and absolutely necessary to be proposed to the beliefe of Christians so that that Society which does propose and indeed believe them hath for matter of Faith the essence of a true Church that which does not has not Now to this question though not to yours D. Potter's assertion if it be true is apparently very pertinent And though not a full and totall satisfaction to it yet very effectuall and of great moment towards it For the main question being what points are necessary to Salvation and points necessary to Salvation being of two sorts some of simple belief some of Practise and obedience he that gives you a sufficient summary of the first sort of necessary points hath brought you halfe way towards your journies end And therefore that which he does is no more to be slighted as vain and impertinent then an Architects work is to be thought impertinent towards the making of a house because he does it not all himselfe Sure I am if his assertion be true as I believe it is a corollary may presently be deduced from it which if it were imbraced cannot in all reason but doe infinite service both to the truth of Christ and the peace of Christendome For seeing falsehood and errour could not long stand against the power of truth were they not supported by tyranny and worldly advantages he that could assert Christians to that liberty which Christ and his Apostles left them must needs doe Truth a most Heroicall service And seeing the over-valuing of the differences among Christians is one of the greatest maintainers of the Schisme of Christendome he that could demonstrate that only these points of Beliefe are simply necessary to salvation wherein Christians generally agree should he not lay a very faire and firme foundation of the peace of Christendome Now the Corollary which I conceive would produce these good effects and which flowes naturally from D. Potters Assertion is this That what Man or Church soever beleeves the Creed and all the evident consequences of it sincerely and heartily cannot possibly if also he beleeve the Scripture be in any Errour of simple beleife which is offensiue to God nor therefore deserve for any such Errour to be deprived of his life or to be cut off from the Churches Communion and the hope of Salvation And the production of this againe would be this which highly concernes the Church of Rome to think of That whatsoever Man or Church does for any errour of simple beleife depriue any man so qualified as aboue either of his temporall life or liuelyhood or liberty or of the Churches Communion and hope of salvation is for the first uniust cruell and tyrannous Schismaticall presumptuous and uncharitable for the second 13 Neither yet is this as you pretend to take away the necessity of beleeving those verities of Scripture which are not contained in the Creed when once we come to know that they are written in Scripture but rather to lay a necessity upon men of beleeving all things written in Scripture when once they know them to be there written For he that beleeves not all knowne Divine Revelations to be true how does he believe in God Vnlesse you will say that the same man at the same time may not believe God and yet believe in him The greater difficulty is how it will not take away the necessity of beleeving Scripture to be the word of God But that it will not neither For though the Creed be granted a sufficient summary of Articles of meere Faith yet no man pretends that it containes the Rules of obedience but for them all men are referred to Scripture Besides he that pretends to believe in God obligeth himselfe to beleeve it necessary to obey that which reason assures him to be the Will of God Now reason will assure him that beleeves the Creed that it is the Will of God he should beleeve the Scripture even the very same Reason which moves him to beleeve the Creed Vniversall and never failing Tradition having given this Testimony both to Creed and Scripture that they both by the works of God were sealed testified to be the words of God And thus much be spoken in Answere to your first Argument the length whereof will be the more excusable If I oblige my self to say but little to the Rest. 14 I come then to your second And in Answer to it denie flatly as a thing destructive of it self that any Errour can be damnable unlesse it be repugnant immediatly or mediatly directly or indirectly of it self or by accident to some Truth for the matter of it fundamentall And to your example of Pontius Pilat's being Iudge of Christ I say the deniall of it in him that knowes it to be revealed by God is manifestly destructive of this fundamentall truth that all Divine Revelations are true Neither will you find any errour so much as by accident damnable but the rejecting of it will be necessarily laid upon us by a reall beleif of all Fundamentals and simply necessary Truths And I desire you would reconcile with this that which you have said § 15. Every Fundamentall Errour must have a contrary Fundamentall Truth because of two Contradictory propositions in the same degree the one is false the other must be true c. 15 To the Third I Answer That the certainty I have of the Creed That it was from the Apostles and containes the principles of Faith I ground it not upon Scripture and yet not upon the Infallibility of any present much lesse of your Church but upon the Authority of the Ancient Church and written Tradition which as D. Potter hath proved gave this constant Testimony unto it Besides I tell you it is guilty of the same fault which D. Potter's Assertion is here accused of having perhaps some colour toward the proving it false but none at all to shew it impertinent 16 To the Fourth I Answer plainly thus That you finde fault with D. Potter for his Vertues you are offended with him for not usurping the Authority which he hath not in a word for not playing the Pope Certainly if Protestants be faulty in this matter it is for doing it too much and not too little This presumptuous imposing of the senses of men upon the words of God the speciall senses of men upon the generall words of God and laying them upon mens consciences together under the equall penaltie of death and damnation this Vaine conceit that we can speak of the things of God better then in the word of God This Deifying our owne Interpretations and Tyrannous inforcing them upon others This restraining of the word of God from that latitude and generality and the understandings of men from that liberty wherein Christ and Apostles
be what can it be but curiosity to desire to know it Neither may you think to mend your selfe herein one whit by having recourse to them whom we call Papists for they are as farre to seek as wee in this point which of the Articles of the Creed are for their nature and matter fundamentall and which are not Particularly you will scarce meet with any amongst their Doctors so adventurous as to tell you for a certain whether or no the conception of Christ by the Holy Ghost his being born of a Virgin his Buriall his descent into Hell and the Communion of Saints be points of their own nature and matter fundamentall Such I mean as without the distinct and explicite knowledge of them no man can be saved 63 But you will say at least they give this certain rule that all points defined by Christs visible Church belong to the foundation of faith in such sense as to deny any such cannot stand with Salvation So also Protestants give you this more certain rule That whosoever believes heartily those books of Scripture which all the Christian Churches in the world acknowledge to be Canonicall and submits himselfe indeed to this as to the rule of his belief must of necessity believe all things fundamentall and if he live according to his faith cannot fail of Salvation But besides what certainty have you that that rule of Papists is so certain By the visible Church it is plain they mean only their own and why their own only should be the Visible Church I doe not understand and as little why all points defined by this Church should belong to the foundation of faith These things you had need see well and substantially proved before you rely upon them otherwise you expose your selfe to danger of imbracing damnable errors instead of Fundamentall truth's But you will say D. Potter himselfe acknowledges that we doe not erre in Fundamentalls If he did so yet me thinkes you have no reason to rest upon his acknowledgement with any security whom you condemne of errour in many other matters Perhaps excesse of Charity to your persons may make him censure your errors more favourably then he should doe But the truth is and so I have often told you though the Doctor hope that your errors are not so unpardonably destructive but that some men who ignorantly hold them may be saved yet in themselves he professes and proclaimes them damnable and such as he feares will be certainly destructive to such as you are that is to all those who have eyes to see and will not see them 64 Ad § 20. 21. 22. 23. In the Remainder of this Chapter you promise to answer D. Potters Arguments against that which you said before But presently forgetting your selfe in stead of answering his Arguments you fall a confuting his Answers to your own The arguments objected by you which here you vindicate were two 1. The Scripture is not so much as mentioned in the Creed therefore the Creed containes not all things necessary to be believed 2. Baptisme is not contained in the Creed therefore not all things necessary To both which Arguments my Answer shortly is this that they prove something but it is that which no man here denies For D. Potter as you have also confessed never said not undertook to shew that the Apostles intended to comprize in the Creed all points absolutely which we are bound to believe or after sufficient proposall not to disbelieve which yet here and every where you are obtruding upon him But only that they purposed to comprize in it all such doctrines purely speculative all such matters of simple belief as are in ordinary course necessary to be distinctly and explicitly believed by all men Neither of these objections doe any way infringe or impeach the truth of this Assertion Not the first because according to your own doctrine all men are not bound to know explicitely what books of Scripture are Canonicall Nor the second because Baptisme is not a matter of Faith but practise not so much to be believed as to be given and received And against these Answers whether you have brought any considerable new matter let the indifferent Reader judge As for the other things which D. Potter rather glanceth at then builâ—s upon in answering these objections as the Creed's being collected out of Scripture and supposing the Authority of it which Gregory of Valentia in the place above cited seemes to me to confesse to have been the Iudgement of the Ancient Fathers and the Nicene Creed's intimating the authority of Canonicall Scripture and making mention of Baptisme These things were said ex abundanti and therefore I conceive it superfluous to examine your exceptions against them Prove that D. Potter did affirme that the Creed containes all things necessary to be believed of all sorts and then these objections will be pertinent and deserve an answer Or produce some point of simple belief necessary to be explicitly believed which is not contained either in termes or by consequence in the Creed and then I will either answer your Reasons or confesse I cannot But all this while you doe but trifle and are so farre from hitting the marke that you rove quite beside the But. 65 Ad § 23. 24. 25. Potterâ—emands â—emands How it can be necessary for any Christian to have more in his Creed then the Apostles had and the Church of their times You Answer That he trifles not distinguishing between the Apostles belief and that abridgement of some Articles of faith which we call the Apostles Creed I reply that it is you which trifle affectedly confounding what D. Potter hath plainly distinguished the Apostles belief of the whole Religion of Christ as it comprehends both what we are to doe and what we are to believe with their belief of that part of it which containes not duties of obedience but only the necessary Articles of siâ—ple â—aith Now though the Apostles Beleife be in the former sense a larger thing then that which we call the Apostles Creed yet in the latter sense of the word the Creed I say is a full comprehension of their belief which you your selfe have formerly confessed though somewhat fearfully and inconstantly and here again unwillingnesse to speak the truth makes you speak that which is hardly sense and call it an abridgement of some Articles of Faith For I demand these some Articles which you speak of which are they Those that are out of the Creed or those that are in it Those that are in it it comprehends at large and therefore it is not an abridgement of them Those that are out of it it comprehends not at all and therefore it is not an abridgement of them If you would call it now an abridgement of the Faith this would be sense and signify thus much That all the necessary Articles of the Christian faith are compriz'd in it For this is the proper duty of abridgements to leave out nothing
us of innumerable grosse damnable Heresies that have been are and may be whose contrary Truths are neither explicitly nor by consequence comprehended in this Creed So that no man by the beleife of this Creed without the former can be possibly guarded from falling into them and continuing obstinate in them Nay so far is this Creed from guarding them from these mischiefes that it is more likely to ensnare thē into them by seeming and yet not being a full comprehension of all necessary points of faith which is apt as experience shewes to mis-guide men into this pernitious errour That believing the Creed they believe all necessary points of faith whereas indeed they doe not so Now upon these grounds I thus conclude That Creed which hath great commodities and no danger would certainly be better then that which hath great danger and wants many of these great commodities But the former short Creed propos'd by me I believe the Roman Church to be infallible if your doctrine be true is of the former condition and the latter that is the Apostles Creed is of the latter Therefore the former if your doctrine be true would without controversie be better then the latter 80 But say you by this kind of arguing one might inferre quite contrary If the Apostles Creed contain all points necessary to Salvation what need have wee of any Church to teach us And consequently what need of the Article of the Church To which I answer that having compared your inference and D. Potter together I cannot discover any shadow of resemblance between them nor any shew of Reason why the perfection of the Apostles Creed should exclude a necessity of some body to deliver it Much lesse why the whole Creed's containing all things necessary should make the beliefe of a part of it unnecessary As well for ought I understand you might avouch this inference to be as good as D. Potters The Apostles Creed contains all things necessary therefore there is no need to believe in God Neither does it follow so well as D. Potters argument followes That if the Apostles Creed containes all things necessary that all other Creeds and Catechismes wherein are added divers other Particulars are superfluous For these other Particulars may be the duties of obedience they may be profitable points of Doctrine they may be good expositions of the Apostles Creed and so not superfluous and yet for all this the Creed may still contain all points of belief that are simply necessary These therefore are poor consequences but no more like D. Potters then an apple is like an oister 81 But this consequence after you have sufficiently slighted and disgraced it at length you promise us newes and pretend to grant it But what is that which you mean to grant That the Apostles did put no Article in their Creed but only that of the Church Or that if they had done so they had done better then now they have done This is D. Potters inference out of your Doctrine and truly if you should grant this this were newes indeed Yes say you I will grant it but only thus farre that Christ hath referred us only to his Church Yea but this is clean another thing and no newes at all that you should grant that which you would fain have granted to you So that your dealing with us is just as if a man should profer me a curtesy and pretend that he would oblige himselfe by a note under his hand to give me twenty pound and in stead of it write that I owe him forty and desire me to subscribe to it and be thankfull Of such favours as these it is very safe to be liberall 82 You tell us afterward but how it comes in I know not that it were a childish argument The Creed containes not all things necessary Ergo It is not Profitable Or the Church alone is sufficient to teach us by some convenient meanes Ergo She must teach us without meanes These indeed are childish arguments but for ought I see you alone are the father of them for in D. Potters book I can neither meet with them nor any like them He indeed tels you that if by an impossible supposition your Doctrine were true another and a farre shorter Creed would have been more expedient even this alone I believe the Roman Church to be infallible But why you should conclude he makes this Creed unprofitable because he saies another that might be conceived upon this false supposition would be more profitable or that he laies a necessity upon the Church of teaching without meanes or of not teaching this very Creed which now is taught these things are so subtill that I cannot apprehend them To my understanding by those words And sent us to the Church for all the rest he does rather manifestly imply that the rest might be very well not only profitable but necessary and that the Church was to teach this by Creeds or Catechismes or Councells or any other meanes which she should make choice of for being Infallible she could not choose amisse 83 Whereas therefore you say If the Apostles had exprest no Article but that of the Catholique Church she must haue taught us the other Articles in particular by Creeds or other meanes This is very true but no way repugnant to the truth of this which followes that the Apostles if your doctrine be true had done better service to the Church though they had never made this Creed of theirs which now we haue if insteed thereof they had commanded in plain termes that for mens perpetuall direction in the faith this short Creed should be taught all men I believe the Roman Church shall be for ever infallible Yet you must not so mistake me as if I meant that they had done better not to haue taught the Church the substance of Christian Religion For then the Church not having learnt it of them could not haue taught it us This therefore I doe not say but supposing they had written these Scriptures as they haue written wherein all the Articles of their Creed are plainly delivered and preached that Doctrine which they did preach and done all otherthings as they have done besides the composing their Symbole◠I say if your doctrine were true they had done a work infinitely more beneficiall to the Church of Christ if they had never compos'd their Symbole which is but an imperfect comprehension of the necessary points of simple beliefe and no distinctiue mark as a Symbole should be between those that are good Christians and those that are not so But insteed thereof had delivered this one Proposition which would haue been certainly effectuall for all the aforesaid good intents and purposes The Roman Church shall be forever infallible in all things which she proposes as matters of faith 84 Whereas you say If we will belieue we haue all in the Creed whē we haue not all it is not the Apostles fault but our own I tell
