nor of the will of man but of God are borne Ephes 1.4 As he chose vs in him before the constitution of the world that we should be holy and immaculate in his sight in charity and V. 13.14 In whom you also when you had heard the word of truth the Gospel of your saluation in which also belieuing you were signed with the holy Spirit of promise which is the pledge of our inheritance This promise is made to vs and so we being the Creditours the pledge must remaine with vs and signed signifyeth a thing both permanent and intrinsecall Like to this we reade Ephes 4.23.24 Be renewed in the spirit of your mind and put on the new man which according to God is created in justice and holyness of the truth and V. 30. contristate not the holy spirit of God in which you are signed vnto the day of redemption And 2. Cor 1.21 He that annoynted vs God who also hath sealed vs given the pledge of spirit in our harts Rom. 6.23 The stipends of sinne death but the grace of God life euerlasting in Christ Iesus our Lord. Rom. 8.14 Whosoeuer are led by the spirit of God are the sonnes of God 1. Cor 3.16.17 Know you not that you are the temple of God and the spirit of God dwelleth in you The temple of God is holy which you are 2. Cor 6.16 You are the temple of the liuing God as God sayth because I will dwell and walke in them Ephes 2.21.22 In whom all building framed togeather groweth into a holy Temple in our Lord in whom you also are built togeather into an habitation of God in the Holy Ghost 2. Timoth 1.14 Keepe the good depositum by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in vs. Ioan 6.57 As the liuing Father hath sent me and I liue by the Father and he that eateth me the same shall liue by me Who can deny but that life signifyes an intrinsecall permanent thing XLIV To these authorityes of holy Scripture which clearly proue that just men are such by a gift inherent and not due to nature but supernaturall we might add conuincing Reasons grounded in principles of faith if it were my purpose to treat this matter at large But I will content my selfe with one taken from the many Texts of holy Scripture which we haue alledged and many more might be brought in this manner God concurres to certaine Actions v. g. Belieuing hoping c. with a particular influence aboue the naturall exigence of humane nature therfore such Actions are both Good and Supernaturall Good because it were impiety to say that God doth or can by speciall motion produce an ill and sinfull Action Supernaturall because no naturall cause alone can produce them nor hath any naturall exigence that they be produced by some more high and powerfull cause as though our soule cannot be produced by any naturall Cause or Agent yet there is an exigence in nature that it be created by God when sufficient dispositions are preexistent in the Body Now it being once granted that there are good and supernaturall Actions it followes that there must be in our soule some supernaturall powers or facultyes as connaturall Principles or Causes of such Actions therfor such Powers must be grāted as in thēselues are supernaturall and absolutely good without any tincture or staine or inclination to sinfulness Which sequeles are so cleare that protestants not deny them but grant at least the supernaturall Habits of the three Theologicall Vertues Faith Hope and Charity which is sufficient for our present purpose though I know not any generall ground or doctrine of theirs for which they doe or must deny the supernaturall infused Habits of Morall Vertues but they denie that either by these or any other quality or Gift we are just in such manner as that we do not still remayne stayned with habituall deadly sinne which heresy is clearly confuted by the Elogiums of the Fathers and Texts of Scripture alledged in this and the former Sections XLV For if deadly sinne still remaine how doth Grace take away the rust of sinne make the soule resplendent whiten it enlighten and make vs like to God is it the beauty and brightnesse of our mynd the picture and image of God the garment of heauenly beauty purity derived from Christ the first stole the riches of the diuine essence the marke of God since deadly sinne is of a direct opposite nature and produces contrary effects XLVI How shall holy Scripture be verifyed in saying that as by the disobedience of one man many were made sinners so by the obedience of one many shall be made just if we remaine truly sinners by the disobedience of Adam but not truly just by the obedience of Christ who merited for vs iustice and grace How is it true that if in the offence of one Death raigned by one much more they that receiue the aboundance of grace and of donation and of justice shall raigne in life by one Iesus Christ For if sinne remaine Death also remaines with which Life cannot raigne How can the holy Ghost be giuē vs while we persist in sinne How can he abide in God and God in him in whom sinne and satan abides How can Faith worke by charity in him who is voluntarily possesd by deadly sinne than which nothing is more repugnant to charity whose inseparable effect is effectually to detest all mortall sinne how is he a new creature who is in state of sinne which alone makes one a child of Adam or the old man not of Christ How doth he cleaue to God and is one spirit with him who cleaueth to sinne and is one spirit with it vnles men haue a mynd to blaspheme and say that the spirit of sinne and the spirit of God is all one how can he who abides in God and God in him beare much fruite if ioyntly he abide in sinne and sinne in him Yea for this very cause that sinne still abides in man these heretikes teach that all our workes or fruites are deadly sinnes so farr are they from being fruites of Gods abiding in vs And how doth this agree with that saying 1. Ioan. 3.9 Euery one that is borne of God committeth not sinne because his seed abideth in him seing sinne the seed of the serpent abides in him Or how doth the continuall breach of Gods commandements agree with what is sayd V. 24. He that keepeth his commandements abideth in him How can regeneration and renouation of the holy Ghost powred vpon vs aboundantly stand with deadly sinne which is directy opposite to regeneration and renouation How is the seale and pledge of spirit in our harts togeather with the seale and pledge of the diuell How can the vnction which we haue receiued from him abide in vs in company of deadly sinne How are men partakers of the Diuine nature while they remayne in sinne which is most opposite to God and all the Diuine perfections How cā we be called frendes being deadly
also transmitted to posterity by being recorded by S. Luke whom you alledg and so if your false assertion were true we are as sure that they held an errour as that they delivered any truth because we belieue both by the same Authority of scripture yea according to your doctrine related aboue we are not obliged to belieue that scripture it self is the word of God and yet are bound to belieue the truths delivered therin one of which you affirme to be that the Apostles did erre and therfor we must belieue that they erred and yet may deny the Authority of scripture which relates that errour God I say cannot in his Holy Providence be contrary to himself and oblige vs to belieue with certainty the writing of those whom we belieue to haue erred and yet for whose Infallibility we belieue those very writings to be infallible For the Apostles were not infallible because they wrote Scripture but we belieue Scripture to be infallible because it was written by the Apostles who by Divine Meanes even before they wrote any Scripture immediate proved themselves to be infallible and worthy of all credit and so mediate those same Meanes proved their writings to be Divine and infallible We could not belieue any Booke to be Canonicall if we did thinke it delivered any one point contrary to some other Part of the Scripture and how can we certainly belieue the Apostles in other Matters of Faith if we once yeld them to haue erred and contradicted truth in any one 32. The second condition required by you for assuring vs that the Doctrine of the Apostles was neither false nor vncertaine is that it be delivered by them as a certaine Divine Truth This also is a source of vncertaintyes For Scripture is not wont to declare expressly or as I may say in actu signato whether the Writers therof intended to deliver this or that as a certaine Divine Truth and though they had done so yet if their infallibility be not Vniversall we could not believe them with certainty in that Declaration And if their infallibility be Vniversall we must belieue them though they vse no such expression of a certaine Divine Truth Hitherto it hath bene believed that Scripture is the word of God and that all the Verityes contained in it though otherwise they be but naturall truths are revealed or testifyed by God and by that Meanes growe to be both certaine and Divine as invested with the supernaturall Divine Testimony Now if some things be delivered in Scripture as certaine Divine Truths others not you make Scripture an Aggregate of different kinds of Truths without being able to giue any infallible certaine generall Rule and not only some probable conjecture of your owne to know positively and certainly when the Scripture speakes of one kind and when of another which yet in your grounds is necessary for giving vs assurance whether the Doctrine of the Apostles be entirely true and in no part false or vncertaine For if that condition of delivering a certaine Divine Truth do not subsist we haue not a sufficient ground to exercise an act of Diuine Faith and so we cannot be obliged to believe the contents of Scripture 33. The third condition which you require for our assurance that the Doctrine of the Apostles be entirely true is that it haue the attestation of Divine Miracles which either discredits the writings of the Apostles and most of the Uerityes contayned in them or els confutes your onwe Doctrine that the Apostles might erre in Matters belonging to Religion For if you meane that every particular Truth which they preached must be confirmed by Miracles you disoblige men from believing innumerable Points of Scripture for which we haue no proofe that they were so particularly confirmed yea we haue no proofe from Scripture that the Apostles did ever directly and immediately confirme by Miracles that it is the word of God and yet vpon this ground all the pretended Religion of Protestants that is the whole Bible and Truths conteyned therin depends If your meaning be only that it was sufficient for the belief of every particular Truth which the Apostles spoke or wrote that by Miracles Sanctity of life and other vndoubted arguments they approoved themselves as it were in generall that they were worthy of credit in all Matters belonging to Religion then you cannot maintayne that S. Peter who wrought many Miracles to proue himself a man sent from ād approved by God did erre in that particular mayne article about preaching the Gospell to Gentils or if he could erre in that we cannot believe his words or writing in many other Points not confirmed in particular by Miracles The same I say of the other Apostles Preachers and Canonicall Writers Lastly I confute these your errours by your owne words Pag. 290. N. 88. To speak properly not any set knowne company of men is secured 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 you say Pag. 114. N. 155. The Apostles persons while they were living were the only Iudges of controversies And Pag. 60. N. 17. That none is fit to be judge but he that is infallible Therfore according to you we must inferr that the Apostles were secured not to erre though they were supposed to neglect the meanes of avoiding error and consequently they neither did nor could erre by inadvertence or prejudice or by any neglect of the meanes to avoide error Beside Pag. 146. N. 34. you say The Apostles were led into all Truths by the Spirit efficaciter The Church is led also into all truths by the Apostles writings sufficienter How then could the Apostles actually fall into any error seing they were efficaciter led into all truths And yet againe you contradict yourself and say Pag 177. N. 77. 