you plainly if it be a fault I know not whose it should be but theirs For sure it can be no fault in me to follow such Guides whether â—oever they lead me Now I say they haue led me into this perswasion because they haue given me great reason to belieue it and none to the contrary The reason they haue given me to belieue it is because it is apparent and confest they did propose to themselues in composing it some good end or ends As that Christians might haue a forme by which for matter of faith they might professe themselues Catholiques So Putean out of Th. Aquinas That the faithfull might know what the Christian people is to believe explicitely So Vincent Filiucius That being separated into divers parts of the world they might preach the same thing And that that might serve as a mark to distinguish true Christians from Infidels So Cardinall Richlieu Now for all these and for any other good intent I say it will be plainly uneffectuall unlesse it contain at least all points of simple beliefe which are in ordinary course necessary to be explicitely known by all men So that if it be fault in me to belieue this it must be my fault to belieue the Apostles wise and good men which I cannot doe if I belieue not this And therefore what Richardus de sancto Victore sayes of God himselfe I make no scruple at all to apply to the Apostles and to say Si error est quod credo à vobis deceptus sum If it be an errour which I belieue it is you and my reverend esteem of you and your actions that hath led me into it For as for your suspition That we are led into this perswasion out of a hope that we may the better maintain by it some opinions of our own It is plainly uncharitable I know no opinion I haue which I would not as willingly forsake as keep if I could see sufficient reason to enduce me to believe that it is the will of God I should forsake it Neither doe I know any opinion I hold against the Church of Rome but I haue more evident grounds then this whereupon to build it For let but these Truths bee granted That the authority of the Scripture is independent on your Church dependent only in respect of us upon universall Tradition That Scripture is the only Rule of faith That all things necessary to salvation are plainly delivered in Scripture Let I say these most certain and divine Truths be laid for foundations and let our superstructions bee consequent and coherent to them and I am confident Peace would be restored and Truth maintained against you though the Apostles Creed were not in the world CHAP. V. That Luther Calvin their Associates all who began or continue the separation from the externall Communion of the Roman Church are guilty of the proper and formall sinne of Schisme THE Searcher of all Hearts is witnesse with how unwilling minds we Catholiques are drawen to fasten the denomination of Schismatiques or Heretiques on them for whose soules if they imployed their best blood they judge that it could not be better spent If we rejoyce that they are contistated at such titles our joy riseth not from their trouble or griefe but as that of the Apostles did from the fountaine of Charity because they are contâ—â—stated to repentance that so after unpartiall examination they finding themselves to be what we say may by Gods holy grace begin to dislike what themselves are For our part we must remember that our obligation is to keep within the meane betwixt uncharitable bitternesse and pernicious flattery not yeelding to worldly respects nor offending Christian Modesty but uttering the substance of truth in so Charitable manner that not so much we as Truth and Charity may seeme to speak according to the wholesome advise of S. Gregory Nazianzen in these divine words We doe not affect peace with preiudice of the true doctrine that so we may get a name of being gentle and mild and yet we seek to conserue peace fighting in a lawfull manner and containing our selves within our compasse and the rule of Spirit And of these things my iudgment is and for my part I prescribe the same law to all that deale with soules and treat of true doctrine that neither they exasperate meâ—s minds by harshnesse nor make them haughty or insolent by submission but that in the cause of faith they behave themselves prudently and advisedly and doe not in either of these things exceed the meane With whom aÌ„greeth S. Leo saying It behoveth us in such causes to be most carefull that without noise of contentions both Charity be conserved and Truth maintained 2. For better Methode we will handle these points in order First we will set downe the nature and essence or as I may call it the Quality of Schisme In the second place the greatnesse and grievousnesse or so to tearme it the Quantity thereof For the Nature or Quality will tell us who may without injury be iudged Schismatiques and by the greatnesse or quantity such as finde themselves guilty thereof will remaine acquainted with the true state of their soule and and whether they may conceive any hope of salvation or no. And because Schisme will be found to be a division from the Church which could not happen unlesse there were alwaies a visible Church we will Thirdly prove or rather take it as a point to be granted by all Christians that in all ages there hath beene such a Visible Congregation of Faithfull People Fourthly we will demonstrate that Luther Calvin and the rest did separate themselves from the Communion of that alwaies visible Church of Christ and therefore were guilty of Schisme And fifthly we will make it evident that the visible true Church of Christ out of which Luther and his followers departed was no other but the Roman Church and consequently that both they and all others who persist in the same division are Schismatiques by reason of their separation from the Church of Rome 3 For the first point touching the Nature or Quality of Schisme As the naturall perfection of man consists in his being the Image of God his Creator by the powers of his soule so his supernaturall perfection is placed in fimilitude with God as his last End and Felicity and by having the said spirituall faculties his Vnderstanding and Will linked to him His Vnderstanding is united to God by Faith his Will by Charity The former relies upon his infallible Truth The latter carrieth us to his infinite Goodnesse Faith hath a deadly opposite Heresie Contrary to the Vnion or Vnity of Charity is Separation and Division Charity is twofold As it respects God his Opposite Vice is Hatred against God as it uniteth us to our Neighbour his contrary is Seperation or division of affections and will from our Neighbour Our Neighbour may be considered either as one private person
From the selfe same ground of the infallibility of the Church in all fundamentall points I argue after this manner The visible Church cannot be forsaken without damnation upon pretence that it is damnable to remain in her Communion by reason of corruption in doctrine as long as for the truth of her Faith and beliefe she performeth the duty which she dweth to God and her Neighbour As long as she performeth what our Saviour exacts at her hands as long as she doth as much as lies in her power to doe But even according to D. Potters Assertions the Church performeth all these things as long as she erreth not in points fundamentall although she were supposed to erre in other points not fundamentall Therefore the Communion of the visible Church cannot be forsaken without damnation upon pretence that it is damnable to remain in her Communion by reason of corruption in doctrine The Major or first Proposition of it selfe is evident The Minor or second Proposition doâ—h necessarily follow out of D. Potters own doctrine above-rehearsed that the promises of our Lord made to his Church for his assistance are to be extended only to points of faith or fundamentall Let me note here by the way that by his Or he seemes to exclude from Faith all points which are not fundamentall and so we may deny innumerable Texts of Scripture That It is comfort enough for the Church that the Lord in mercy will secure her from all capitall dangers c. but she may not hope to triumph over all sinne and errour till she be in heaven For it is evident that the Church for as much as concernes the truth of her doctrines and beliefe owes no more duty to God and her Neighbour neither doth our Saviour exact more at her hands nor is it in her power to doe more then God doth assist her to doe which assistance is promised only for points fundamentall and conâ—equently as long as she teacheth no fundamentall error her communion cannot without damnation be forsaken And we may fitly apply against D. Potter a Concionatory declamation which he makes against us where he saith May the Church of after Ages make the narrow way to heaven narrower then our Saviour left it c since he himselfe obligeth men under pain of damnation to forsake the Church by reason of errours against which our Saviour thought it needlesse to promise his assistance and for which he neither demeth his grace in this life or glory in the next Will D. Potter oblige the Church to doe more then she may even hope for or to performe on earth that which is proper to heaven alone 21 And as from your own doctrine concerning the infallibility of the Church in fundamentall points we have proved that it was a grievous sinne to forsake her so doe we take a strong argâ—ment from the fallibility of any who dare pretend to reforme the Church which any man in his wits will believe to be indued with at least as much infallibility as private men can challeng D. Potter expresly affirmeth that Christs promises of his assistance are not intended to any particular persons or Churches therefore to leave the Church by reason of errours was at best hand bâ—t to flit from one erring company to another without any new hope of triumphing over errours and without necessity or utility to forsake that Communion of which S. Augustine saith There is no just necessity to divide Vnity Which will appear to be much more evident if we consider that though the Church had maintained some false doctrines yet to leave her Communion to remedy the old were but to adde a new increase of errors arising from the innumerable disagreements of Sectaries which must needs bring with it a mighty masse of falshoods because the truth is but one and indivisible And this reason is yet stronger if we still remember that even according to D. Potter the visible Church hath a blessing not to erre in points fundamentall in which any private Reformer may faile and therefore they could not pretend any necessity to forsake that Church out of whose communion they were exposed to danger of falling into many more and even into damnable errors Remember I pray you what your selfe affirmes pag. 69. where speaking of our Church and yours you say All the difference is from the weeds which remain there and here are taken away Yet neither here perfectly nor every where alike Behold a fair confession of corruptions still remaining in your Church which you can only excuse by saying they are not fundamentall as likewise those in the Roman Church are confessed to be not fundamentall What man of judgement will be a Protestant since that Church is confessedly a corrupt one 22 I still proceed to impugne you expresly upon your own grounds You say that it is comfort enough for the Church that the Lord in mercy will secure her from all capitall dangers but she may not hope to triumph over all sinne and errour till she be in heaven Now if it be comfort enough to be secured from all capitall dangers which can arise only from error in fundamentall points why were not your first reformers content with enough but would needs dismember the Church out of a pernitious greedinesse of more then enough For this enough which according to you is attained by not erring in points fundamentall was enjoyed before Luthers reformation unlesse you will now against your selfe affirme that long before Luther there was no Church free from error in fundamentall points Moreover if as you say no Church may hope to triumph over all errour till she be in heaven You must either grant that errors not fundamentall cannot yeeld sufficient cause to forsake the Church or else you must affirme that all community may and ought to be forsaken so there will be no end of Schismes or rather indeed there can be no such thing as Schisâ—e because according to you all communities are subject to errors not fundamentall for which if they may be lawfully forsaken it followeth cleerely that it is not Schisme to forsake them Lastly since it is not lawfull to leave the Communion of the Church for abuses in life and manners because such miseries cannot be avoided in this world of temptation and since according to your Assertion no Church may hope to triumph over all sinne and error You must grant that as she ought not to be left by reason of sinne so neither by reason of errors not fundamentall because both sinne and errour are according to you impossible to be avoided till she be in heaven 23 Furthermore I aske whether it be the Qâ—antity or Number or Quality and Greatnesse of doctrinall errors that may yeild sufficient cause to relinquish the Churches Communion I prove that neither Not the Quality which is supposed to be beneath the degree of points fundamentall or necessary to salvation Not the Quantity or Number for
salvation and yet I cannot hope to be saved in that Church or who can conjoyn in one brain not crack't these assertions After due examination I judge the Roman errors not to be in themselues fundamentall or damnable and yet I judge that according to true reason it is damnable to hold them I say according to true reason For if you grant your conscience to be erroneous in judging that you cannot be saved in the Roman Church by reason of her errours there is no other remedy but that you must rectifie your erring conscience by your other judgement that her errours are not fundamentall nor damnable And this is no more Charity then you daily afford to such other Protestants as you term Brethren whom you cannot deny to be in some errors unlesse you will hold That of contradictory propositions both may be true and yet you doe not judge it damnable to liue in their Communion because you hold their errors not to be fundamentall You ought to know that according to the Doctrine of all Divines there is great difference between a speculatiue perswasion and a practicall dictamen of conscience and therefore although they had in speculation conceived the visible Church to erre in some doctrines of themselves not damnable yet with that speculatiue judgement they might and ought to haue entertained this practicall dictamen that for points not substantiall to faith they neither were bound nor lawfully could break the bond of Charity by breaking unity in Gods Church You say that hay and stubble and such unprofitable stuffe as are corruptions in points not fundamentall laid on the roofe destroyes not the house whilst the main pillars are standing on the foundation And you would think him a mad man who to be rid of such stuffe would set his house on fire that so he might walk in the light as you teach that Luther was obliged to forsake the house of God for an unnecessary light not without a combustion formidable to the whole Christiā world rather then beare with some errours which did not destroy the foundation of faith And as fo◠others who entred in at the breach first made by Luther they might and ought to haue guided their consciences by that most reasonable rule of Vincentius Lyrinensis delivered in these words Indeed it is a matter of great moment and both most profitable to be learned and necessary to be remembred and which we ought again and again to illustrate and inculcate with weighty heapes of examples that almost all Catholiques may know that they ought to receiue the Doctors with the Church and not forsake the faith of the Church with the Doctors And much lesse should they forsake the faith of the Church to follow Luther Calvin and such other Novelists Moreover though your first Reformers had conceived their own opinions to be true yet they might and ought to haue doubted whether they were certain because your selfe affirm that infallibility was not promised to any particular Persons or Churches And since in cases of uncertainties we are not to leave our Superiour nor cast off his obedience or publiquely oppose his decrees your Reformers might easily haue found a safe way to satisfie their zealous conscience without a publique breach especially if with this their uncertainty we call to mind the peaceable possession and prescription which by the confession of your own Brethren the Church and Pope of Rome did for many ages enjoy I wish you would examine the works of your Brethren by the words your selfe sets down to free S. Cyprian from Schisme every syllable of which words convinceth Luther and his Copartners to be guilty of that crime and sheweth in what manner they might with great ease and quietnesse haue rectified their consciences about the pretended errours of the Church S. Cyprian say you was a peaceable and modest man dissented from others in his iudgement but without any breach of Charity condemned no man much lesse any Church for the contrary opinion He believed his own opinion to be true but believed not that it was necessary and therefore did not proceed rashly and peremptorily to censure others but left them to their liberty Did your Reformers imitate this manner of proceeding Did they censure no man much lesse any Church S. Cyprian believed his own Opinion to be true but believed not that it was necessary and THEREFORE did not proceed rashly and peremptorily to censure others You belieue the points wherein Luther differs from us not to be fundamentall or necessary and why doe you not thence infer the like THEREFORE he should not haue proceeded to censure others In a word since their disagreement from us concerned only points which were not fundamentall they should haue believed that they might haue been deceived as well as the whole visible Church which you say may erre in such points and therefore their doctrines being not certainly true and certainly not necessary they could not giue sufficient cause to depart from the Communion of the Church 42 In other places you write so much as may serve us to proue that Luther and his followers ought to haue deposed and rectified their consciences As for example when you say When the Church hath declared her selfe in any matter of opinion or of Rites her declaration obliges all her children to peace and externall obedience Nor is it fit or lawfull for any private man to oppose his judgement to the publique as Luther and his fellows did He may offer his opinion to be considered of so he doe it with evidence or great probability of Scripture or reason and very modestly still containing himself within the dutifull respect which he oweth but if he will factiously advance his own conceits his own conceits yet grounded upon evidence of Scripture despise the Church so far as to cut of her Cōmunion he may be justly branded condemned for a Schismatique yea an Heretique also in some degree in foro exteriori though his opinion were true much more if it be false Could any man even for a Fee haue spoken more home to condemn your Predecessors of Schisme or Heresy Could they haue stronger Motives to oppose the doctrine of the Church and leave her Communion then evidence of Scripture And yet according to your own words they should haue answered rectified their conscience by your doctrine that though their opinion were true and grounded upon evidence of Scripture or reason yet it was not lawfull for any private man to oppose his iudgement to the publique which obligeth all Christians to peace externall obedience and if they cast off the Communion of the Church for maintaining their own Conceits they may be branded for Schismatiques and Heretiques in some degree in foro exteriori that is all other Christians ought so to esteem of them and why then are we accounted uncharitable for judging so of you and they also are obliged to behaue themselves
and honest Fore-fathers Thus declaring plainly though in words they denyed the Visibility of the true Church yet their meaning was not to deny the perpetuity but the perpetuall purity and incorruption of the Visible Church 15 Ad § 11. Let us proceed therefore to your 11. Sect. where though D. Potter and other Protestants granting the Churches perpetuall Visibility make it needlesse for you to prove it yet you will needs be doing that which is needlesse But you doe it so coldly and negligently that it is very happy for you that D. Potter did grant it 16 For what if the Prophets spake more obscurely of Christ then of the Church What if they had foreseen that greater contentions would arise about the Church then Christ Which yet he that is not a meere stranger in the story of the Church must needs know to be untrue and therefore not to be fore-seene by the Prophets What if we have manifestly received the Church from the Scriptures Does it follow from any or all these things that the Church of Christ must be alwaies Visible 17 Besides what Protestant ever granted that which you presume upon so confidently that every man for all the affaires of his soule must have recourse to some congregation If some one Christian lived alone among Pagans in some country remote from Christendome shall we conceive it impossible for this man to be saved because he cannot have recourse to any congregation for the affaires of his soule Will it not be sufficient for such a ones Salvation to know the doctrine of Christ and live according to it Such fancies as these you doe very wisely to take for granted because you know well t is hard to prove them 18 Let it be as unlawfull as you please to deny and dissemble matters of faith Let them that doe so not be a Church but a damned Crew of Sycophants What is this to the Visibility of the Church May not the Church be Invisible and yet these that are of it professe their faith No say you Their profession will make them visible Very true visible in the places where and in the times when they live and to those persons unto whom they have necessary occasion to make their profession But not visible to all or any great or considerable part of the world while they live much lesse conspicuous to all Ages after them Now it is a Church thus illustriously and conspicuously visible that you require by whose splendour all men may be directed drawn to repaire to her for the affaires of their soules Neither is it the Visibility of the Church absolutely but this degree of it which the most rigid Protestants deny which is plaine enough out of the places of Napper cited by you in your 9. Part. of this chapt Where his words are God hath withdrawne his visible Church from open Assemblies to the hearts of particular godly men And this Church which had not open Assemblies he calls The latent and Invisible Church Now I hope Papists in England will be very apt to grant men may be so farre Latent and Invisible as not to professe their faith in open Assemblies nor to proclaime it to all the world yet not deny nor dissemble it nor deserve to be esteemed a damned crew of dissembling Sycophants 19 But preaching of the word and administration of the Sacraments cannot but make a Church visible and these are inseparable notes of the Church I answer they are so far inseparable that wheresoever they are there a Church is But not so but that in some cases there may bee a Church where these notes are not Againe these notes will make the Church visible But to whom certainly not to all men nor to most mē But to them only to whom the word is preached and the Sacraments are administred They make the Church visible to whom themselves are visible but not to others As where your Sacraments are administred and your doctrine preached it is visible that there is a Popish Church But this may perhaps be visible to them only who are present at these performances and to others as secret as if they had never beene performed 20 But S. Austine saith it is an impudent abominable detestable speech and so forth to say the Church hath perished I answer 1. All that S. Austine sayes is not true 2. Though this were true it were nothing to your purpose unlesse you will conceive it all one not to be not to be conspicuously visible 3. This very speech that the Church perished might be false and impudent in the Donatists and yet not so in the Protestants For there is no incongruity that what hath lived 500. yeares may perish in 1600. But S. Austin denyed not only the Actuall perishing but the possibility of it and not only of it's falling to nothing but of it's falling into corruption I answer though no such thing appeares out of those places yet I believe heare of disputation against the Donatists and a desire to over-confute them transported him so farre as to urge against them more then was necessary and perhaps more then was true But were he now revived did but confront the doctrine of after-ages with that his owne experience would enforce him to change his opinion As concerning the last speech of S. Austine I cannot but wonder very much why he should thinke it absurd for any man to say There are sheepe which he knowes not but God knowes and no lesse at you for obtruding this sentence upon us as pertinent proofe of the Churches visibility 21 Neither doe I see how the Truth of any present Church depends the Perpetuall Visibility nay nor upon the perpetuity of that which is past or future For what sense is there that it should not be in the power of God Almighty to restore to a flourishing estate a Church which oppression hath made Invisible to repaire that which is ruined to reforme that which was corrupted or to reviue that which was dead Nay what Reason is there but that by ordinary meanes this may be done so long as the Scriptures by Divine Providence are preserved in their integrity and Authority As a Common-wealth though never so farre collapsed and overrunne with disorders is yet in possibility of being reduc'd unto its Originall state so long as the Ancient Lawes and Fundamentall Constitutions are extant and remain inviolate from whence men may be directed how to make such a Reformation But S. Austine urges this uery Argument against the Donatists and therefore it is good I answer that I doubt much of the Consequence and my Reason is because you your selves acknowledge that even generall Councels and therefore much more particular Doctors though infallible in their determinations are yet in their Reasons and Arguments where upon they ground them subject to like Passions and Errours with other men 22 Lastly whereas you say That all Divines define Schisme a Division from the true Church and from