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 theyr office to be so For if they must haue been so of necessity and could not haue been otherwise in vain had he put them in feare of that which followes if the salt haue lost his Savour c. If this be so what certainty can we haue that de facto the Apostles did not erre seing they may erre 34. Your Objection is easily answered S. Peter himself never doubted whether the Gospell were to be preached to the Gentils Neither can any such thing be proved out of the 11. and 12. of the acts as you pretend Pag. 137. N. 21. The Vision recorded in those Chapters as exhibited to S. Peter was ordayned to the satisfaction not of all Christians but of converted Jewes who were offended with him for conversing with Gentiles as is evident Chap. 11. V. 2.3 They that were of the Circumcision that is Jewes made Christians reasoned against him saying why didst thou enter into men vncircumcised
his fourth Chapter Pag 788. Chap 14. The answer to his fifth Chapter about Schisme Pag 846. Chap 15. The answer to his sixth Chapter about Heresy Pag 884. Chap 16. The answer to his seaventh Chapter that Protestants are not bound by the Charity which they owe to themselves to reunite themselves to the Roman Church Pag 932. Touching the necessity of diuine Grace for all vvorkes of Christian Piety I. THe necessity I find of premisinge this Introduction giues me iust cause to begin with those sad passages of the Prophet Ieremy c. 9.1 VVho will giue water to my head and to myne eyes a fountayne of teares and v. 18. Let our eyes shed teares and our eye liddes runne downe with waters And c. 13. v. 17. My soule shall weepe because of the pride a S. Aug. l. 2. de peccatorum meritis remiss cap. 18. saieth Ipsa ratio quemlibet nostrum quaetentem vehementer angustat ne â—ic defendamus gratiam vt liberum arbitrium auferre videamur rurlus ne liberum sic asseramus arbittium vt SVPERBA IMPIETATE ingrati Dei gratiae indicemur O England what greater pride then to make humane reason the measure of Christian faith and to beleeue Faith to be only a probable assent because Reason cannot with euidency comprehend how it should be infallibly true O soules deny not the satisfaction of Christ our Lord for our sinnes and his Merit of supernaturall Grace to enable our nature towards workes of Piety Be not eleuated Jerem 13.16.17 but Giue you glory to our Lord your God before it wax darke and before your feet stumble at the darke mountaynes Otherwise you shall looke for light and he will turne it into the shaddow of death and into darknes But if you will not heare this in secret my soule shall weepe because of the pride b S. Anselmus ad illud 1. Cor. 4. Quid habes quod non accepisti sayth Fecit Deus vt esses tu fecisti vt bonus esses absit Si enim Deus dedit vt esses alius tibi dare potuit ut bonus esses melior est ille qui dedit ut bònus esses quam ille qui dedit ut esses Sed nullus Deo melior igÃtur à Deo accepisti esse bonum esse Thus sayth our Lord let not the wise man glory in his wisdome but he that gloryeth let him glory in this because I am the Lord that doe mercy For it is not Rom. 9.16 of the willer nor of the runner but of God that sheweth Mercy by freely offeringe Pardon Grace and Glory Let vs not ô let vs not make vaine the Life Sufferings Death Satisfaction and Merit of God incarnate by setting vp an idol of reason but let vs say with the Apostole Galat. 2.21 I cast not away the Grace of God For if iustice by the Lawe of Mòyses if Faith by reason then Christ dyed in vaine II. But heere some will not faile to aske the reason why I should treate this seeming farre fetchd matter in this occasion The Answer to this demand cannot be so fitly and fully deliuered by me in this place as it will of it selfe appeare in severall occasions through this whole worke For the present I say that the necessity of supernaturall grace being once established the most substantiall parts of M. Chillingworths booke will remaine confuted For jf Divine faith be the Gift of God infused into our soules and that we cannot exercise any one Act therof without the particular grace and motion of the Holy Ghost it followes immediatly and clearly against his fundamentall and capitall heresie that Christian Faith must be infallible and exempt from all possibility of errour or falshood It being an evident and certaine truth that the supreme and Prime Ueritie cannot by his speciall supernaturall motion inspire a falshood S. Iohns aduise 1. Ioan 4.1 is Beleeue not euery spirit but proue the spirits if they be of God But if we find our spirit to be of God and yet maintayne that it may be stayned with errour what further triall can we make must we raise vp the spirit of man and rely on the strength of reason to trye and so perhaps to check and reject the spirit of God though knowne and acknowledged