not approved there but reprehended and confuted or because being of impious conversation they are impatient of their Churches censure I would know I say whether all or any of these may with any face or without extreme impudency put in this plea of Protestants and pretend with as much likelihood as they that they did not separate from others but only reforme themselves But suppose they were so impudent as to say so in their own defence falsely doth it follow by any good Logick that therefore this Apology is not to be imployed by Protestants who may say so truly We make say they no Schisme from you but only a reformation of our selves This you reply is no good justification because it may be pretended by any Schismatique Very true any Schismatique that can speak may say the same words as any Rebell that makes conscience the cloake of his impious disobedience may say with S. Peter and S. Iohn we must obey God rather then men But then the question is whether any Schismatique may say so truly And to this question you say just nothing but conclude because this defence may be abused by some it must be used by none As if you should haue said S. Peter and S. Iohn did ill to make such an answer as they made because impious Hypocrites might make use of the same to palliate their disobedience and Rebellion against the lawfull commands of lawfull Authority 81 But seeing their pretended Reformation consisted in forsaking the Churches corruptions their Reformation of themselves and their dividivision from you falls out to be one and the same thing Iust as if two men having been a long while companions in drunkenesse one of them should turne sober this Reformation of himselfe and disertion of his companion in this ill custome would be one and the same thing and yet there is no necessity that he should leave his love to him at all or his society in other things So Protestants forsaking their own former corruptions which were common to them with you could not choose but withall forsake you in the practice of these corruptions yet this they might and would have done without breach of Charity towards you and without a renunciation of your company in any act of piety and devotion confessedly lawfull And therefore though both these were by accident joyned together yet this hinders not but that the end they aimed at was not a separation from you but a reformation of themselves 82 Neither doth their disagreement in the particulars of the Reformation which yet when you measure it without partiality you will find to be farre short of infinite nor their symbolizing in the generall of forsaking your corruptions prove any thing to the contrary or any way advantage your designe or make for your purpose For it is not any signe at all much lesse an evident signe that they had no setled designe but only to forsake the Church of Rome for nothing but malice can deny that their intent at least was to reduce Religion to that originall purity from which it was fallen The declination from which some conceiving to have begunne though secretly in the Apostles times the mystery of iniquity being then in worke and after their departure to have shewed it selfe more openly others again believing that the Church continued pure for some Ages after the Apostles then declined And consequently some aiming 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 condicion of the fourth fifth ages Some taking their direction in this work of Reformation only from Scripture others from the writings of Fathers and the Decrees of Councells of the first five Ages certainly it is no great marveile that there 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 Catholique written Tradition which rule the reformers of the Church of England proposed to themselves to follow 83 Ad § 30. 31. 32. To this effect D. Potter p. 81. 82. of his book speaks thus If a Monastery should reforme it selfe and should reduce into practice ancient good discipline when others would not In this case could it be charged with Schisme from others or with Apostacy from its rule and order So in a society of men universally infected with some disease they that should free themselves from it could they be therefore said to separate from the society He presumes they could not and from hence concludes that neither can the Reformed Churches be truly accused for making a Schisme that is separating from the Church and making themselves no members of it if all they did was as indeed it was to reforme themselves Which cases I believe any understanding man will plainly see to have in them an exact parity of Reason and that therefore the Argument drawn from them is pressing and un-answerable And it may well be suspected that you were partly of this mind otherwise you would not have so presum'd upon the simplicity of your Reader as pretending to answer it to put another of your own making in place of it and then to answer that 84 This you doe § 31. 32. of this Chapter in these words I was very glad to find you in a Monastery c. Where I beseech the Reader to observe these things to detect the cunning of your tergiversation First That you have no Reason to say That you found D. Potter in a Monastery and as little that you find him inventing waies how to forsake his vocation and to maintaine the lawfulnesse of Schisme from the Church and Apostacy from a Religious Order Certainly the innocent case put by the Doctor of a Monastery reforming it selfe hath not deserved such grievous accusations Vnlesse Reformation with you be all one with Apostacy and to forsake sinne and disorder be to forsake ones vocation And surely if it be so your vocations are not very lawfull and your Religious orders not very religious Secondly that you quite pervert and change D. Potters cases and in stead of the case of a whole Monastery reforming it selfe when other Monasteries of their Order would not and of some men freeing themselves from the common disease of their society when others would not you substitute two others which you thinke you can better deale with of some particular Monkes upon pretence of the neglect of lesser monasticall observances going out of their Monastery which Monastery yet did confessedly observe their substantiall Vowes and all Principall Statutes And of a diseased Person quitting the company of those that were infected with the same disease though in their company there was no danger from his
promise of divine assistance which being not ordinarily irresistible but temper'd to the nature of the Receivers may be neglected and therefore withdrawn but by the Repugnance of any errour in this sense fundamentall to the essence and nature of a Church So that to speak properly not any set known company of men is secur'd that though they neglect the meanes of avoiding error yet certainly they shall not erre which were necessary for the constitution of an infallible guide of faith But rather they which know what is meant by a Church are secur'd or rather certain that a Church remaining a Church cannot fall into fundamentall error because when it does so it is no longer a Church As they are certain that men cannot become unreasonable creatures because when they doe so they are no longer men But for fundamentall errors of the former sort which yet I hope will warrant our departure from any Communion infected with them and requiring the Profession of them from such fundamentall errors we doe not teach so much as that the Church Catholique much lesse which only were for your purpose that your Church hath any protection or security but know for a certain that many errors of this nature had prevailed against you and that a vain presumption of an absolute divine assistance which yet is promised but upon conditions made both your present errors incurable and exposed you to the imminent danger of more greater This therefore is either to abuse what we say or to impose falsely upon us what we say not And to this you presently adde another manifest falsehood viz. that we say that no particular person or Church hath any promise of assistance in points fundamentall Whereas crosse to this in diameter there is no Protestant but holds and must hold that there is no particular Church no nor person but hath promise of divine assistance to lead them into all necessary truth if they seeke it as they should by the meanes which God hath appointed And should we say otherwise we should contrary plain Scripture which assures us plainly that every one that seeketh findeth and every one that asketh receiveth and that if we being evill can give good gifts to our children much more shall our heavenly Father give his spirit to them that aske it and that if any man want wisdome especially spirituall wisdome he is to aske of God who giveth to all men and upbraideth not 89 You obtrude upon us thirdly That when Luther began he being but one opposed himselfe to all as well Subjects as Superiors Ans. If he did so in the cause of God it was heroically done of him This had been without hyperbolizing Mundus contra Athanasium and Athanasius contra Mundum neither is it impossible that the whole world should so farre lye in wickednesse as S. Iohn speakes that it may be lawfull and noble for one man to oppose the world But yet were we put to our oathes we should surely not testify any such thing for you for how can we say properly and without streining that he opposed himselfe to All unlesse we could say also that All opposed themselves to him And how can we say so seeing the world can witnesse that so many thousands nay millions followed his standard as soone as it was advanced 90 But none that lived immediatly before him thought or spake as he did This is first nothing to the purpose The Church was then corrupted and sure it was no dishonour to him to beginne the Reformation In the Christian warfare every man ought to strive to be foremost Secondly it is more then you can justify For though no man before him lifted up his voice like a trumpet as Luther did yet who can assure us but that many before him both thought and spake in lower voice of petitions and remonstrances in many points as he did 91 Fourthly and lastly whereas you say that many chiefe learned Protestants are forced to confesse the Antiquity of your Doctrine and Practise I Answer of many Doctrines and Practises of yours this is not true not pretended to be true by those that have dealt in this Argument Search your storehouse M. Brerely who hath travailed as farre in this Northwest discovery as it was possible for humane industry and when you have done so I pray informe me what confessions of Protestants have you for the Antiquity of the Doctrine of the Communion in one kinde the lawfulnesse and expedience of the Latine service For the present use of Indulgences For the Popes power in Temporalties over Princes For the picturing of the Trinity For the lawfulnesse of the worship of Pictures For your Beades and Rosary and Ladies Psalter and in a word for your whole worship of the B. Virgin For your oblations by way of consumption therefore in the quality of Sacrifices to the Virgin Mary other Saints For your saying of Pater-nosters Creeds to the honour of Saints and of Ave-Maries to the honour of other Saints besides the Blessed Virgin For infallibility of the Bishop or Church of Rome For your prohibiting the Scripture to be read publikely in the Church in such languages as all may understand For your Doctrine of the Blessed Virgins immunity from actuall sinne and for your doctrine and worship of her immaculate conception For the necessity of Auricular Confession For the necessity of the Priests Intention to obtain benefit by any of your Sacraments And lastly not to trouble my selfe with finding out more for this very doctrine of Licentiousnesse That though a man live and dye without the practise of Christian vertues and with the habits of many damnable sinnes unmortified yet if he in the last moment of life have any sorrow for his sinnes and joyne confession with it certainly he shall be saved Secondly they that confesse some of your doctrines to have been the Doctrine of the Fathers may be mistaken being abused by may words and phrases of the Fathers which have the Roman sound when they are farre from the sense Some of them I am sure are so I will name Goulartius who in his Commentaries on S. Cyprian's 35. Ep. grants that the sentence Heresies haue sprung c. quoted by you § 36. of this Chapter was meant of Cornelius whereas it will be very plain to any attentive reader that S. Cyprian speaks there of himselfe Thirdly though some Protestants confesse some of your doctrine to be Ancient yet this is nothing so long as it is evident even by the confession of all sides that many errors I instance in that of the Millenaries and the communicating of Infants were more ancient Not any antiquity therefore unlesse it be absolute and primitive is a certain signe of true Doctrine For if the Church were obnoxious to corruption as we pretend it was who can possibly warrant us that part of this corruption might not get in and prevaile in the 5. or 4. or 3. or 2. age Especially seeing the A-Apostles
Church were to be the Foundations of it and accordingly are so called in Scripture And therefore as in a building it is incongruous that foundations should succeed foundations So it may be in the Church that any other Apostle should succeed the first 101 Ad § 37. The next Paragraph I might well passe over as having no Argument in it For there is nothing in it but two sayings of S. Austine which I have great reason to esteeme no Argument untill you will promise me to grant whatsoever I shall prove by two sayings of S. Austine But moreover the second of these sentences seemes to me to imply the contradiction of the first For to say That the Sacriledge of Schisme is eminent when there is no cause of separation implyes to my understanding that there may be a cause of Separation Now in the first he saies plainly That this is impossible Neither doth any reconciliation of his wordes occurre to me but only this that in the former he speaks upon supposition that the Publique service of God where in men are to communicate is unpolluted and no unlawfull thing practised in their communion which was so true of their communion that the Donatists who separated did not deny it And to make this Answer no improbable evasion it is observable out of S. Austine and Optatus that though the Donatists at the beginning of their Separation pretended no cause for it but only that the men from whom they separated were defiled with the contagion of Traditors yet afterwards to make the continuance of it more justifiable they did invent and spread abroad this calumny against Catholiques that they set pictures upon their Altars which when S. Austine comes to Answer he does not deny the possibility of the thing for that had been to deny the Catholique Church to be made up of men all which had free will to evill and therefore might possibly agree in doeing it and had he denyed this the Action of after Ages had been his refutation Neither does he say as you would have done that it was true they placed pictures there and moreover worshipped them but yet not for their own sakes but for theirs who were represented by them Neither does he say as you doe in this Chapter that though this were granted a Corruption yet were they not to separate for it What then does he certainly nothing else but abhorre the thing and deny the imputation Which way of answering does not I confesse plainly shew but yet it somewhat intimates that he had nothing else to answer and that if he could not have denyed this he could not have denyed the Donatists separation from them to have been just If this Answer to this little Argument seem not sufficient I adde moreover that if it be applyed to Luthers separation it hath the common fault of all your Allegations out of Fathers impertinence For it is one thing to separate from the Communion of the whole world another to separate from all the Communions in the world One thing to divide from them who are united among themselves another to diuide from them who are divided among themselves Now the Donatists separated from the whole World of Christians united in one Communion professing the same Faith serving God after the same manner which was a very great Argument that they could not have just cause to leave them according to that of Tertullian Variasse debuerat error Ecclesiarum quod autem apud multos unumest non est Erratum sed Traditum But Luther and his followers did not so The world I mean of Christians and Catholiques was divided and subdivided long before hee divided from it and by their divisions had much weakned their own Authority and taken away from you this plea of S. Austine which stands upon no other Foundation but the Vnity of the whole worlds Communion 102 Ad § 38. If Luther were in the right most certain those Protestants that differed from him were in the wrong But that either he or they were Schismatiques it followes not Or if it does then either the Iesuits are Schismatiques from the Dominicans or they from the Iesuits The Canonists from the Iesuites or the Iesuites from the Canonists The Scotists from the Thomists or they from the Scotists The Franciscans from the Dominicans or the Dominicans from the Franciscans For between all these the world knowes that in point of Doctrine there is plain and irreconcileable contradiction and therefore one Part must be in error at least not Fundamentall Thus your Argument returnes upon your selfe and if it be good proves the Roman Church in a manner to bee made up of Schismatiques But the Answer to it is that it begges this very false and vain supposition That whosoever erres in any point of doctrine is a Schismatique 103 Ad § 39. In the next place you number up your victories and tell us that out of these premises this conclusion followes That Luther and his followers were Schismatiques from the Visible Church the Pope the Diocesse wherein they were baptized from the Bishop vnder whom they lived from the country to which they belonged from their Religious order wherein they were professed from one another and lastly from a mans selfe Because the selfesame Protestant is convicted to day that his yesterdaies opinion was an error To which I Answer that Luther and his followers separated from many of these in some opininions and practices But that they did it without cause which only can make them Schismatiques that was the only thing you should have prov'd and to that you have not urged one reason of any moment All of them for weight and strength were cosen-germans to this pretty device wherewith you will prove them Schismatiques from themselves because the selfesame Protestant to day is convicted in conscience that his yesterdaies opinion was an error It seemes then that they that hold errors must hold them fast and take speciall care of being convicted in conscience that they are in error for fear of being Schismatiques Protestants must continue Protestants and Puritans Puritans and Papists Papists nay Iewes and Turkes and Pagans must remain Iewes and Turkes and Pagans and goe on constantly to the Divell or else forsooth they must be Schismatiques and that from themselves And this perhaps is the cause that makes Papists so obstinate not only in their common superstition but also in adhering to the proper phancies of their severall Sects so that it is a miracle to heare of any Iesuite that hath forsaken the opinion of the Iesuites or any Dominican that hath chang'd his for the Iesuits Without question this Gentleman my Adversary knowes none such or else methinkes he should not have objected it to D. Potter That he knew a man in the world who from a Puritan was turned to a moderate Protestant which is likely to bee true But sure if this bee all his fault hee hath no reason to be ashamed of his acquaintance For possibly it
take from the number but one and say they were but foure against the Scripture affirming them to have been fiue he is instantly guilty of a damnable sinne Why Because by this subtraction of One he doth deprive Gods word and Testimony of all credit and infallibility For if either he could deceive or be deceived in any one thing it were but wisdome to suspect him in all And seeing eveâ—y Hereâ—y opposeth some Truth revealed by God it is no wonder that no one can be excused from deadly and damnable sinne For if voluntary Blasphemy and Periury which are opposite only to the inâ—used Morall Vertue of Religion can never be excused from mortall sinne much lesse can Heresy be excused which opposeth the Theologicall Vertue of Faith 11 If any object that Schisme may seem to be a greater sinne then Heresy because the Verâ—ue of Charity to which Schisme is opposite is greater then Faith according to the Apostle saying Now there remain Faith Hope Charity but the greatâ—r of these is Charity S. Thomas answeres in these words Charity hath two Obiects one principall to wit the 〈◊〉 Goodnesse and another secondary namely the good of our Neighbour But Schisme and other sinnes which are committed against our Neighbour are opposite to Charity in respect of this secondary good which is lesse then the obiect of Faith which is God as he is the Prime Verity on which Faith doth relie and therefore these sinnes are lesse then Infidelity He takes Infidelity after a generall manner as it comprehends Heresie and other vices against Faith 12. Having therefore sufficiently declared wherein Heresy consists Let us come to prove that which we proposed in this Chapter Where I desire it be still remembred That the visible Catholique Church cannot erre damnably as D. Potter confesseth And that when Luther appeared there was no other visible true Church of Christ disagreeing from the Roman as we have demonstrated in the next precedent Chapter 13 Now that Luther and his followers cannot be excused from formall Heresy I prove by these reasons To oppose any truth propounded by the visible true Church as revealed by God is formall Heresie as we have shewed out of the definition of Heresie But Luther Calvin and the rest did oppose divers truths propounded by the visible Church as revealed by God yea they did therefore oppose her because shee propounded as divine revealed truths things which they judged either to be fals or human inventions Therefore they committed formall Heresie 14 Moreover every Errour against any doctrine revealed by God is damnable Heresie whether the matter in it selfe be great or small as I proved before and therefore either the Protestants or the Roman Church must be guilty of formall Heresy because one of them must erre against the word testimony of God but you grant perforâ—e that the Roman Church doth not erre damnably I adde that she cannot erre damnably because she is the truly Catholique Church which you confesse cannot erre damnably Therefore Protestants must be guilty of formall Heresy 15 Besides we have shewed that the visible Church is Iudge of Controversies and therefore must be infallible in all her Proposals which being once supposed it manifestly followeth that to oppose what she delivereth as revealed by God is not so much to oppose her as God himself and therefore cannot be excused from grievous Heresy 16 Againe if Luther were an Heretique for those points wherein he disagreed from the Roman Church All they who agree with him in those very points must likewise be Heretiques Now that Luther was a formall Heretique I demonstrate in this manner To say that Gods visible true Church is not universall but confined to one only place or corner of the world is according to your owne expresse words properly Heresy against that Article of the Creed wherein we professe to beleeve the holy Catholique Church And you brand Donatus with heresy because he limited the universall Church to Africa But it is manifest and acknowledged by Luther himself aud other chief Protestants that Luthers Reformation when it first began and much more for divers Ages before was not Vniversall nor spread over the world but was confined to that compasse of ground which did contain Luthers body Therefore his Reformation cannot be excused from formall Heresy If S. Augustine in those times said to the Donatists There are innumerable testimonies of holy Scripture in which it appeareth that the Church of Christ is not only in Africa as these men with most impudent vanity doe rave but that she is spread over the whole earth much more may it be said It appeareth by innumerable testimonies of holy Scripture that the Church of Christ cannot be confined to the Ciâ—ty of Wittemberg or to the place where Luthers feet stood but must be spread over the whole world It is therefore most impudent vanity and dotage to limit her to Luthers Reformation In another place also this holy Father writes no lesse effectually against Luther then against the Donatists For having out of those words In thy â—eed all Nations shall be blessed proved that Gods Church must be universall he saith Why doe you superadde by saying that Christ remaines heire in no part of the earth except where he may have Donatus for his Coheire Give me this Vniversall Church if it be among you shew your selves to all Nations which we already shew to be blessed in this Seed Give us this Church or else laying aside all fury receive her from us But it is evident that Luther could not when he said At the beginning I was alone give us an universall Church Therefore happy had he been if he had then and his followers would now receive her from us And therefore we must conclude with the same holy Father saying in another place of the universall Church She hath this most certain mark that she cannot be bidden She is then knowne to all Nations The Sect of Donatus is unknowne to many Nations therefore that cannot be she The Sect of Luther at least when he began and much more before his beginning was unknowne to many Nations therefore that cannot be she 17 And that it may yet further appeare how perfectly Luther agreed with the Donatists It is to be noted that they never taught that the Catholique Church ought not to extend it self further then that part of Africa where their faction reigned but only that in fact it was so confined because all the rest of the Church was prophaned by communicating with Caeciliâ—â—us whom they falsly affirmed to have been ordained Bishop by those who were Traditours or gives up of the Bible to the Persecutors to be burned yea at that very time they had some of their Sect residing in Rome and sent thither one Victor a Bishop under colour to take care of the Brethren in that Citty but indeed as Baronius observeth that the world might account them Catholiques by
communicating with the Bishop of Rome to communicate with whom was ever taken by the Ancient Fathers as an assured signe of being a true Catholique They had also as S. Augustine 〈◊〉 a pretended Church in the house and territory of a Spanish Lady called Lucilla who went flying out of the Catholique Church because she had been justly checked by Caecilianus And the same Saint speaking of the conference he had with Fortunius the Donatist saithâ— Here did he first attempt to affirme that his Communion was spread over the whole Earth c. but because the thing was evidently false they got out of this discourse by confusion of language whereby neverthelesse they sufficiently declared that they did not hold that the true Church ought necessarily to be confined to one place but only by meere necessity were forced to yield that it was so in fact because their Sect which they held to be the only true Church was not spread over the world In which point Fortunius and the rest were more modest then he who should affirme that Luther's reformation in the very beginning was spread over the whole Earth being at that time by many degrees not so farre diffused as the Sect of the Douâ—tists I have no desire to prosecute the similitude of Protestants with Donatists by remembring that the Sect of these men was begun and promoted by the passion of Lucilla and who is ignorant what influence two women the Mother and Daughter ministred to Protestancy in England Nor will I stand to observe their very likenes of phrase with the Donatists who called the Chaire of Rome the Chaire of pestilence and the Roman Church an Harlot which is D. Potter's owne phrase wherein he is lesse excusable then they because he maintaineth her to be a true Church of Christ and therefore let him duely ponder these words of S. Augustine against the Dâ—â—atists If I persecute him iustly who detracts from his Neighbour why should I not persecute him who detracts from the Church of Christ and saith this is not she but this is an Harlot And least of all will I consider whether you may not be well compared to one Ticonius a Donatist who wrote against Pâ—rmenianus likewise a Donatist who blasphemed that the Church of Christ had perished as you doe even in this your Book writ against some of your Protestant Brethren or as you call them Zeloâ—s among you who hold the very same or rather a worse Heresie and yet remained among them even after Parmenianus had excommunicated him as those your Zealous Brethren would proceed against you if it were in their power and yet like Ticonius you remain in their Communion and come not into that Church which is hath been and shall ever be universall For which very cause S. Augustin complaines of Ticonius that although he wrote against the Donatists yet he was of an hart so extreamly absurd as not to forsake them altogether And speaking of the same thing in another place he observes that although Tiâ—onius did manifestly confute them who affirmed that the Church had perished yet he saw not saith this holy Father that which in good consequence he should have seen that those Christians of Africa belonged to the Church spread over the whole world who remained vnited not with them who were divided from the communion and vnity of the same world but with such as did communicate with the whole world But Parmenianus and the rest of the Donatists saw that consequence and resolved rather to settle their mind in obstinacy against the most manifest truth which Ticoâ—us maintained then by yeelding thereto to be overcome by those Churches in Africa which enioyed the Communion of that vnity which Ticonius defended from which they had divided themselves How fitly these words agree to Catholiques in England in respect of the Protestants I desire the Reader to consider But thesâ— and the like resemblances of Protestants to the Donatists I willingly let passe and only vrge the main point That since Luthers Reformed Church was not in being for divers Centuries before Luther and yet was because so forsooth they will needs have it in the Apostles time they must of necessity affirme heretically with the Donatists that the true and unspotted Church of Christ perished and that she which remained on earth was O bâ—asphemy◠〈◊〉 Harlot Moreover the same heresy followes out of the doctrine of D. Potter and other Protestants that the Church may erre in points not fundamentall because we have shewed that every errour against any one revealed truth is Heresy and damnable whether the matter bee otherwise of it selfe great or small And how can the Church more truely be said to perish then when she is permitted to maintaine a damnable Heresy Besides we will hereafter prove that by any act of Heresy all divine faith is lost and to imagine a true Church of faithfull persons without any faith is as much as to fancy a living man without life It is therefore cleere that Donatist-like they hold that the Church of Christ perished yea they are worse then the Donatists who saâ—d that the Church remained at least in Africa whereas Protestants must of necessity be forced to grant that for along space before Luther she was no where at all But let us goe forward to other reasons 18 The holy Scripture and Ancient Fathers doe assigne Separation from the Visible Church as a mark of Heresie according to that of S. Iohâ— They went out from us And Some who went out from us And Out of you shall arise men speaking perverse things And accordingly Vincentius Lyrinensis saith Who ever began heresies who did not first separate himself from the Vniversality Antiquity and Consent of the Catholique Church But it is manifest that when Luther appeared there was no visible Church distinct from the Roman out of which she could depart as it is likewise well knowne that Luther and his followers departed out of her Therefore she is no way lyable to this Mark of Heresie but Protestants cannot possibly avoid it To this purpose S. Prosper hath these pithy words A Christian communicating with the universall Church is a Catholique and he who is divided from her is an Heretique and Antichrist But Luther in his first Reformation could not communicate with the visible Catholique Church of those times because he began his Reformation by opposing the supposed Errors of the then visible Church we must therefore say with S. Prosper that he was an Heretique c. Which like-likewise is no lesse cleerely proved out of S. Cypriâ—n saying Not we g departed from them but they from us and since Heresies and Schismes are bred afterwards while they make to themselves divers Conventicles they have forsakeâ— the head and origen of Truth 19 And that we might not remain doubtfull what separation it is which is the marke of Heresy the ancient Fathers tell us more in particular that it
thou wilt and not belieue what thou wilt not Nay this holy Father is not content to call it Foolishnesse but meer Maâ—nesse in these words Why should I not most diligently enquire what Christ commanded of those 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 said whom I would not haue thought to haue been or to be if the Beliefe thereof had been recommended by thee to me Thâ— therefore I believed by fame strengthned with Celebrity Consent Antiquitie But every one may see that you so few so turbulent so new can produce nothing which deserues Authority What MADNESSE is this Belieue them Catholiques that we ought to belieue Christ but learne of us what Christ said Why I beseech thee Surely if they Catholiques were not at all and could not teach mee any thing I would more easily perswade my selfe that I were not to belieue Christ then I should learne any thing concerning him from other then those by whom I believed him Lastly I aske what wisedome it could bee to leaue all visible Churches and consequently the true Catholique Church of Christ which you confesse cannot erre in points necessary to salvation and the Roman Church which you grant doth not erre in fundamentalls and follow private men who may erre even in points necessary to salvation Especially if we adde that when Luther rose there was no visible true Catholique Church besides that of Rome and them who agreed with her in which sense she was and is the only true Church of Christ and not capable of any Error in faith Nay even Luther who first opposed the Roman Church yet comming to dispute against other Heretiques he is forced to give the Lye both to his own words and deeds in saying We freely confesse that in the Papacy there are many good things worthy the name of Christian which have come from them to us Namely we confesse that in the Papacy there is true Scripture true Baptisme the true Sacrament of the Altar the true keys for remission of sinnes the true office of Preaching true Catechisme as our Lords Prayer Ten Commandements Articles of faith c. And afterward I avouch that under the Papacy there is true Christianity yea the Kernell and Marrow of Christianity and many pious and great Saints And again he affirmeth that the Church of Rome hath the true Spirit Gospells Faith Baptisme Sacraments the Keyes the Office of Preaching Prayer Holy Scripture and whatsoever Christianity ought to have And a little before I heare and see that they bring in Anabaptisme only to this end that they may spight the Pope as men that will receive nothing from Antichrist no otherwise then the Sacramentaries doe who therefore believe only Bread and Wine to be in the Sacrament meerely in hatred against the Bishop of Rome and they think that by this meanes they shall overcome the Papacy Verily these men rely upon a weak ground for by this meanes they must deny the whole Scripture and the Office of Preaching For we have all these things from the Pope otherwise we must goe make a new Scripture O Truth more forcible as S. Austine saies to wring out Confession then is any racke or torment And so we may truly say with Moyses Inimici nostri sunt Iudices Our very Enemies give sentence for us 32 Lastly since your faith wanteth Certainty and Prudence it is easy to inferre that it wants the fourth Condition Supernaturality For being but an Humane perswasion or Opinion it is not in nature or Essence Supernaturall And being imprudent and rash it cannot proceed from divine Motion and grace and therefore it is neither supernaturall in it selfe nor in the cause from which it proceedeth 33 Since therefore we have proved that whosoever erres against any one point of faith looseth all divine faith even concerning those other Articles wherein he doth not erre and that although he could still retaine true faith for some points yet any one errour in whatsoever other matter concerning faith is a grievous sinne it cleerely followes that when two or more hold different doctrines concerning faith and Religion there can be but one Part saved For declaring of which truth if Catholiques be charged with Want of Charity and Modesty and be accused of rashnesse ambition and fury as D. Potter is very free in this kind I desire every one to ponder the words of S. Chrysostome who teacheth that every least errour overthrowes all faith and whosoever is guilty thereof is in the Church like one who in the Common wealth forgeth false come Let them heare saith this holy Father what S. Paul saith Namely that they who brought in some small errour had overthrown the Gospell For to shew how a small thing ill mingled doth corrupt the whole he said that the Gospell was subverted For as he who clips a little 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 wholly corrupted alwaies going from that beginning to worse things Where then are they who condemne us as contentious persons because we cannot agree with Heretiques and doe often say that there is no difference betwixt us and them but that our disagreement proceeds from Ambition to dominere And thus having shewed that Protestants want true Faith it remaineth that according to my first designe I examine whether they doe not also want Charity as it respects a mans selfe THE ANSVVER TO THE SIXTH CHAPTER That Protestants are not Heretiques HE that will accuse any one man much more any great multitude of men of any great and horrible crime should in all reason and justice take care that the greatnesse of his evidence doe equall if not exceed the quality of the crime And such an accusation you would here make shew of by pretending first to lay such grounds of it as are either already proved or else yeelded on all sides and after to raise a firme and stable structure of convincing arguments upon them But both these I find to be meere and vaine pretences and having considered this Chapter also without prejudice or passion as I did the former I am enforc'd by the light of Truth to pronounce your whole discourse a painted and ruinous Building upon a weak sandy Foundation 2 Ad § 2. 3. First for your grounds a great part of theÌ„ is falsely said to be either proved or granted It is true indeed that Man by his naturall wit or industry could never have attained to the knowledge of Gods will to give him a supernaturall and eternall happinesse nor of the meanes by which his pleasure was to bestow this happinesse upon him And therefore your first ground is good That it was requisite his understanding should be enabled to apprehend that end and meanes by a knowledge supernaturall I say this is good if you mean
faith had they known it necessary S. Luke especially who plainly professeth that his intent was to write all things necessary Me thinks S. Paul writing to the Romans could not but have congratulated this their Priviledge to them Me thinks instead of saying Your faith is spoken of all the world over which you haue no reason to be very proud of for he saies the very same thing to the Thessalonians he could not haue fayl'd to haue told them once at least in plaine termes that their faith was the Rule for all the World for ever But then sure he would haue forborn to put them in feare of an impossibility as hee doth in his eleventh Chap. that they also nay the whole Church of the Gentiles if they did not look to their standing might fall away to infidelity as the Iews had done Me thinks in all his other Epistles at least in some at least in one of them he could not have fayled to haue given the world this direction had he known it to be a true one that all men were to be guided by the Church of Rome and none to separate from it under pain of damnation Me thinks writing so often of Heretiques and Antichrist hee should haue given the world this as you pretend onely sure preservative from them How was it possible that S. Peter writing two Catholique Epistles mentioning his own departure writing to preserve Christians in the faith should in neither of them commend them to the guidance of his pretended Successours the Bishops of Route How was it possible that S. Iames and S. Iude in their Catholique Epistles should not giue this Catholique direction Me thinks S. Iohn instead of saying he that believeth that Iesus is the Christ is born of God The force of which direction your glosses doe quite enervate and make unavailable to discern who are the sonnes of God should haue said Hee that adheres to the doctrine of the Roman Church and lives according to it he is a good Christian and by this Mark yee shall know him What man not quite out of his witts if he consider as he should the pretended necessity of this doctrine that without the beliefe hereof no man ordinarily can be saved can possibly force himselfe to conceive that all these good and holy men so desirous of mens salvation and so well assured of it as it is pretended should be so deeply and affectedly silent in it and not One say it plainly so much as once but leaue it to be collected from uncertain Principles by many more uncertain consequences Certainly he that can judge so uncharitably of them it is no marvell if he censure other inferiour servants of Christs Atheists and Hypocrites and what he pleases Plain places therefore I did and had reason to look for when I heard you say the holy Scripture assignes Separation from the visible Church as a Mark of Heresie But instead hereof what haue you brought us but meer impertinencies S. Iohn saith of some who pretended to be Christians and were not so and therefore when it was for their advantage forsook their Profession They went out from us but they were not of us for if they had been of us they would no doubt have continued with us Of some who before the decree of the Councell to the contrary were perswaded and accordingly taught that the convert Gentiles were to keep the Law of Moses it is said in the Acts Some who went out from us And again S. Paul in the same book forewarnes the Ephesians that out of them should arise men speaking perverse things And from these places which it seems are the plainest you have you collect that separation from the Visible Church is assigned by Scripture as a Mark of Heresie Which is certainly a strang and unheard of strain of Logick Vnlesse you will say that every Text wherein it is said that some body goes out from some body affords an Argument for this purpose For the first place there is no certainty that it speaks of Heretiques but no Christians of Antichrists of such as denied Iesus to be the Christ See the place and you shall confesse as much The second place it is certain you must not say it speaks of Heretiques for it speaks only of some who beleeved and taught an Errour while it was yet a question and not evident and therefore according to your doctrine no formall Heresy The third saies indeed that of the Professours of Christianity some shall arise that shall teach Heresy But not one of them all that saies or intimates that whosoever separates from the Visible Church in what state soever is certainly an Heretique Heretiques I confesse doe alwayes doe so But they that doe so are not alwayes Heretiques for perhaps the state of the Church may make it necessary for them to doe so as Rebels alwayes disobey the command of their King yet they which disobey a Kings command which perhaps may be unjust are not presently Rebels 21 Your Allegations out of Vincentius Prosper and Cyprian are lyable to these exceptions 1. That they are the sayings of men not assisted by the Spirit of God and whose Authoritie your selves will not submit to in all things 2. That the first and last are meerly impertinent neither of them affirming or intimating that separation from the present Visible Church is a mark of Heresy and the former speaking plainly of separation from Vniversality Consent and Antiquity which if you will presume without proof that we did and you did not you beg the Question For you know we pretend that we separated only from that present Church which had separated from the doctrine of the Ancient and because she had done so and so farre forth as she had done so and no farther And lastly the latter part of Prospers words cannot be generally true according to your own grounds For you say a man may be divided from the Church upon meer Schisme without any mixture of Heresy And a man may be justly excommunicated for many other sufficient causes besides Heresy Lastly a man may be divided by an unjust excommunication and be both before and after a very good Catholique and therefore you cannot maintain it Vniversally true That he who is divided from the Church is an Heretique and Antichrist 22 In the 19. § we have the Authority of eight Fathers urg'd to prove that the separation from the Church of Rome as it is the Sea of S. Peter I conceive you mean as it is the Particular Church is the mark of Heresy Which kind of argument I might well refuse to answer unlesse you would first promise me that whensoever I should produce as plain sentences of as great a number of Fathers as ancient for any doctrine whatsoever that you will subscribe to it though it fall out to be cōtrary to the doctrine of the Roman Church For I conceive nothing in the world more unequall or unreasonable then that you should presse us with