to be his spirit We reade in holy Scripture Deuter c. 18.21.22 If in secret cogitation thou answer How shall I vnderstand the word that our Lord spake not This signe thou shalt haue That which the same Prophet foretelleth in the name of the Lord and cometh not to passe that our Lord hath not spoken but by the arrogancy of his mynd the Prophet hath forged it Which yet were no good or infallible signe if the spirit of God who spoke by the Prophets could inspire a falshood III. This truth is granted even by sectaryes themselues who will not deny to be true what Caluin Jnstit l. 1. c. 7. saith Testimonium spiritus omni ratione praestantius esse respondeo I answer that the testimony of the spirit is to be preferred before all reason And even Chillingworth Pag. 145 n. 33. saieth that Potter ascribes to the Apostles the Spirits guidance and consequently infallibility in a more high and absolute manner then any since them Where we see he proportionates infallibility to the guidance of the Spirit IV. Besides if the Theologicall vertues of Hope and Charity be the Gifts of God and their Acts require supernaturall assistance Faith also by which they are directed must be supernaturall and require Gods particular Grace which excludes all falshood Jf Faith Hope and Charity be Gifts infused by God not acquired by Acts proceeding from our naturall forces and for that reason we can not be assured of their presence by sensible experience as we may be of acquired naturall Habits Jf they be Powers to enable not meere Habits to facilitate vs in order to Actions of Piety we must inferre that they are not to be increas'd or diminishd lost conserved or acquired or measured according to the rate of naturall Habits Which truth being once granted his doctrine that Repentance consists in the rooting out of all vicious habits That Charity may consist with deadly sinne and Faith with heresy and the like Tenets instantly fall to the ground their whole foundation being an imaginary paritie or rather identity of infused and naturall Habits or Gifts as will appeare when such particular points shall offer themselues to be examined V. Heere I cannot forbeare to reflect in what manner they who haue once withdrawne their beleife and obedience from Gods Church and an jnfallible living judge in matters belonging to Faith do runne into extremes Some of them to maintayne the necessity of Grace denie freewill others in direct opposition to these giue all to free-will and denie the necessity of Grace Some reject inherent Justice though infused by God yea they teach that the guilt of sinne still remaining doth stayne all our actions
enemyes How can we performe that exhortation of the Apostle As we haue borne the image of the earthly let vs beare also the jmage of the heaueÌ„ly if we neither are nor can be free from the jmage of the earthly which is sinne How doth the Father giue vs another Paraclete to abide with vs for euer the spirit of truth whom the world cannot receiue seing if all men be in state of deadly sinne they are all comprehended vnder the name of the world and so cannot receiue the Paraclete the spirit of truth How can men be named and be the sons of God heyres of God and coheyres of Christ and in the meane tyme be sons of Satan heyres to him and coheyres to damned ghosts How are any borne not of bloud nor of the will of flesh nor of the will of man if all remaine ouerwhelmed in the will of the flesh and will of man in sinne and corruption How are we both holy and immaculate in his sight and in his sight wicked aÌ„d polluted How can wee be renewed in the spirit of our mynd and put on the new man which according to God is created in justice and holyness of the truth being in state of deadly sinne which is contrary to renouation of spirit to the new man created in justice and holy ness How are we signed in the holy spirit of God while we are signed with the wicked spirit of Gods enemyes How are the stipends of sinne death but the Grace of God life euerlasting if there be no Grace of God without sinne and so no Grace that can be life euerlasting How are men the holy Temple of God how doth he dwell and walke in them how are they his habitation how do we liue by him if they be still the Temple and habitation of satan and liue in him XLVII Certainly if any do hartily belieue Scripture and consider vnpartially these and the like Texts and what is sayd of our Sauiours Satisfaction and Merit for mankind and nothing of humane Reason or forces of nature except to declare the weakness of them contrary to the speaches of Chillingworth it is inpossible for him to belieue that men are justifyed either by any naturall Act or Habit which were to euacuate our Sauiours Death or that we haue no inherent true supernaturall justice at all but remaine still vgly and defiled in the sight of God which is to turne both Earth and Heauen notwithstanding that of Heauen it is sayd Apoc. 21.27 There shall not enter into it any polluted thing to Hell in which the worst thing is not the endless payne but those sinnes for which the damned merited that just punishment For if the torments in Hell were only paynes and not punishments that is the effect and wages of sinne they were nor so much to be abhorred and auoided as any least sinne or offence of God Yea innumerable Saints in Heauen by this doctrine are greater sinners than diuerse who liue on earth or burne in Hell because many are saued who were once guilty of sins more for number and greater in quality than some other who are damned ô doctrine deseruing all detestation XLVIII Besides it is a true Axiome Bonum est ex integrâ causa malum ex quocumque defectu One defect is sufficient to make a thing be