of a more powerfull principality there is a necessity that all the Churches that is all the faithfull round about should resort in which the Apostolique Tradition hath been alwaies observed by those who were round about If any man say I have been too bold a Critick in substituting observata instead of conseruata I desire him to know that the conjecture is not mine and therefore as I expect no praise for it so I hope I shall be farre from censure But I would intreat him to consider whether it be not likely that the same greek word signifying observo and conservo the Translater of Irenaeus who could hardly speak Latine might not easily mistake and translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 conservata est instead of observata est Or whether it be not likely that those men which ancienly wrote Books and understood them nor might not easily commit such an error Or whether the sense of the place can be salved any other way if it can in Gods name let it if not I hope he is not to be condemned who with such a little alteration hath made that sense which he found non sense 30 But whether you will have it Observata or Conservata the new sumpsimus or the old mumpsimus possibly it may be something to Irenaus but to us or our cause it is no way materiall For if the rest be rightly translated neither will Conservata afford you any argument against us nor Observata helpe us to any evasion For though at the first hearing the glorious attributes here given and that justly to the Church of Rome the confounding Heretiques with her tradition and saying it is necessary for all Churches to resort to her may sound like Arguments for you yet hee that is attentive I hope will easily discover that it might be good and rationall in Irenaeus having to doe with Heretiques who somewhat like those who would be the only Catholiques declining a tryall by Scripture as not contayning the Truth of Christ perfectly and not fit to decide Controversies without recourse to Tradition I say he will easily perceive that it might be rationall in Iraeneus to urge them with any Tradition of more credit then their own especially a Tradition consonant to Scripture and even contain'd in it and yet that it may be irrationall in you to urge us who doe not decline Scripture but appeale to it as a perfect rule of faith with a Tradition which we pretend is many wayes repugnant to Scripture and repugnant to a Tradition far more generall then it self which gives Testimony to Scripture and lastly repugnant to it self as giving attestation both to Scripture and to Doctrines plainly contrary to Scripture Secondly that the Authority of the Roman Church was then a far greater Argument of the Truth of her Tradition when it was Vnited with all other Apostolique Churches then now when it is divided from them according to that of Tertullian Had the Churches erred they would have varied but that which is the same in all cannot be errour but Tradition and therefore though Irenaeus his Argument may be very probable yet yours may be worth nothing Thirdly that foureteen hundred yeares may have made a great deale of alteration in the Roman Church as Rivers though neere the fountain they may retaine their native and unmixt syncerity yet in long progresse cannot but take in much mixture that came not from the fountain And therefore the Roman Tradition though then pure may now be corrupt and impure and so this Argument being one of those things which are the worse for wearing might in Irenaeus his time be strong and vigorous and after declining and decaying may long since have fallen to nothing Especially considering that Irenaeus plaies the Historian only and not the Prophet and saies only that the Apostolique Tradition had been alwayes there as in other Apostolique Churches conserved or observed choose you whether but that it should be alwayes so he saies not neither had he any warrant He knew well enough that there was foretold a great falling away of the Churches of Christ to Anti-christ that the Roman Church in particular was forewarned that she also nay the whole Church of the Gentiles might fall if they look not to their standing and therefore to secure her that she should stand for ever he had no reason nor Authority Fourthly that it appeares manifestly out of this book of Irenaeus quoted by you that the doctrine of the Chiliasts was in his judgment Apostolique Tradition as also it was esteemed for ought appeares to the contrary by all the Doctors and Saints and Martyrs of or about his time for all that speak of it or whose judgments in the point are any way recorded are for it and Iustine Martyr professeth that all good and Orthodoxe Christians of his time beleeved it and those that did not he reckons amongst Heretiques Now I demand was this Tradition one of those that was conserved and observed in the Church of Rome or was it not If not had Irenaeus known so much he must have retracted this commendation of that Church If it was then the Tradition of the present Church of Rome contradicts the Ancient and accounts it Hereticall and then sure it can be no certain note of Heresie to depart from them who have departed from themselves and prove themselves subject unto Errour by holding contradictions Fiftly and lastly that out of the Story of the Church it is as manifest as the light at noone that though Irenaeus did esteem the Roman Tradition a great Argument of the doctrine which he there delivers and defends against the Heretiques of his time viz that there was one God yet he was very far from thinking that Church was and ever should be a safe keeper and an infallible witnesse of Tradition in generall Inasmuch as in his own life his action proclaim'd the contrary For when Victor Bishop of Rome obtruded the Roman Tradition touching the time of Easter upon the Asian Bishops under the pain of Excommunication and damnation Irenaeus and all the other Western Bishops though agreeing with him in his observation yet sharply reprehended him for excommunicating the Asian Bishops for their disagreeing plainly shewing that they esteemed that not a necessary doctrine and a sufficient ground of excommunication which the Bishop of Rome and his adherents did so account of For otherwise how could they have reprehended him for excommunicating them had they conceived the cause of his excommunication just and sufficient And besides evidently declaring that they esteemed not separation from the Roman Church a certain mark of Heresie seeing they esteemed not them Heretiques though separated and cut off from the Roman Church Cardinall Perron to avoyd the stroak of this conuincing argument raiseth a cloud of eloquent words which because you borrow them of him in your Second part I will here insert and with short censures dispell and let his Idolaters see that Truth is
nor any thing towards it Never any error was imputed to the Arrians for denying the Authority or the infallibility of the Bishop or Church of Rome Besides what Eusebius saies he saies out of Irenaeus Neither doth or can the Cardinall deny the story to be true therefore he goes about by indirect Arts to foyle it cast a blurre upon it Lastly whensoever Eusebius saies any thing which the Cardinall thinkes for the advantage of his side he cites him and then he is no Arrian or at least hee would not take that for an answer to the arguments he drawes out of him b That Ruffinus was enemy to the Roman Church is said but not proved neither can it be c Eusebius saies the same also of caeteri omnes Episcopi all the other Bishops that they advised Victor to keepe those things that belonged to peace and unity and that they sharpely reprehended Victor for having done otherwise d This is said but no offer made of any proofe of it The Cardinall thinks we must take every thing upon his word They to whom the Tradition was delivered Polyerates and the Asian Bishops knew no such matter nay professed the contrary And who is more likely to know the Truth they which lived within two ages of the fountain of it or the Cardinall who lived sixteen ages after it e How can it make against those that object it seeing it is evident from Irenaeus his Reprehension that he thought Victor and the Roman Church no infallible nor sufficient Iudge of what was necessary to be believed and done what not what was Vniversall Tradition what not what was a sufficient ground of Excommunication and what not and consequently that there was no such necessity as is pretended that all other Churches should in matters of faith conforme themselves to the Church of Rome f This is to suppose that Excommunication is an Act or Argument or signe of Power Authority in the party excommunicating over the party excommunicated whereas it is undeniably evident out of the Church Story that it was often used by Equalls upon Equalls and by Inferiors upon Superiors if the equalls or inferiors thought their equalls or superiors did any thing which deserved it g And what is this but to confesse that they thought that a small cause of excommunication and unsufficient which Victor and his adherents thought great and sufficient And consequently that Victor and his Part declared that to be a matter of faith and of necessity which they thought not so and where was then their conformity h True you have so expounded it but not proved nor offered any proofe of your exception This also we must take upon your Authority Irenaeus speaks not one word of any other power to which he compares or before which he preferres the power of the Roman Church And it is evident out of the Councell of Chalcedon that all the Principality which it had was given it not by God but by the Church in regard it was seated in the Imperiall City Whereupon when afterwards Constantinople was the Imperiall City they decreed that that Chuch should have equall Priviledges and dignity and preheminence with the Church of Rome All the Fathers agreed in this decree saving only the Legats of the Bishop of Rome shewing plainly that they never thought of any Supremacy given the Bishops of Rome by God or grounded upon Scripture but only by the Church and therefore alterable at the Churches pleasure i This is falsely translated Convenire ad Romanam Ecclesiam every body knowes signifies no more but to resort or come to the Roman Church which then there was a necessity that men should doe because that the affaires of the Empire were transacted in that place But yet Irenaeus saies not so of every Church simply which had not been true but only of the adjacent Churches for so he expounds himselfe in saying To this Church it is necessary that every Church that is all the faithfull round about should resort With much more reason therefore we returne the Argument thus Had Irenaeus thought that all Churches must of necessity agree with the RomaÌ„ how could he all other Bishops have then pronounc'd that to be no matter of Faith no sufficient ground of Excommunication which Victor and his adherents thought to be so And how then could they have reprehended Victor so much for the ill use of his power as Cardinall Perron confesses they did seeing if that was true which is pretended in this also as well as other things it was necessary for them to agree with the Church of Rome Some there are that say but more wittily then truly that all Cardinall Bellarmines works are so consonant to themselves as if he had written them in two houres Had Cardinall Perron wrote his book in two houres sure he would not have done that here in the middle of the Book which he condemns in the beginning of it For here he urgeth a consequence drawn from the mistaken words of Irenaeus against his lively and actuall practice which proceeding there he justly condemnes of evident injustice His words are For who knowes not that it is too great an injustice to alleage consequences from passages and even those ill interpreted and misunderstood and in whose illation there is alwaies some Paralogisme hid against the expresse words and the lively actuall practise of the same Fathers from whom they are collected and that may be good to take the Fathers for Adversaries and to accuse them for want of sense or memory but not to take them for Iudges and to submit themselves to the observation of what they have believ'd and practised k This is nothing to the purpose he might choose these examples not as of greater force and authority in themselves but as fitter to be imploied against Victor as domestique examples are fitter and more effectuall then forraine and for his omitting to presse him with his own example and others to what purpose had it been to use them seeing their Letters sent to Victor from all parts wherein they reprehend his presumption shewed him sufficiently that their example was against him But besides he that reads Irenaeus his Letter shall see that in the matter of the Lent Fast and the great variety about the celebration of it which he paralels with this of Easter he presseth Victor with the example of himselfe and others not Bishops of Rome both they saith hee speaking of other Bishops notwithstanding this difference retained peace among themselves and wee also among our selves retaine it inferring from his example that Victor also ought to doe so l If the Popes proceeding was just then the Churches of Asia were indeed and in the sight of God excommunicate and out of the state of Salvation which Irenaeus and all the other ancient Bishops never thought And if they were so why doe you accouâ—t them Saints and Martyrs But the truth is that these Councells did no way shew
will let it passe and desire you to give me some peece or shadow of reason why I may not doe all this without a perpetuall Succession of Bishops and Pastours that have done so before me You may judge as uncharitably and speak as maliciously of me as your blind zeale to your Superstition shall direct you but certainly I know and with all your Sophistry you cannot make me doubt of what I know that I doe beleeve the Gospell of Christ as it is delivered in the undoubted books of Canonicall Scripture as verily as that it is now day that I see the light that I am now writing and I beleeve it upon this Motive because I conceive it sufficiently abundantly superabundantly proved to be divine Revelation And yet in this I doe not depend upon any Succession of men that have alwayes beleeved it without any mixture of Errour nay I am fully perswaded there hath been no such Succession aud yet doe not find my self any way weakned in my faith by the want of it but so fully assured of the truth of it that not only though your divels at Lowden doe tricks against it but though an Angell from heaven should gainsay it or any part of it I perswade my self that I should not be moved This I say and this I am sure is true and if you will be so hyperscepticall as to perswade me that I am not sure that I doe beleeve all this I desire you to tell me how are you sure that you beleeve the Church of Rome For if a man may perswade himself he doth beleeve what he doth not beleeve then may you think you beleeve the Church of Rome and yet not beleeve it But if no man can erre concerning what he beleeves then you must give me leave to assure my selfe that I doe beleeve and consequently that any man may beleeve the foresaid truths upon the foresaid motives without any dependance upon any Succession that hath beleeved it alwayes And as from your definition of faith so from your definition of Heresy this phancy may be refuted For questionlesse no man can be an Heretique but he that holds an Heresie and an Heresie you say is a Voluntary Errour therefore no man can be necessitated to be an Heretique whether he will or no by want of such a thing that is not in his power to have But that there should have been a perpetuall Succession of Beleevers in all points Orthodox is not a thing which is in your power therefore our being or not being Heretiques depends not on it Besides what is more certain then that he may make a streight line who hath a Rule to make it by though never man in the world had made any before and why then may not he that beleeves the Scripture to be the word of God and the Rule of faith regulate his faith by it and consequently beleeve aright without much regarding what other men either will doe or have done It is true indeed there is a necessity that if God will have his words beleeved he by his Providence must take order that either by succession of men or by some other meanes naturall or supernaturall it be preserv'd and delivered and sufficiently notified to bee his word but that this should be done by a Succession of men that holds no errour against it certainly there is no more necessity then that it should be done by a Succession of men that commit no sinne against it For if men may preserve the Records of a Law and yet transgresse it certainly they may also preserve directions for their faith and yet not follow them I doubt not but Lawyers at the Barre doe find by frequent experience that many men preserve and produce evidences which being examined of times make against themselves This they doe ignorantly it being in their power to suppresse or perhaps to alter them And why then should any man conceive it strange that an erroneous and corrupted Church should preserve and deliver the Scriptures uncorrupted when indeed for many reasons which I have formerly alleaged it was impossible for them to corrupt them Seeing therefore this is all the necessity that is pretended of a perpetuall Succession of men orthodoxe in all points certainly there is no necessity at all of any such neither can the want of it prove any man or any Church Hereticall 39 When therefore you have produced some proofe of this which was your Major in your former Syllogisme That want of Succession is a certain mark of Heresy you shall then receive a full answer to your Minor We shall then consider whether your indelible Character be any reality or whether it be a creature of your own making a fancy of your own imagination And if it be a thing and not only a word whether our Bishops and Priests have it not as well as yours whether some mens perswasion that there is no such thing can hinder them from having it or prove that they have it not if there be any such thing Any more then a mans perswasion that he has not taken Physick or Poyson will marke him not to have taken it if hee has or hinder the operation of it And whether Tertullian in the place quoted by you speak of a Priest made a Lay-man by just deposition or degradation and not by a voluntary desertion of his Order And whether in the same place he set not some make upon Heretiques that will agree to your Church Whether all the Authority of our Bishops in England before the Reformation was conferr'd on them by the Pope And if it were whether it were the Pope's right or an usurpation If it were his right whether by Divine Law or Ecclesiasticall And if by Ecclesiasticall only whether he might possibly so abuse his power as to deserve to loose it Whether de facto he had done so Whether supposing he had deserved to loose it those that deprived him of it had power to take it from him Or if not whether they had power to suspend him from the use of it untill good caution were put in and good assurance given that if he had it again he would not abuse it as he had formerly done Whether in case they had done unlawfully that took his power from him it may not things being now setled and the present government established be as unlawfull to goe about to restore it Whether it be not a Fallacy to conclude because we believe the Pope hath no power in England now when the King and State and Church hath deprived him upon just grounds of it therefore wee cannot believe that he had any before his deprivation Whether without Schisme a man may not withdraw obediēce from an usurp'd Authority commanding unlawfull things Whether the Roman Church might not give authority to Bishops and Priests to oppose her errors as well as a King gives Authority to a Iudge to judge against him if his cause be bad as well as Traian gave