absolutely ill but good must be good in all respects both for substance and circumstance How then can holy Scripture so often call men holy immaculate just c. if indeed they be not perfectly so but full of the impiety and staines of sinne Holy Scripture describing the happy fruites and diuine effects of our B. Sauiours Merits amongst the rest sayth Isaia 35.7 In the dennes wherin dragons dwelt before shall spring vp the greenâ—esse of reede and bulrush that is in the soules of Gentiles which once were the dennes or receptacles of Diuells and vices there shall arise the greenesse of Grace and Vertue But that in the dennes wherin dragons not only dwelt for the tyme past but dwell for the present ther should spring the greenesse of reed and bulrush no scripture doth set downe as a benefit For to couple Grace with sinne were not to destroy sinne but deforme Grace which to doe cannot be any effect of the Messias his comming and our Redemption XLIX We must therfore conclude that just men are indued with a supernaturall Gift which is the nature and soule of a spirituall man as such and with which the infused supernaturall Habits of Faith c are conjoyned by jnfusion of the Holy Ghost and are not produced by our euen supernaturall Acts. Thus glorious S. Austine teaches that these words Psalm 118. I haue done judgment and justice are to be vnderstood of the Act and not of the Vertue of justice because saith he none produces in man this Vertue of Iustice but he who justifyes a sinner and makes him from vnjust become just L. From this ground that the infusd Vertues and Habits of Faith Hope c are not produced by any Act of ours but immediatly by the Holy Ghost and that they giue vs not a facility but an ability to produce Acts of Belieuing Hoping c it further followes that we cannot by any as it were sensible feeling or experience know that we haue such Habits because as S. Thomas profoundly saith 1.2 Q. 65. A. 3. ad 3. of the infused Habits euen of Morall Vertues Habitus moralium virtutum infusarum patiuntur interdum difficultatem c The Habits of the Morall infused Vertues somtymes find difficulty in their operations by reason of contrary dispositions remaining of the former Acts of vices which difficulty is not found in morall acquired vertues in regard that by the exercise of Acts by which they are acquired the contrary dispositions for example Passions indisposition of corporall organs and the like are taken away LI Now these things being so in vaine would Chilling prooue that the vertue of Charity may stand with deadly sinne or Faith with Heresy as I touched aboue by reason men fynd facility in some seeming Acts of Charity or Faith though they be guilty of deadly sinns or Heresy Because as I sayd the infusd vertues cannot be prooud by experience but the sayd facility may proceed from some other reason as for example from acquired Habits of Faith Charity c. or from the remouall of impediments Passions disposition of the materiall organs of our body and the like and much lesse can we gather that we haue or want or haue in a more intense or remisse degree the infused supernaturall Habits by our hauing or wanting or possessing in a greater or lesse measure or number Habits acquired by exercise of naturall acts seing naturall and supernaturall habits are in nature and kind wholie different LII This I hope may suffice for what I intended for prouing the necessity of grace and weaknesse of nature in matters belonging to heauen As also for shewing the vtility aÌ„d necessity
our Saviours express warrant and injunction to goe and preach to all Nations Christ then according to you did not depriue the Apostles of freewill though he proposed externally the Object and gaue them sufficient Grace to performe his will For if he had mooved them to Truth by way of necessity they could not haue erred If you grant this what will follow but that as the Church so the Apostles might deviate from that which God declared and commanded and consequently either belieue amiss or not set downe faithfully in writing what they believed Which is also confirmed by what you write P. 86. N. 93. 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 obliged himself to teach you not only sufficiently but effectually and irresistibly the true sense of scripture And a little after God is not lavish in superfluityes and therfor having given vs meanes sufficient for our direction and power sufficient to make vse of these meanes he will not constraine or necessitate vs to make vs of these meanes For that were to crosse the end of our Creation which was to be glorifyed by our free Obedience Wheras necessity and freedom connot stand togeather And afterward If God should worke in vs by an absolute irresistible necessity the Obedience of Faith c he could no more require it of vs as our duty than he can of the sun to shine of the Sea to ebb and flow and of all other creatures to do those things which by meere necessity they must do and cannot choose And Pag 88. N. 96. you say expressly That God cannot necessitate men to belieue aright without taking away their free will in believing and in professing their belief It seemes by these words you hold the Apostles to haue had freewill in believing preaching and writing and that therfor it was in their power to deviate from Gods will and motion and then according to your grounds as the church so also the Apostles might erre Which deduction is also proved by your words Pag 172. N. 71. The spirit of truth may be with a man or Church for ever and teach him all Truth and yet he may fall into some errour even contrary to the truth which is 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 assertaine me that