ages after For example In mutilation of the Communion in having your Service in such a language as the Assistants generally understand nor your offering to Saints your picturing of God your worshipping of Pictures 42 Ad § 24. As for Vniversality of place the want whereof you object to Protestants as a marke of Heresie You have not set down cleerely and univocally what you mean by it whether universality of fact or of right and if of fact whether absolute or comparative and if comparative whether of the Church in comparisō of any other Religion or only of Hereticall Christians or if in comparison of these whether in comparison of all other Sects conjoyn'd or in comparison only of any One of them Nor have you proved it by any good argument in any sense to be a certain mark of Heresy For those places of S. Austine doe not deserve the name And truly in my judgement you have done advisedly in proving it no better For as for Vniversality of right or a right to Vniversality all Religions claime it but only the true has it and which has it cannot be determin'd unlesse it first be determin'd which is the true An absolute Vniversality and diffusion through all the world if you should pretend to all the world would laugh at you If you should contend for latitude with any one Religion Mahumetisme would carry the victory from you If you should oppose your selves against all other Christians besides you it is certain you would be cast in this suit also If lastly being hard driven you should please you selves with being more then any one Sect of Christiās it would presently be replied that it is ūcertain whether now you are so but most certain that the time has been when you have not been so Then when the whole world wondred that it was become Arrian then when Athanasius oppos'd the world and the world Athanasius then when your Liberius having the contemptible paucity of his adherents objected to him as a note of error answered for himselfe There was a time when there were but three opposed the decree of the King and yet those three were in the right and the rest in the wrong then when the Professors of error surpassed the number of the Professors of truth in proportion as the sands of the Sea doe the Starres of the Heaven As S. Austine acknowledgeth then when Vincentius confesseth that the poyson of the Arrians had contaminated not now some certain portion but almost the whole World then when the author of Nazianzens life testifies That the Heresy of Arrius had possessed in a manner the whole extent of the world and when Nazianzen found cause to cry out Where are they who reproach us with our pouerty who define the Church by the multitude and despise the little flock They have the People but we the faith And lastly when Athanasius was so overborn with Sholes floods of Arriās that he was enforc'd to write a Treatise on purpose against those who judge of the truth only by plurality of adherents So that if you had prov'd want of Universality even thus restrained to be an infallible note of Heresy there would have been no remedy but you must have confessed that the time was when you were Heretiques And besides I see not how you would have avoided this great inconvenience of laying grounds and storeing up arguments for Antichrist against he comes by which he may prove his Company the true Church For it is evident out of Scripture and confessed by you that though his time be not long his dominion shall be very large and that the true Church shall be then the woman driven into the wildernesse 43 Ad § 25. 26. The remainder of this Chapter if I would deale strictly with you I might let passe as impertinent to the question now disputed For whereas your argument promises that this whole Chapter shall be imploied in proving Luther the Protestants guilty of Heresy here you desert this question and strike out into another accusation of them that their faith even of the truth they hold is not indeed true faith But put case it were not does it follow that the having of this faith makes them Heretiques or that they are therefore Heretiques because they have this faith Aristotle beleeved there were Intelligences which moved the Spheares he believed this with an humane perswasion and not with a certain obscure prudent supernaturall faith and will you make Aristotle an Heretique because he believed so You believe there was such a man as Iulius Caesar that there is such a City as Constantinople and your beliefe here of has not these qualifications which you require And will you be content that this shall passe for a sufficient proofe that you are an Heretique Heresy you have defin'd above to be a voluntary error but he that believes truth though his belief be not qualified according to your minde yet sure in believing truth he believes no error from hence according to ordinary Logick methinkes it should follow that such a man for doing so cannot be guilty of Heresy 44 But you will say though he be not guilty of Heresy for believing these truths yet if his faith be not saving to what purpose will it be Truly very litle to the purpose of Salvation as litle as it is to your proving Protestants guilty of Heresy But out of our wonted indulgence let us pardon this fault also and doe you the favour to hear what you can say to beget this faith in us that indeed wee have no faith or at least not such a faith without which it is impossible to please God Your discourse upon this point you have I know not upon what policie disjoynted and given us the grounds of it in the begining of the Chapter and the superstructure here in the end Them I have already examined and for a great part of them proved them vain and deceitfull I have shewed by many certain arguments that though the subject matter of our faith be in it selfe most certain yet that absolute certainty of adherence is not required to the essence of faith no nor to make it acceptable with God but that to both these effects it is sufficient if it be firme enough to produce Obedience and Charity I haue shewed besides that Prudence is rather commendable in faith then intrinsecall and essentiall to it So that whatsoever is here said to prove the faith of Protestants no faith for want of certainty or for want of prudence is already answered before it is objected for the foundation being destroyed the building cannot stand Yet for the fuller refutation of all pretences I will here make good that to prove our faith destitute of these qualifications you have produc'd but vain Sophismes and for the most part such arguments as returne most violently upon your selves Thus then you say 45 First that their belief wanteth
is still to believe them and as he did hold so he is still to hold them Thus he subioyning more to the same purpose in the next and again in the 26. Chapter and in his third book De Bapt. contr Donat. cap. ult and upon Psal. 64. But now this reason seems to perswade the contrary Because the formall obiect of faith seemes to be the first verity as it is manifested by the Churches Doctrine as the Divine and infallible Rule wherefore whosoever adheres not to this Rule although he assent to some matters of faith yet he embraces them not with faith but with some other kinde of assent as if a man assent to a conclusion not knowing the reason by which it is demonstrated he hath not true knowledge but an opinion only of the same conclusion Now that an Heretique adheres not to the râ—le aforesaid it is manifest Because if he did adhere to it as divine and infallible he would receive all without exception which the Church teacheth and so would not be an Heretique After this manner discourseth S. Thom. 2. 2. q. 5. art 3. From whom yet Dur and dissents upon this distinction thinking there may be in an Heretique true faith in respect of the Articles in which he doth not erre Others as Scotus and Bonaventure define not the matter plainly but seeme to choose a middle way To the authority of S. Austine and these Schoolemeâ— this may be adjoyned That it is usuall with good Christians to say that Heretiques have not the entire faith Whereby it seemes to be intimated that some part of it they doe retaine Whereof this may be another reason That if the truths which a Iew or a Heretique holds he should not hold them by faith but after some other manner to wit by his own proper will and judgement it will follow that all that excellent knowledge of God and divine things which is found in them is to be attributed not to the grace of God but the strength of Free will which is against S. Austine both elsewhere and especially in the end of his book De potentia As for the reason alleaged to the contrary We answer It is impertinent to faith by what meanes we believe the prime Verity that is by what meanes God useth to conferre upon men the gift of Faith For although now the ordinary meanes be the Testimony and teaching of the Church yet it is certain that by other meanes faith hath been given heretofore and is given still For many of the Ancients as Adam Abraham Melchisedeck Iob received faith by speciall revelation the Apostles by the Miracles and Preaching of Christ others again by the Preaching and miracles of the Apostles and Lastly others by other meanes when as yet they had heard nothing of the infallibility of the Church to little Children by Baptisme without any other help faith is infus'd And therefore it is possible that a man not adhering to the Churches doctrine as a Rule infallible yet may receive some things for the word of God which doe indeed truly belong to the faith either because they are now or heretofore have been confirm'd by miracles Or because he manifestly sees that the ancient Church taught so or upon some other inducement And yet neverthelesse we must not say that Heretiques and Iewes doe hold the Faith but only some part of the Faith For the Faith signifies an entire thing and compleat in all parts whereupon an Heretique is said to be simply an Infidell to have lost the Faith and according to the Apostle 1. Tim. 1. to have made shipwrack of it although he holds some things with the same strength of assent and readinesse of will wherewith by others are held all those points which appertaine to the Faith And thus farre Estius Whose discourse I presume may passe for a sufficient refutation of your argumeÌ„t out of Aquinas And therefore your Corollaries drawn from it That every error against faith involves opposition against Gods testimony That Protestants have no Faith no certainty and that you have all Faith must together with it fall to the ground 50 But if Protestants have certainty they want obscurity and so have not that faith which as the Apostle saith is of things not appearing This argument you prosecute in the next Paragraph But I can find nothing in it to convince or perswade me that Protestants cannot have as much certainty as is required to faith of an object not so evident as to beget science If obscurity will not consist with certainty in the highest degree then you are to blame for requiring to faith contradicting conditions If certainty and obscurity will stand together what reason can be imagin'd that a Protestant may not entertain them both as well as a Papist Your bodies souls your understandings and wills are I think of the same condition with ours And why then may not we be certain of an obscure thing as well as you And as you made this long discourse against Protestants why may not wee putting Church instead of Scripture send it back again to you And say If Papists have certainty they want obscurity and so have not that faith which as the Apostle saith is of things not appearing or not necessitating our understanding to an assent For the whole edifice of the faith of Papists is setled on these two principles These particular propositions are the propositions of the Church And the sense and meaning of them is clear and evident at least in all points necessary to salvation Now these principles being one suppos'd it clearly followeth that what Papists beleeve as necessary to salvation is evidently known by them to be true by this argument It is certain and evident that whatsoever is the word of God or Divine Revelation is true But it is certain and evident that these propositions of the Church in particular are the word of God and Divine Revelations therefore it is certain and evident that all propositions of the Church are true Which Conclusion I take for a Major in a second argument and say thus It is certain and evident that all propositions of the Church are true But it is certain and evident that such particulars for example The lawfulnesse of the halfe Communion The lawfulnesse and expedience of Latine Service the Doctrine of Transubstantiation Indulgences c. are the Propositions of the Church therefore it is certain and evident that these particular objects are true Neither will it avail you to say that the said principles are not evident by naturall discourse but only by the eye of reason clear'd by grace For supernaturall evidence no lesse yea rather more drowns and excludes obscurity then naturall evidence doth Neither can the Partie so enlightned be said voluntarily to captivate his understanding to that light but rather his understanding is by necessity made captive and forc'd not to disbeleeve what is presented by so clear a light And therefore your imaginary faith is not the
wisdome to forsake ancient errours for more ancient Truths One God is rather to be follow'd then innumerable worlds of men And therefore it might be great wisdome either for the whole Visible Church nay for all the men in the world having wandred from the way of Truth to return unto it or for a part of it nay for one man to doe so although all the world besides were madly resolute to doe the contrary It might be great wisdome to forsake the errors though of the only Visible Church much more the Roman which in conceiving her self the whole Uisible Church does somewhat like the Frog in the Fable which thought the ditch he liv'd in to be all the world 54 You demand again What wisdome was it to forsake a Church acknowledg'd to want nothing necessary to Salvation indued with Succession of Bishops c usque ad Election or Choice I answer Yet might it be great wisdome to forsake a Church not acknowledged to want nothing necessary to Salvation but accused and convicted of many damnable errors certainly damnable to them who were convicted of them had they still persisted in them after their conviction though perhaps pardonable which is all that is acknowledg'd to such as ignorantly continued in them A Church vainly arrogating without possibility of proof a perpetuall Succession of Bishops holding alwaies the same doctrine and with a ridiculous impudence pretending perpetuall possession of all the world whereas the world knows that a litle before Luthers arising your Church was confined to a part of a part of it Lastly a Church vainly glorying in the dependance of other Churches upon her which yet she supports no more then those crouching Anticks which seeme in great buildings to labour under the weight they beare doe indeed support the Fabrick For a corrupted and false Church may give authority to preach the truth and consequently against her own falshoods and corruptions Besides a false Church may preserve the Scripture true as now the Old Testament is preserved by the Iewes either not being arriv'd to that height of impiety as to attempt the corruption of it or not able to effect it or not perceiving or not regarding the opposition of it to her corruptions And so we might receive from you lawfull Ordination and true Scriptures though you were a false Church and receiving the Scriptures from you though not from you alone I hope you cannot hinder us neither need wee aske your leave to believe and obey them And this though you be a false Church is enough to make us a true one As for a Succession of men that held with us in all points of Doctrine it is a thing we need not and you have as litle as we So that if we acknowledge that your Church before Luther was a true Church it is not for any ends for any dependance that we have upon you but because we conceive that in a charitable construction you may passe for a true Church Such a Church and no better as you doe sometimes acknowledge Protestants to be that is a Company of men wherein some ignorant soules may be saved So that in this ballancing of Religion against Religion and Church against Church it seemes you have nothing of weight and moment to put into your scale nothing but smoak and winde vaine shadowes and phantasticall pretences Yet if Protestants on the other side had nothing to put in their Scale but those negative commendations which you are pleas'd to afford them nothing but no unity nor meanes to procure it no farther extent when Luther arose then Luthers body no Vniversality of time or place no visibility or being except only in your Church no Succession of persons or doctrine no leader but Luther in a quarrell begun upon no ground but passion no Church no Ordination no Scriptures but such as they receiv'd from you if all this were true and this were all that could be pleaded for Protestants possibly with an allowance of three graines of partiality your Scale might seem to turne But then if it may appear that part of these objections are falsely made against them the rest vainely that whatsoever of truth is in these imputations is impertinent to this triall and whatsoever is pertinent is untrue and besides that plenty of good matter may be alleaged for Protestants which is here dissembled Then I hope our cause may be good notwithstanding these pretences 55 I say then that want of Vniversality of time place The invisibility or not existence of the professors of Protestant Doctrine before Luther Luthers being alone when he first opposed your Church Our having our Church Ordination Scriptures personall and yet not doctrinall Succession from you are vain and impertinent allegations against the truth of our Doctrine and Church That the entire truth of Christ without any mixture of error should be professed or believed in all places at any time or in any place at all times is not a thing evident in reason neither have we any Revelation for it And therefore in relying so confidently on it you build your house upon the sand And what obligation we had either to be so peevish as to take nothing of yours or so foolish as to take all I doe not understand For whereas you say that this is to be choosers and therefore Heretiques I tell you that though all Heretiques are choosers yet all choosers are not Heretiques otherwise they also which choose your Religion must be Heretiques As for our wanting Vnity and Meanes of proving it Luthers opposing your Church upon meere passion our following private men rather then the Catholique Church the first and last are meere untruths for we want not Vnity nor Meanes to procure it in things necessary Plain places of Scripture and such as need no interpreter are our meanes to obtaine it Neither doe we follow any private men but only the Scripture the word of God as our rule and reason which is also the gift of God given to direct us in all our actions in the use of this rule And then for Luthers opposing your Church upon meere passion it is a thing I will not deny because I know not his heart and for the same reason you should not have affirmed it Sure I am whether he opposed your Church upon reason or no he had reason enough to oppose it And therefore if he did it upon passion we will follow him only in his action and not in his passion in his opposion not in the manner of it and then I presume you will have no reason to condemne us unlesse you will say that a good action cannot be done with reason because some body before us hath done it upon passion You see then how imprudent you have been in the choice of your arguments to prove Protestants unwise in the choice of their Religion 56 It remaines now that I should shew that many reasons of moment may bee alleaged for the justification of
convince that I ought to believe it For reason will convince any man unlesse he be of a perverse mind that the Scripture is the word of God And then no reason can be greater then this God sayes so therefore it is true 63 Following your Church I must hold many things which to any mans judgment that will give himself the liberty of judgment will seem much more plainly contradicted by Scripture then the infallibility of your Church appeares to be confirm'd by it and consequently must be so foolish as to believe your Church exempted from error upon lesse evidence rather then subject to the common condition of mankind upon greater evidence Now if I take the Scripture only for my Guide I shall not need to doe any thing so unreasonable 64 If I will follow your Church I must believe impossibilities and that with an absolute certainty upon motives which are confess'd to be but only Prudentiall and probable That is with a weak foundation I must firmly support a heavy a monstrous heavy building Now following the Scripture I shall have no necessity to undergoe any such difficulties 65 Following your Church I must be servant of Christ and a Subject of the King but only Ad placitum Papae I must bee prepar'd in mind to renounce my allegiance to the King when the Pope shall declare him an Heretique and command me not to obey him And I must be prepar'd in mind to esteem Vertue Vice and Vice Vertue if the Pope shall so determine Indeed you say it is impossible he should doe the latter but that you know is a great question neither is it fit my obedience to God and the King should depend upon a questionable foundation And howsoever you must grant that if by an impossible supposition the Popes commands should be contrary to the law of Christ that they of your Religion must resolve to obey rather the commands of the Pope then the law of Christ. Whereas if I follow the Scripture I may nay I must obey my Soveraign in lawfull things though an Heretique though a Tyrant and though I doe not say the Pope but the Apostles themselves nay an Angell from heaven should teach any thing against the Gospell of Christ I may nay I must denounce Anathemâ— to him 66 Following the Scripture I shall believe a Religion which being contrary to flesh and blood without any assistance from worldly power wit or policy nay against all the power and policy of the world prevail'd and enlarg'd it self in a very short time all the world over Whereas it is too too apparent that your Church hath got and still maintaines her authority over mens consciences by counterfeiting false miracles forging falle stories by obtruding on the world suppositious writings by corrupting the monuments of former times and defacing out of them all which any way makes against you by warres by persecutions by Massacres by Treasons by Rebellions in short by all manner of carnall meanes whether violent or fraudulent 67 Following the Scripture I shall believe a Religion the first Preachers and Professors whereof it is most certain they could have no worldly ends upon the world that they could not project to themselves by it any of the profits or honours or pleasures of this world but rather were to expect the contrary even all the miseries which the world could lay upon them On the other side the Head of your Church the pretended Successor of the Apostles and Guide of faith it is even palpable that he makes your Religion the instrument of his ambition by it seekes to entitle himselfe directly or indirectly to the Monarchy of the world And besides it is evident to any man that has but halfe an eye that most of those Doctrines which you adde to the Scripture doe make one way or other for the honour or temporall profit of the Teachers of them 68 Following the Scripture only I shall embrace a Religion of admirable simplicity consisting in a manner wholly in the worship of God in spirit and truth Whereas your Church and Doctrine is even loaded with an infinity of weak childish ridiculous unsavoury superstitions and ceremonies and full of that righteousnesse for which Christ shall judge the world 69 Following the Scripture I shall believe that which Vniversall never-failing Tradition assures me that it was by the admirable supernaturall worke of God confirm'd to be the word of God whereas never any miracle was wrought never so much as a lame horse cur'd in confirmation of your Churches authority and infallibility And if any strange things have been done which may seeme to give attestation to some parts of your doctrine yet this proves nothing but the truth of the Scripture which foretold that Gods providence permitting it and the wickednesse of the world deserving it strange signes and wonders should be wrought to confirme false doctrine that they which love not the truth may be given over to strange delusions Neither does it seeme to me any strange thing that God should permit some true wonders to be done to delude them who have forged so many to deceive the world 70 If I follow the Scripture I must not promise my selfe Salvation without effectuall dereliction and mortification of all vices and the effectuall practice of all Christian vertues But your Church opens an easier and a broader way to Heaven and though I continue all my life long in a course of sinne and without the practice of any vertue yet gives me assurance that I may be let in to heaven at a posterne gate even by any act of Attrition at the houre of death if it be joyn'd with confession or by an act of Contrition without confession 71 Admirable are the Precepts of piety and humility of innocence and patience of liberality frugality temperance sobriety justice meeknesse fortitude constancy and gravity contempt of the world love of God and the love of man kind In a word of all vertues and against all vice which the Scriptures impose upon us to be obeyed under pain of damnation The summe whereof is in manner compriz'd in our Saviours Sermon upon the Mount recorded in the 5. 6. and 7. of S. Matthew which if they were generally obeyed could not but make the world generally happy and the goodnesse of them alone were sufficient to make any wise and good man believe that this Religion rather then any other came from God the Fountain of all goodnesse And that they may be generally obeyed our Saviour hath ratified them all in the close of his Sermon with these universall Sanctions Not every one that sayeth Lord Lord shall enter into the Kingdome but he that doth the will of my Father which is in Heaven and again whosoever heareth these sayings of mine and doth them not shall be likned unto a foolish man which built his house upon the sand and the ruine descended and the stood came and the winds blew and it fell and great was the fall