the spirits teaching is not of this nature Or how can you possibly reconcile it with your Doctrine of freewill in believing if it be not of this nature Now if you do not depriue the Apostles of freewill because otherwise God could no more require of them as their duty to belieue preach and write such truths as were inspired by Him than he can of the sun to shine of the sea to ebb and flow c this discourse of yours takes away their infallibility and proves that they might fall into some errour even contrary to the truth which was taught or revealed to them and the contrary assertion cannot possibly be reconciled with their freewill And Pag 87. N. 95. you say If the Holy Ghosts moving the Church be resistible then the Holy Ghost may moue and the Church may not be moved And why do you not say if the Holy Ghosts moving the Apostles to belieue preach and write Scripture be resistible it must in the same manner follow that the Holy Ghost may move and the Apostles may not be moved and so may belieue preach and write errours 64. But this is not all the bitterness you Vent against the church in such manner as it wounds the Apostles no less than the church You say P. 86. N 93. and P. 87. N. 94. If you Church be infallibly directed concerning the true meaning of Scripture why do not your Doctours follow her infallible direction why doth she thus put her candâ—e vnder a bushell and keepe her Talent of interpreting Scripture infallâ—bly thus long wrapt vp in napkins why sets sheenot forth Infallible Commentaryes or Fxpositions vpon 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 itself tells vs all scripture is profitable And the scripture is not so much the words as the sense 65. In answer to this your weake and irreligious discourse I returne the like Demands whether the Apostles were infallibly directed concerning the true meaning or interpretatioÌ„ of scripture as they were for writing it I suppose you will say they were so directed Why then did they put their candle vnder a bushell and keepe their Talent of interpreting Scripture infallibly wrapt vp in napkins Why did they not set forth infallible commentaryes or expositions vpon all the bible Was it because this would not haue bene profitable for Christians that scripture should be interpreted It is blasphemous to say so The Scripture itself tells vs all scripture is profitable And scripture is not so much the words as the sence And when you haue made these Demands against the Apostles you may in like manner ascend higher and aske why divers parts of scripture were so written as they not only need expositions but that no mortall man can vnderstand them When you haue given a satisfactory answer to these Demands the same will answer your Questions concerning the church which being directed by the Holy Ghost will not faile to interpret declare and performe all that is necessary in order to the Eternall salvation of soules and in particular will supply by Tradition or other Meanes what is obscure or is not contayned in Scripture But then you aske againe N. 95. Whether this Direction of the Holy Ghost be resistible by the Church or irresistible I still answer by demanding whether the Motion of the Holy Ghost was resistible by the Apostles or irresistible If irresistible why may we not say the same of the church for those particular Actions of Interpreting Scripture and Deciding controversyes in Religion If resistible then either we are not sure that the Apostles did not deviate from the Motion of the holy Ghost as you inferâ— against the infallibility of the church or els we learne by this example of the Apostles that God may moue resistibly and yet infallibly for attainng that End which by meanes of such a Motion he intends This if you be resolved to deny we must conclude that the Apostles were not infallible in their writings and that we can haue no certainty that Scripture doth not containe errours But whatsoever you thinke the truth is that God wants not power to moue men resistibly and yet infallibly by divers wayes knowen to his infinite Wisdome I would gladly know whether you belieue that God can possibly be sure to make any one a Saint or a repentant sinner or can promise perseverance to the end I
necessary to salvation Facienti quod in se est Deus non denegat gratiam God will not be wanting to second his owne Graces with perpetuall addition of more and greater if we be not wanting to them and our selves Which if we be we cannot be sayd to haue done as much as God requires of vs. Deus non deest in necessarijs and we speake in a case of necessity If I say you giue this Answer you answer for vs who can easily transferr the example from one deceyved by a malitious Pastour or Teacher to another defrauded of absolution by a wicked or a fayned Priest that if the Penitent had kept close to Gods Inspirations he would not haue bene permitted to fall vpon such a Priest or els his soule would haue bene raysed to contrition wherby all deadly sins are forgiven 47. This Instance which I haue vrged out if your owne Assertion that there are some Points indispensably necessary to salvation is declared by Potter Pag 243. who speakes thus of Fundamentall Points these are so absolutely necessary to all Christians for attayning the end of our Faith that is the salvation of our soules that a Christian may loose himself not only by a positiue erring in them or denying of them but by a pure ignorance or nescience or not knowing of them And to this purpose among other he cites Dominic Bannez in 2.2 Quest 2. Art 8. saying Invincible ignorance cannot here excuse from everlasting death though we want them without any fault of ours or although it were not in our power to attaine the knowledg of them even as if there were one only remedy wherby a sick man could be recovered from corporall death suppose the Patient and the Physitian both were ignorant of it the man must perish as well not knowing it as if being brought vnto him he had refused it Which words declare how one may be damned by occasion of inculpable Ignorance though not for it but for his sinnes committed and not pardoned The like example may be giuen of one inculpably ledd into an errour concerning Repentance which no man denyes to be necessary for remission of deadly sinnes as if he were taught that no Repentance were necessary or that it did require no kind of sorrow for what is past but only a purpose to amend for tyme to come or that it were sufficient to conceyve sorrow only for some humane motiue or some temporall shame payne or loss or the like which is but tristitia saeculi and makes one rather a greater sinner than a true Penitent Or els That Attrition alone is sufficient without Absolution which is your pernicious errour or That it is sufficient to haue sorrow for one or a few deadly sinnes though it extend not itself effectually to all Or That Faith alone without precedent Repentance is sufficient or the like For as one may be taught an Errour in other Pointes so also in this of Repentance Now of men in these cases I make the same Demand which I made aboue whether they can be saved without sufficient Repentance And it being cleare that they cannot and yet are supposed to haue bene misled without any fault of theirs your Objection turnes vpon yourself how when you haue done as much as God requires for your salvation yet can you by no meanes be secure which is to make salvation a matter of chance c What I haue specifyed in the belief of Fundamentall Poynts and repentance may easily be applyed to other Points of practise necessary for salvation 48. Besides Many Divines teach That Contrition is necessary in Divers Occasions wherby all his sins will be forgiven whatsoever his Sacramentall Absolution chance to be Some say Contrition obliges as often as deadly sins are presented to our mynd vt practicè detestanda Some that it obliges vpon festivall dayes because we cannot spend the day in God Allmightyes service vnless first we be contrite for our sins Others teach That it obliges in occasion of some publike necessity which we haue reason to feare is inflicted for a punishment of our sins Others as often as we are to begin some heroicall worke vpon which the publike weale or profit of the people depends because the forcible and powerfull helpe of God is wont to be denyed to sinners Others and those men of great learning hold That at least all are obliged to Contrition at the true or believed houre of death or in morall danger of death as in warre or a long and dangerous voyage by sea because a morall danger of death is equivalent to the last houre of death and this they vnderstand even though one confess Sacramentally and much more if he want a Confessarius Besides all are bound to Contrition either when they administer Sacraments or receyue those Sacraments which are called Sacramenta Vivorum if they be guilty of some deadly sinne not confessed Vide Amicum To 8. Disp 9. Sec 3. 4. I abstaine from examining difference of Opinions This is certaine that all Catholikes are taught oftentymes to moue themselves to contrition and all of timorous consciences and good life endeavour to doe it and every body at least at the houre of death at which tyme Charitas propria or Charity towards ones self for the salvation of his soule will as it were naturally and effectually incline them to it with the assistance of Gods Grace which is never wanting and so neither the want nor wickedness of any Priest can hurt them Remember what yourself say Pag 277. N. 61. that according to Potter God hath promised to the Church an absolute assistance for things necessary and then you add a farther assistance is conditionally promised vs even such an assistance as shall lead vs if we be not wanting to it and our selves into all not only necessary but very profitable truth For Gods assistance is alwayes 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 Why do you not apply this to our present Question and say Gods assistance is alwayes ready to promote vs farther from attrition to Contrition vpon condition we do implore it and be not wanting to it and our selves and that when it is offered in divine directions of Christian Faith taeching that no care or even solicitude can be too great in securing the eternall salvation of our soules we be not negligent to follow such directions Will you say God is more ready to direct our vnderstanding for the belief of Poynts not necessary but only very profitable than he is to assist our will for exercising an Act of contrition which is alwayes eminently profitable and in case of deadly sinne and invalid Absolution absolutely necessary To say nothing that as I sayd great Divines hold it to be necessary at the houre of death even