thereof Now your Church notwithstanding all this enervates and in a manner dissolves and abrogates many of these precepts teaching men that they are not lawes for all Christians but Counsells of perfection and matters of Supererrogation that a man shall doe well if he doe observe them but he shall not sinne if he observe them not That they are for them who ayme at high places in heaven who aspire with the two sonnes of Zebede to the right hand or to the left hand of Christ But if a man will be content barely to goe to heaven and to be a doore keeper in the house of God especially if he will be content to tast of Purgatory in the way he may obtaine it at any easier purchase Therefore the Religion of your Church is not so holy nor so good as the doctrine of Christ delivered in Scripture and therefore not so likely to come from the Fountaine of holinesse goodnesse 72 Lastly if I follow your Church for my Guide I shall doe all one as if I should follow a Company of blind men in a judgement of colours or in the choice of a way For every unconsidering man is blind in that which he does not consider Now what is your Church but a Company of unconsidering men who comfort themselves because they are a great company together but all of them either out of idlenesse refuse the trouble of a severe tryall of their Religion as if heaven were not worth it or out of superstition fear the event of such a tryall that they may be scrupled and staggered and disquieted by it and therefore for the most part doe it not at all Or if they doe it they doe it negligently and hypocritically and perfunctorily rather for the satisfaction of others then themselves but certainly without indifference without liberty of judgement without a resolution to doubt of it if upon examination the grounds of it prove uncertain or to leave it if they prove apparently false My own experience assures me that in this imputation I doe you no injury but it is very apparent to all men from your ranking doubting of any part of your Doctrine among mortall sinnes For from hence it followes that seeing every man must resolve that he will never commit mortall sinne that he must never examine the grounds of it at all for fear he should be mov'd to doubt or if he doe he must resolve that no motives be they never so strong shall move him to doubt but that with his will and resolution he will uphold himselfe in a firme belief of your Religon though his reason and his understanding faile him And seeing this is the condition of all those whom you esteem good Catholiques who can deny but you are a Company of men unwilling and afraid to understand least you should doe good That have eyes to see and will not see that have have not the love of truth which is only to be known by an indifferent tryall therefore deserve to be given over to strong delusions men that love darknesse more then light in a word that you are the blind leading the blind and what prudence there can be in following such Guides our Saviour hath taught us in saying If the blind lead the blind both shall fall into the ditch 73 There remaines unspoken to in this Section some places out of S. Austin and some sayings of Luther wherein he confesses that in the Papacy are many good things But the former I have already considered and return'd the argument grounded on them As for Luthers speeches I told you not long since that we follow no privat men and regard not much what he saies either against the Church of Rome or for it but what he proves He was a man of a vehement Spirit and very often what he took in hand he did not doe it but over doe it He that will justify all his speeches especially such as he wrote in heat of opposition I believe will have work enough Yet in these sentences though he overreach in the particulars yet what he saies in generall we confesse true and confesse with him that in the Papacy are many good things which have come from them to us but withall we say there are many bad neither doe wee think our selves bound in prudence either to reject the good with the bad or to retain the bad with the good but rather conceive it a high point of wisdome to separate between the pretious and the vile to sever the good from the bad and to put the good in vessels to be kept and to cast the bad away to try all things and to hold that which is good 74 Ad § 32. Your next and last argument against the faith of Protestants is because wanting Certainty and Prudence it must also want the fourth condition Supernaturality For that being a humane perswasion it is not in the essence of it supernaturall and being imprudent and rash it cannot proceed from Divine motion and so is not supernaturall in respect of the cause from which it proceedeth Ans. This litle discourse stands wholly upon what went before and therefore must fall together with it I have proved the Faith of Protestants as certain and as prudent as the faith of Papists and therefore if these be certain grounds of supernaturality our faith may have it as well as yours I would here furthermore be inform'd how you can assure us that your faith is not your perswasion or opinion for you make them all one that your Churches doctrine is true Or if you grant it your perswasion why is it not the perswasion of men and in respect of the subject of it an humane perswasion I desire also to know what sense there is in pretending that your perswasion is not in regard of the object only and cause of it but in nature or essence of it supernaturall Lastly whereas you say that being imprudent it cannot come from divine motion certainly by this reason all they that believe your own Religion and cannot give a wise and sufficient reason for it as millions amongst you cannot must be condemn'd to have no supernaturall faith or if not then without question nothing can hinder but that the imprudent faith of Protestants may proceed from divine motion as well as the imprudent faith of Papists 75 And thus having weighed your whole discourse and found it altogether lighter then vanity why should I not invert your conclusion and say Seeing you have not proved that whosoever erres against any one point of Faith looseth all divine Faith nor that any error whatsoever concerning that which by the Parties litigant may be esteem'd a matter of faith is a grievous sinne it followes not at all that when two men hold different doctrines concerning Religion that but one can be saved Not that I deny but that the sentence of S. Chrysost. with which you conclude this Chapt. may in a good sense be true for oftimes by
the faith is meant only that Doctrine which is necessary to salvation and to say that salvation may be had without any the least thing which is necessary to salvation implyes a repugnance and destroies it selfe Besides not to believe all necessary points and to believe none at all is for the purpose of salvation all one and therefore he that does so may justly be said to destroy the Gospell of Christ seeing he makes it uneffectuall to the end for which it was intended the Salvation of mens soules But why you should conceive that all differences about Religon are concerning matters of faith in this high notion of the word for that I conceive no reason CHAP. VII In regard of the Precept of Charity towards ones self Protestants are in state of Sinne as long as they remain separated from the Roman Church THAT due Order is to be observed in the Theologicall Vertue of Charity whereby we are directed to preferre some Objects before others is a truth taught by all Divines and declared in these words of holy Scripture He hath ordered Charity in me The reason whereof is because the infinite Goodnesse of God which is the formall Obiect or Motive of Charity and for which all other things are loved is differently participated by different Objects and therefore the love we beare to them for Gods sake must accordingly be unequall In the vertue of Faith the case is farre otherwise because all the Objects or points which we believe doe equally participate the divine Testimony or Revelation for which we believe alike all things propounded for such For it is as impossible for God to speake an untruth in a small as in a great matter And this is the ground for which we have so often affirmed that any least errour against Faith is injurious to God and destructive of Salvation 2 This order in Charity may be considered Towards God Our owne soule The soule of our Neighbour Our owne life or Goods and the life or goods of our Neighbour God is to be beloved above all things both objectivè as the Divines speake that is we must wish or desire to God a Good more great perfect and noble then to any or all other things namely all that indeed He is a Nature Infinite Independent Immense c. and also appretiative that is wee must sooner loose what good soever then leave and abandon Him In the other Objects of Charity of which I spake this order is to be kept We may but are not bound to preferre the life and goods of our Neigbour before our owne we are bound to preâ—erre the soule of our Neighbour before our own temporall goods or life if he happen to be in extreme spirituall necessity and that we by our assistance can succour him according to the saying of S. Iohn In this we have knowne the Charity of God because he hath yielded his life for us and we ought to yield our life for our Brethren And S. Augustine likewise saith A Christian will not doubt to loose his owne temporall life for the eternall life of his Neighbour Lastly we are to preferre the spirituall good of our own soule before both the spirituall and temporall good of our Neighbour because as Charity doth of its own Nature chiefly encline the person in whom it resides to love God and to be united with him so of it selfe it enclines him to procure those things whereby the said Vnion with God is effected rather to himselfe then to others And from hence it followes that in things necessary to salvation no man ought in any case or in any respect whatsoever to preferre the spirituall good either of any particular person or of the whole world before his own soule according to those words of our Blessed Saviour What doth it availe a man if he gaine the whole world and sustaine the damage of his own soule And therefore to come to our present purpose it is directly against the Order of Charity or against Charity as it hath a reference to our selves which Divines call Charitas propria to adventure either the omitting of any meanes necessary to salvation or the committing of any thing repugnant to it for whatsoever respect and consequently if by living out of the Roman Church we put our selves in hazard either to want some thing necessarily required to salvation or else to performe some act against it wee commit a most grievous sinne against the vertue of Charity as it respect our selves and so cannot hope for salvation without repentance 3 Now of things necessary to salvation there are two sorts according to the doctrine of all Divines Some things say they are necessary to salvation necessitate praecepti necessary only because they are commanded For If thou wilt enter into life keepe the Commandements In which kind of things as probable ignorance of the Law or of the commandement doth excuse the party from all faulty breach thereof so likewise doth it not exclude salvation in case of ignorance Some other things are said to be necessary to salvation necessitate medij finis or salutis because they are Meanes appointed by God to attaine our End of eternall salvation in so strict a manner that it were presumption to hope for Salvation without them And as the former meanes are said to be necessary because they are commanded so the latter are commonly said to be commanded because they are necessary that is Although there were no other speciall precept concerning them yet supposing they bee once appointed as meanes absolutely necessary to salvation there cannot but arise an obligation of procuring to have them in vertue of that universall precept of Charity which obligeth every man to procure the salvation of his own soule In this sort divine infallible Faith is necessary to salvation as likewise repentance of every deadly sinne and in the doctrine of Catholiques Baptisme in re that is in act to Children and for those who are come to the use of reason in voto or harty desire when they cannot have it in act And as Baptisme is necessary for remission of Originall and Actuall sinne committed before it so the Sacrament of Confession or Pennance is necessary in re or in voto in act or desire for the remission of mortall sinnes committed after Baptisme The Minister of which Sacrament of Pennance being necessarily a true Priest true Ordination is necessary in the Church of God for remission of sinnes by this sacrament as also for other ends not belonging to our present purpose From hence it riseth that no ignorance or impossibility can supply the want of those means which are absolutely necessary to salvation As if for example a sinner depart this world without repenting himselfe of all deadly sinnes although he dye suddenly or unexpectedly fall out of his wits and so commit no new sinne by omission of repentance yet he shall be eternally punished for his former sinnes committed and never repented
p. 122. Ninthly a very great part of his Chapter touching the dissensions of the Roman Church which he shewes against the pretences of Charity Mistaken to bee no lesse then ours for the importance of the matter and the pursuite of them to bee exceedingly uncharitable S. 6. p. 188. 189. 190. 191. 193. 194. 195. 196. 197. Tenthly his clear refutation and just reprehension of the Doctrine of implicite Faith as it is deliver'd by the Doctors of your Church which he proves very consonant to the Doctrine of Heretiques and Infidels but evidently repugnant to the word of God Ibid. p. 201. 202. 203. 204. 205. Lastly his discourse wherein hee shewes that it is unlawfull for the Church of after Ages to adde any thing to the Faith of the Apostles And many of his Arguments whereby hee proves that in the judgment of the Ancient Church the Apostles Creed was esteem'd a sufficient summary of the necessary Points of simple belief and a great number of great authorities to justifie the Doctrine of the Church of England touching the Canon of Scripture especially the Old Testament S. 7. p. 221 223. 228. 229. All these parts of Doctor Potter's book for reasons best known to your self you have dealt with as the Priest and Levite in the Gospell did with the wounded Samaritan that is only look't upon them and pass'd by But now at least when you are admonish't of it that my Reply to your second part if you desire it may be perfect I would entreat you to take them into your consideration and to make some shew of saying something to them least otherwise the world should interpret your obstinate silence a plaine confession that you can say nothing FINIS GOod reader through the Authors necessary absence for some weekes while this Book was printing and by reason of an uncorrected Copy sent to the Presse some errors have escap'd notwithstanding the Printers sollicitous and extraordinary care and the Correctors most assiduous diligence which I would intreat thee to correct according to this following direction Pag. Lin. Err. Corr. 6. 1. To the first and second Adde § 21. Vlt. To the ninth to the ninteenth To the ninteenth To the ninth 64. 21. Principall prudentiall 67. 29. Canoniz'd discanoniz'd 73. In marg posuit potuit 108. 21. ouâ— one 134. 9. In for 136. 9. some some thing 146. 6. a truth truths 150. 19. she there 157. 13. vowed avowed 158. Peâ—â—lt best least 168. 11 causa pro non causâ— non causa pro causa 176. 3. Atheists Antithâ—sis ib. 11. dele with  180. Antepen government communion 193. 19. that the. 198. 33. continue the immortall the 218. 44. profession pâ—â—fection 220. Post 53. scribd Ad § 19. Iâ— 11. Faire Faâ—ce Ib. 33. instruct mistrust 221. 38. which is which is the Church 225. 27. nay now 293. 43. so farre from farre from so 351. 11. exception exposition 361. Vlt. Canons Canon 372. 17. Foundation Fundation of 393. 32. dele whether  402 44. of themselves in the issue Survey of Religion Init. a See this acknowledg'd by Bellar de Script Ecclesâ—in Philastriâ— by Petavius Animad in Epiph de inscrip operis By S. Austin Lib. de Haeres Haer. 80 A generall consideration of D. Potters Answere Concerning my Reply Rules to be observed if D. Potter intend a Rejoynder a Mat. 5. 19. * I mean the Divines of Doway whose profession we have in your Belgick Expurgatorius p. 12. in censura Bertrami in these words Seeing in other ancient Catholiques we tolerate extenuate excuse very many errors and devising some shift often deny theÌ„ and put upon them a convenient sense when they are objected to us in disputations and conflicts with our adversaries we see no reason why Bertram may not deserve the same equity In the place above quoted This great diversity of opinions among you touching this matter if any maÌ„ doubt of it let him read Franciscus Picus Mirandula in l. Theorem in Exposit. Theor quarti and T h. Waldensis Tom. 3. De Sacramentalibus doct 3. fol. 5. andhee shall bee fully satisfied that I haue done you no injury Quiâ— tulerit Gracchum c. a Pag. 11. b Ibid. c Pag. 4. Edit 1. d Pag. 20. e Pag. 81. g Sleidan l. 6. fol. 84. h See pag. 39. i Art 28. k Art 31. l S. Greg. Hom. 7. in Ezec. a Pag. 131. b In his first book of Eccles Policy Sect. 1 â— p. 68. c Ibid. lib. 2. Sect. 4. p. 102. d l. 3. Sect. 8. pag. 1. 146. et alibi e Advers Stapl. l. 2. c. 6. Pag. 270. Pag. 357. f Adversus Stapl. l. 2. c. 4. pag. 300. g lib. de cap. Babyl tom 2. Wittemb f. 88. h In his answer to a couÌ„terfeit Catholique pag. 5. i Epist. cont Anabap. ad duos Parochos tom 2. Germ. Wittemb k Praefat. in epist. lac in edit Ieâ—ensi l In Euchirid pag. 63. m In examin Conc. Trid. part 1. pag. 55. n Ibid. o Apud Euseb l. 4. hist. c. 26. p In Synop. q ln carm de genuinis Scripturis r lib. de servo arbitrio cont Etas tom 2. Witt. fol. 471. s In latinis sermonibus convivialibus Francof in 8. impr Anno 1571. t In Germanicis colloq Lutheri ab Aurifabro editis Francosurt tit de libris veteris novi Test. fol. 379. u Ib. tit de Patriarchis Prophet fol. 282. w Tit. de lib. Veâ— Nov. Test. x Fol. 380. y Pag. 141. z Heb. v. 1 a Pag. 141 b Cont. Adimantn c. 17. c l. 2. haeretic fab d lib. 6. cap. 10. e lib. 6. cap. 11. f Dist. Can. Sancta Româ—na h In his defence art 4. Pag. 31. i Pag. 234. k In Synopsi l Can. 47. m Cont. â—p Fundam c. 5. n Tom. 1. fol. 135. o Instit. c. 6. §. 11. p Instit c. 7. §. 12. q lib. de sancta Scriptura p. 52. r Tast. 1. Sect. 10. subd 4 joyned with tract 2. cap. 2. Sect. 10. subd 2. s Lib. cont Zwingl deverit corp Christiin Euchar t In his answere unto M. Iohn Burges pag. 94. u Ibid. w In his Preface to his Bookes of Ecclesiastâ—call Pollicy Sect. 6. 26. x In his treatise of the Church In his Epistle dedicatory to the L. Archbishop y Cont. ep Fund cap. 5. z Lib. de util â—â—e cap. 14. a Tâ—m â— Wittemberg fol. 375. b In lib. de principiis Christian. dogm lib 6â— 13. c De Sacra Scriptura pag. 529. d In his true differâ—nce part 2. e Tract 2. cap 1. Sect. 1. f Lib. 32. cont Faust. g Pag. 247 h De test anim cap. 5. Pag. 24. k Heb. 13. l Cant. 2. m 1. Cor. 10. Ephes. 4. n Mat. 12. o Ioan. c. 10. p Lib. 5. c. 4. q In his defence of M. Hookers books art 4. p. â—1 r De unit Eccles c. 22. * Some answer so but he doth not a The first outward motive not the last
assuraneâ— whereon we rest b The whole Church that he speaks of seemes to be that particular Church wherein a man is bred and brought up and the authority of this he makes an argument which presseth a mans modesty more then his reason And in saying it seemes impudent to be of a contrary mind without cause he implyes There may be a just cause to be of a contrary mind and that then it were no impudence to be so c Therefore the authority of the Church is not the pause whereon we rest we had need of more assurance and the intrinsecall arguments afford it d Somewhat but not much untill it be back'd and inforced by farther reason it selfe therefore is not the farthest reason and the last resolution e Observe I pray our persuasion and the testimony of the Church concerning Scripture may be proved true therefore neither of them was in his account the farthest proofe f Naturall reason then built on principles common to all men is the last resolution unto which the Churches authority is but the first inducement a Neque enim sic pasuit integritas atque notitia literarum quamlibet illustris Episcopi custodiri quemadmodum scriptura Canonica tot linguarum literis ordine successione celebrationis Ecclesiasticae cusâ—oditur contra quam non defuerunt tamen qui sub nonâ—â—ibus Apostolâ—rum multa confingereâ—t Frustra quidem Quia illa sic commendata sic celebrata sic nota est Ferum quid poâ—sit adversus literas non Canonica authoritate fundaâ—as etiam hinc demonstrabit impiae 〈◊〉 audaciae quod adversus eos quae tanta notitiae mole firmatae sunt fese erigere non praetermisit Aug. ep 48. ad Vincent contra Donat Rogat b In hac Germani textâ—s pervestigatione satis perspicue inter omnes constat nullum argumentum esse certius ac famius quam antiquorum probatorum codicum latinorum fidem c. sic Sixtus in praefat Pro Edit vulg c. 21. p. 99. Bell. deverbâ— Deil. 2. c. 11. p. 120. a See Greg. Mor. l. 19. c. 13. b Thus he testifies Com in Esa. c. 6. in these words Vnde Paulas Apost in Epist. ad Heb. quam Latina consuetudo non recipit and again in c. 8. in these In Ep. quâ—e ad Hebâ—aeos scribitur licet eam Latina Consuâ— etudo inter Canoincas Scripturas no recipiat c. * Contra Parmâ—a l. 5. in Prin. Irenaeus l. 3. c. 3. Bellarm. de veâ—bo Dei l. 4. c 11. a Pag. 209. b Charity Mistaken cap. 8. Pagâ— 75. c Pag. 211 d Pag. 212 e Pag. 250 f Pag. 246. g Pag. 246. h Sub. Leon. â—0 Sess. 11. i Cap. 13. v. â— k Cap. ult v. 18. l Pag. 122. m Mar. 16. 18. n Ioan. 16. 13. o In his Sermons Serm. 2. pag. 50. p Pag. 150. q Ioan. c. 16. 13. c. â—4 16. r Pag. 151. 152. s Epist. 118. t Lib. 4. de Bapt. c. 24. u Lib. 10. de Gene â—i ad liter cap. 23. w Serm. 14. de verbis Apost c. 18. x See Protocoll Monâ—â—ch edit 2. p. 307. y Lib. 1. cont Crescon cap. 32. 34. z De â—nit Eccles c. 19. a De Bapt. cont Donat. lib. 5. cap. 23. b Hom. 4. c De Sacra Script p. 678. d â—p 119. e Instit. l. 4. Cap. 2 f Cent. Ep. Theol. ep 74. g In Assertionib art 36 h Tract 1. c. 2. Sect. 14. after F. i Cap. 1. v. 4. k Chark in the Tower disputation the 4. daies conference l Fox Act. Mon p. 402. m The Confession of Bohemia in the Harmony of Consessions pag. 253. n Tract 3. Sect. 7. vnder m. n. 15. o In his answer to a Popish pamphlet p. 68 p Vid. Gul. Reginald Calv. Turcis lib. â— c. 6. q Pag. 113. 114. Motton in his Treatise of the kingdome of Israel p. 94. r Pag. 121. s Pag. 122. t Comment in Mat. c. 16. u Pag. 123. w Pag. 253. x A moderate examination c. c. 1. paulò post initium y Pag. 126. a Pag. 241. b P. 215. c Pag. 75 d Pag. 97. e Mat. 16. f Ioan. 14. g Ioan. 16. h 1. Tim. c. 3. i Ephes. 4. k Pag. 151. 153. l Deutil cred cap. 8. a Prov. 16. 33. b Prov. 16. 10. c Prov. 21. 1. d Mat. 18. 20. e Mat. 2. 7. f Mat. 25. 2. g Mat. 28. 20. h Luk. 10. 16. i Heb. 13. 17. k Ephes. 4. 11. l 1. Tim. 3. 15. m Mat. 18. 17. n Mat. 7. 8. o Ia. 1. 5. p Isay. 59. 21. a Luk. 12. 48. b 6. Heb. 11. a 1. Cor. 11. 28. b 1. Cor. 14. 15. 16. 26. a De Corona Militis c. 3. 4. Where having recounted sundry unwritten Traditions then observed by Christâ—ans many whereof by the way notwithstanding the Councell of Trents profession to receive them and the written word with like affection of Piety are now rejected and neglected by the Church of Rome For example Immersion in Baptism Tasting a mixture of milke and honey presently after Abstaining from Bathes for a weeke after Accounting it an impiety to â—ray kneeling on the Lords day or between Easter and Pentecost I say having reckoned up these and other Traditions in the 3. chapt He addes another in the fourth of the Veiling of Women And then addes Since I find no law for this it followes that Tradition must have given this observation to custome which shall gaine in time Apostolique authority by the interpretation of the reason it By these examples therefore it is declared that the observing of unwritten Tradition being confirmed by custome may bee defended The perseverance of the observation being a good testimoâ—y of the goodnesse of the Tradition Now custome even in civill affaires where a Law is wanting passes for a law Neither is it materiall whether it be grounded on Scripture or reason seeing reason is commendâ—tion enough for a law Moreover if law be grounded on reason all that must be law which is so grounded A quocanq productum Whosoever is the producer of it Doe ye thinke it is not lawfull Omni fideli for every faithfull man to conceive and constitute Provided he constitute only what is not repugnant to Gods will what is conducible for discipline and available to salvation seeing the Lord sayes why even of our selves judge yee nor what is right And a little after This reason now demand saving the respect of the Tradition A quocunque Traditore ceâ—seâ—ur nec auctorem respiciens sed Auctoritatem From whatsoever Tradition it comes neither regard the Author but the Authority b Hier. * Perâ—on a Cap. 3. n. 3. b Pag. 216. c Pag 24â— e Pag. 216. f Pag. 216. g Pag. 216. h 2. 2 q. 1. Art 8. k Pag. 235 215. l 2 2. q. 1. art 8. ad 6 m Pag. 231. n De Peâ—cat Orig. lib. 2. c. 22 p Pap. 235. q Heb. 11. 6. r Pag. 35â— s
is here used in a sense restrained and accommodated to the subject here entreated of and that it signifies not eternally without end of time but perpetually without interruption for the time of their liues So that the force and sense of the Words is that they should never want the Spirits asstance in the performance of their function And that the Spirit would not as Christ was to doe stay with them for a time and afterwards leave them but would abide with them if they kept their station unto the very end of their lives which is mans for ever Neither is this use of the word for ever any thing strange either in our ordinary speech wherein we use to say this is mine for ever this shall be yours for ever without ever dreaming of the Eternity either of the thing or Persons And then in Scripture it not only will bear but requires this sense very frequently as Exod. 21. 6. Deut. 15. 17. his master shall boar his eare through with an awle and he shall serve him for ever Ps. 52. 9. I will praise thee for ever Ps. 61. 4. I will abide in thy Tabernacle for ever Ps. 119. 111. Thy Testimonies have I taken as mine heritage for ever and lastly in the Epist. to Philemon He therefore departed from thee for a time that thou shouldest receive him for ever 75 And thus I presume I have shewed sufficiently that this for ever hinders not but that the promise may be appropriated to the Apostles as by many other circumstances I have evinc'd it must be But what now if the place produced by you as a main pillar of your Churches infallibility prove upon tryall an engine to batter and overthrow it at least which is all one to my purpose to take away all possibility of our assurāce of it This will seem strange newes to you at first hearing not farre from a prodigy And I confesse as you here in this place and generally all your Writers of controversy by whom this text is urged order the matter it is very much disabled to doe any service against you in this question For with a bold sacriledge and horrible impiety somewhat like Procrustes his cruelty you perpetually cut off the head and foot the begining and end of it and presenting to your confidents who usually read no more of the Bible then is alleadged by you only these words I will ask my Father and he shall give you another Paraclete that he may abide with you for ever even the spirit of Truth conceale in the mean time the words before and the words after that so the promise of Gods Spirit may seem to be absolute whereas it is indeed most cleerely and expresly conditionall being both in the words before restrained to those only that love God and keep his Commandements and in the words after flatly denyed to all whom the Scriptures stile by the name of the World that is as the very Atheists give us plainly to understand to all wicked and worldly men Behold the place entire as it is set down in your own Bible If ye love mee keep my Commandements and I will aske my Father and he shall give you another Paraclete that he may abide with you for ever even the spirit of the Truth whom the world cannot receive Now from the place there restored and vindicated from your mutilation thus I argue against your pretence We can have no certainty of the infallibility of your Church but upon this supposition that your Popes are infallible in confirming with the Decrees of Generall Councells we can have no certainty hereof but upon this supposition that the Spirit of truth is promised to him for his direction in this work And of this again we can have no certainty but upon supposall that he performes the condition whereunto the promise of the spirit of truth is expresly limited viz. That he love God and keep his Commandements and of this finally not knowing the Popes heart we can have no certainty at all therefore from the first to the last we can have no certainty at all of your Churches infallibility This is my first argument Frō this place another followes which will charge you as home as the former If many of the Roman See were such men as could not receive the spirit of Truth even men of the World that is Worldly Wicked Carnall Diabolicall men then the Spirit of Truth is not here promised but flatly denied them and consequently we can have no certainty neither of the Decrees of Councells which these Popes confirme nor of the Churches infallibility which is guided by these decrees But many of the Roman See even by the confession of the most zealous defenders of it were such men therefore the spirit of truth is not here promised but denyed them and consequently we can have no certainty neither of the Decrees which they confirme nor of the Churches infallibility which guides herselfe by these Decrees 76 You may take as much time as you think fit to answer these Arguments In the mean while I proceed to the consideration of the next text alleaged for this purpose by you out of S. Paul 1. Ep. to Timothy where he saith as you say the Church is the Pillar and ground of truth But the truth is you are somewhat to bold with S. Paul For he saies not in formall termes what you make him say the Church is the Pillar and Ground of Truth neither is it certain that he meanes so for it is neither impossible nor improbable that these words the pillar and ground of truth may have reference not to the Church but to Timothy the sense of the place that thou maist know how to behave thy selfe as a pillar and ground of truth in the Church of God which is the house of the living God which exposition offers no violence at all to the words but only supposes an Ellipsis of the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the greek very ordinary Neither wants it some likelihood that S. Paul comparing the Church to a house should here exhort Timothy to carry himself as a Pillar in that house should doe according as he had given other Principall men in the Church the name of Pillars rather then having called the Church a House to call it presently a Pillar which may seem somewhat heterogeneous Yet if you will needs have S. Paul referre this not to Timothy but the Church I will not contend about it any farther then to say possibly it may be otherwise But then secondly I am to put you in mind that the Church which S. Paul here speaks of was that in which Timothy conversed and that was a Particular Church and not the Roman and such you will not have to be Vniversally Infallible 77 Thirdly if we grant you out of curtesy for nothing can enforce us to it that he both speaks of the Vniversall Church and saies this of it then I am to remember you that
many Attributes in Scripture are not notes of performance but of duty and teach us not what the thing or Person is of necessity but what it should be Ye are the salt of the Earth said our Saviour to his disciples not that this quality was inseparable from their Persons but because it was their office to be so For if they must have been so of necessity and could not have been otherwise in vain had he put them in fear of that which followes If the salt hath lost his savour wherewith shall it be salted it is thenceforth good for nothing but to be cast forth and to be trodden under foot So the Church may bee by duty the pillar and ground that is the Teacher of Truth of all truth not only necessary but profitable to salvation and yet she may neglect and violate this duty and be in fact the teacher of some Errour 78 Fourthly and lastly if we deal most liberally with you and grant that the Apostle here speaks of the Catholique Church calls it the Pillar and ground of Truth and that not only because it should but because it alwaies shall and will be so yet after all this you have done nothing your bridge is too short to bring you to the bank where you would be unlesse you can shew that by truth here is certainly meant not only all necessary to salvation but all that is profitable absolutely and simply All. For that the true Church alwaies shall bee the maintainer and teacher of all necessary truth you know we grant and must grant for it is of the essence of the Church to be so and any company of men were no more a Church without it then any thing can be a man and not be reasonable But as a man may be still a man though he want a hand or an eye which yet are profitable parts so the Church may be still a Church though it be defective in some profitable truth And as a man may be a man that has some biles and botches on his body so the Church may be the Church though it have many corruptions both in doctrine and practice 79 And thus you see we are at liberty from the former places having shewed that the sense of them either must or may be such as will doe your Cause no service But the last you suppose will be a Gordian knot and ties us fast enough The words are He gave some Apostles and some Prophets c. to the consummation of Saints to the work of the Ministry c. Vntill we all meet into the Vnity of faith c. That we be not hereafter Children wavering and carried up and downe with every wind of Doctrine Out of which words this is the only argument which you collect or I can collect for you There is no meanes to conserve unity of Faith against every wind of Doctrine unlesse it be a Church universally infallible But it is impious to say there is no meanes to conserue unity of faith against every wind of Doctrine Therefore there must be a Church Vniversally Infallible Whereunto I answere that your major is so farre from being confirned that it is plainly confuted by the place alleadged For that tels us of another meanes for this purpose to wit the Apostles and Prophets and Evangelists and Pastors and Doctors which Christ gave upon his Ascention and that their consummating the Saints doing the work of the Ministry and Edifying the body of Christ was the meanes to bring those which are there spoken of be they who they will to the unity of Faith and to perfection in Christ that they might not be wavering and carried about with every wind of false Doctrine Now the Apostles and Prophets and Evangelists and Pastors and Doctors are not the present Church therefore the Church is not the only means for this end nor that which is here spoken of 80 Peradventure by he gave you conceive is to be understood he promised that he would give unto the worlds end But what reason have you for this conceipt Can you shew that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath this signification in other places and that it must have it in this place Or will not this interpretation drive you presently to this blasphemous absurdity that God hath not performed his promise Vnlesse you will say which for shame I think you will not that you have now and in all ages since Christ have had Apostles and Prophets and Evangelists for as for Pastors and Doctors alone they will not serve the turne For if God promised to give all these then you must say he hath given all or else that he hath broke his promise Neither may you pretend that the Pastors and Doctors were the same with the Apostles and Prophets and Evangelists and therefore having Pastors and Doctors you have all For it is apparent that by these names are denoted severall Orders of men cleerely distinguished and diversified by the Originall Text but much more plainly by your own Translations for so you read it some Apostles and some Prophets and other some Evangelists and other some Pastors and Doctors and yet more plainly in the paralell place 1. Cor. 12. to which we are referr'd by your Vulgar Translation God hath set some in the Church first Apostles secondarily Prophets thirdly Teachers therefore this subterfuge is stopped against you Ob. But how can they which died in the first Age keep us in Vnity and guard us from Errour that live now perhaps in the last This seemes to be all one as if a man should say that Alexander or Iulius Caesar should quiet a mutiny in the King of Spaines Army Ans. I hope you will grant that Hippocrates and Galen and Euclid and Aristotle and Salust and Caesar and Livie were dead many ages since and yet that we are now preserved from error by them in a great part of Physick of Geometry of Logick of the Roman story But what if these men had writ by divine Inspiration and writ compleat bodies of the Sciences they professed and writ them plainly and perspicuously You would then have granted I believe that their works had been sufficient to keep us from errour and from dissention in these matters And why then should it be incongruous to say that the Apostles and Prophets and Evangelists and Pastors and Doctors which Christ gave upon his ascention by their writings which some of them writ but all approved are even now sufficient meanes to conserve us in Vnity of faith and guarde us from errour Especially seeing these writings are by the confession of all parts true and divine and as we pretend and are ready to prove contain a plain and perfect Rule of Faith and as the Chiefest of you acknowledge contain immediatly all the Principall and Fundamentall points of Christianity referring us to the Church and Tradition only for some minute particularities But tell me I pray the Bishops that composed the Decrees
out of Principles received by them are all peremptory that though novelty be a certain note of falshood yet no antiquity lesse then Apostolicall is a certain note of truth Yet this I say not as if I did acknowledge what you pretend that Protestants did confesse the Fathers against them in this point For the point here issuable is not whether S. Peter were head of the Church Nor whether the Bishop of Rome had any priority in the Church Nor whether he had authority over it given him by the Church But whether by Divine right and by Christs appointment he were Head of the Catholique Church Now having perused Brerely I cannot find any one Protestant confessing any one Father to haue concurred in opinion with you in this point And the Reader hath reason to suspect that you also out of all the Fathers could not finde any one authority pertinent to this purpose for otherwise you were much to blame citing so few to make choice of such as are impertinent For let the understanding Reader peruse the 55. Epist. of S. Cyprian with any ordinary attention out of which you take your first place and I am confident hee shall finde that he meanes nothing else by the words quoted by you But that in one particular Church at one time there ought to bee but one Bishop and that he should be obeyed in all things lawfull The non-performance whereof was one of the most ordinary causes of heresies against the Faith and Schisme from the Communion of the Church Vniversall He shall finde secondly and that by many convincing Arguments that though he write to Cornelius Bishop of Rome yet hee speaks not of him but of himselfe then Bishop of Carthage against whom a faction of Schismatiques had then set up another And therefore here your ingenuitie is to bee commended aboue many of your side For whereas they ordinarily abuse this place to prove that in the whole Church there ought to be but one Priest and one Iudge you seem somewhat diffident hereof and thereupon say that these words plainly condemne Luther whether he will understand them as spoken of the Vniversall or of every particular Church But whether they condemne Luther is another Question The question here is whether they plainly proue the Popes Supremacy over al other Bishops which certainly they are as far from proving as from proving the supremacy of any other Bishop seeing it is evident they were intended not of one Bishop over the whole Catholique Church but of one Bishop in one particular Church 99 And no lesse impertinent is your saying out of Optatus if it be well lookt into though at the first sight it may seem otherwise because Optatus his scene happened to be Rome whereas S. Cyprians was Carthage The truth is the Donatists had set up at Rome a Bishop of their faction not with intent to make him Bishop of the whole Church but of that Church in particular Now Optatus going upon S. Cyprians aboue mentioned ground of one Bishop in one Church proves them Schismatiques for so doing and he proves it by this Argument S. Peter was first Bishop of Rome neither did the Apostles attribute to themselves each one his particular Chaire understand in that Citty for in other places others I hope had Chaires besides S. Peter and therefore he is a Schismatique who against that one single Chaire erects another understand as before in that place making another Bishop of that Diocesse besides him who was lawfully elected to it 100 But yet by the way he stiles S. Peter head of the Apostles and saies that from thence he was called Cephas Ans. Perhaps he was abused into this opinion by thinking Cephas derived from the greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a head whereas it is a Syriack word and signifies a stone Besides S. Peter might be head of the Apostles that is first in order and honour among them and not have supreme Authority over them And indeed that S. Peter should have authority overall the Apostles and yet exercise no one act of Authority over any one of them and that they should shew to him no signe of subjection me thinkes is as strange as that a King of England for twenty five yeares should doe no Act of Regality nor receive any one acknowledgement of it As strange me thinks it is that you so many ages after should know this so certainly as you pretend to doe and that the Apostles after that those words were spoken in their hearing by vertue whereof S. Peter is pretended to have been made their head should still be so ignorant of it as to question which of them should be the greatest yet more strange that our Saviour should not bring them out of their error by telling them S. Peter was the man but rather confirme it by saying the Kings of the Gentiles exercise authority over them but it should not be so among them No lesse a wonder was it that S. Paul should so farre forget S. Peter and himselfe as that first mentioning him often he should doe it without any title of Honour Secondly speaking of the severall degrees of men in the Church he should not give S. Peter the highest but place him in equipage with the rest of the Apostles and say God hath appointed not first Peter then the rest of the Apostles but first Apostles secondly Prophets Certainly if the Apostles were all first to me it is very probable that no one of them was before the rest For by First all men understand either that which is before all or that before which is nothing Now in the former sense the Apostles could not be all first for then every one of them must have been before every one of the rest And therefore they must be First in the other sense And therefore No man and therefore not S. Peter must be before any of them Thirdly and Lastly that speaking of himselfe in particular and perhaps comparing himselfe with S. Peter in particular rather then any other he should say in plain termes I am in nothing inferior to the very chiefest Apostles But besides all this Though we should grant against all these probabilities and many more that Optatus meant that S. Peter was head of the Apostles not in our but in your sense and that S. Peter indeed was so yet still you are very farre from shewing that in the judgement of Optatus the Bishop of Rome was to be at all much lesse by divine right successor to S. Peter in this his Headship Authority For what incōgruity is there if we say that he might succeed S. Peter in that part of his care the government of that particular Church as sure he did even while S. Peter was living and yet that neither he nor any man was to succeed him in his Apostleship nor in his government of the Church Vniversall Especially seeing S. Peter and the rest of the Apostles by laying the foundations of the