and watch because your aduersary the Diuel as a roaring lion goeth about seeking whom he may deuoure whom resist ye strong in faith Not in naturall reason humane discourse orwitt wherin the Diuell would be too hard for mortall men not assisted by Gods holy Grace SECTION VI. Grace Necessary for true Repentance XXVII TRue Repentance being the immediate dispositiō to iustifying Grace and Grace being as diuines call it Semen gloriae the seed of glorie which in Heauen shall be bestowed on whosoeuer dies in the state of grace if Repentance were an effect of nature grace and glory should proceed from nature and it would not be sayd Psalm 83.12 Gratiam Gloriam dabit Dominus Our Lord will giue grace and glory to man but mā by his owne sole forces will merit and offer thē to God XXVIII Besides perfect Repentance or Contrition proceeding from Loue and Attrition from Hope since we haue proued that grace is necessary to Loue and Hope it must also be necessary for both those kinds of repentance Thus we read Hierem. 31.18.19 Conuert me and I shall be conuerted After that thou didst conuert me I did pennance and after thou didst shew vnto me I strooke my thigh Thren 5.21 Convert vs ô Lord vnto thee ād we shall be conuerted Ezech. 36.26 I will giue you a new hart and put a new spirit in the middes of you and I will take away the stony hart out of your flesh and will giue you a fleshy hart And I will put my spirit in the middes of you and I will make that you walke in my precepts and keepe my iudgments and doe them Psalm 79. V. 4 O God conuert vs and shew thy face and we shall be saued And V. 8. O God of Hosts conuert vs and shew thy face and we shall be saued Psalm 84. Conuert vs ô Lord our sauiour Psalm 76. V. 11. I sayd now haue I begunne this is the chāg of the right hand of the Highest Psalm 118. V. 176. I Haue strayed as a sheep that is lost seeke thy seruant because I haue not forgotten thy commandements Luc. 22 S. Peter wept not till our sauiour lookt vpon him Act. 5.31 This Prince and Sauiour God hath exalted with his right hād to giue repentance to Israël and remission of sinnes 2. Timot. 2.24.25.26 The seruant of our Lord must not wrāgle but be mild toward all men apt to teach patient with modesty admonishing them that resist the truth least sometyme God giue them repentance to know the truth and they recouer themselues from the snares of the diuell of whom they are held captiue at his will SECTION VII Grace is necessary for perseuerance XXIX WE need not insist in prouing this truth For if grace be necessary for Faith Hope Charity Keeping the commandements and ouercommig temptations much more is it necessary to perseuer in the state of grace which requires all those gifts of faith hope c. And places a man in security for saluation according to that of S. Matt. 10.22 He that shall perseuer vnto the end he shall be saued so that to say Grace is not necessary to perseuer is to affirme that Grace is not necessary for saluation XXX This truth we read in S. Io. 15.16 I haue appointed you that you goe and bring fruite ād your fruite abide And Heb. 3.12.13.14 Beware brethren least perhaps there be in some of you an euil hart of incredulity to depart from the liuing God But exhort yourselues euery day whiles to day is named none of you be obdurate with the fallacy of sinne For we be made partakers of Christ yet so if we keepe the beginning of his substance firme vnto the end And. Philip. 1.6 trusting this same thing that he which hath begūne in you a good worke will perfit it vnto the day of Christ Iesus Philip. 2.12.13 With feare and trembling work your saluation For it is God that worketh in you both to will and to accomplish according to his good will XXXI The reason of this truth is cleare because justifying Grace takes not away ignorance in our vnderstanding freedom and inconstancy in our will rebellion in the Appetite which are the rootes and causes of sinne and therfor wee need both externall Protection to remoue extrinsecall impediments of vertue and occasions of euill and internall Helps effectualy assisting and constantly moouing vs to good SECTION VIII That Habituall or justifying Grace is necessary to keepe the commandements XXXII THat there is inherent in the soules of iust men a reall qualitie or gift wherby they are gratefull to god we will proue hereafter for as much as may belong to our purpose in this work referringe the Reader for a full and exact profe therof to the many learned Bookes of catholike Diuines XXXIII Novv to the former Heads concerning the Necessity of Actuall Grace I add this about habituall to confute more and more the ancient and moderne Pelagians in generall and some Tenets of Chilling worth in particular as will appeare when we come to examine his Chimericall doctrine about repentance XXXIV That Habituall Grace is necessary for keeping the commandements we may proue in order to the more moderate Protestants out of the Mileuitan Councell which was celebrated within the compasse of yeares which they acknowledg for Orthodox namely Anno 416. wherin can 3. we read these words Whosoeuer shall say that the Grace of God wherin we are justifyed by Iesus Christ our Lord auailes only for remission of sinnes already committed and not also for Help not to commit them be he accursed Therfore hee who is not in state of Grace wants some grace and help to auoide sinne And in Concilio Arausicano Anno 529. Can. 13. it is defined Mans freewill weakned in the first man cannot be repaired but by the Grace of Baptisme But the grace conferred in Batisme is habituall and permanent Therfore the weakness of our free-will is renewed or the strength of it is restored by habituall Grace XXXV The reason of this is because God giues not particular protection and speciall helps of grace on which the obseruation of the commandements depends except to men in state of grace For one deadly sinne drawes after it another so much the more as a man remaines longer in that bad state like to ponderous waights which mend their pace the longer theyr motion lasts and so Dauid sayth Psalm 37.5 Myne iniquityes are gone ouer my head and as a heauy burden are become heauy vpon me If veniall transgressions neglected dispose to mortall what can be expected from a voluntary abiding in deadly sinne Thus we read Hierem. 23.11 12. The Prophet and the Preist are polluted Therfor their way shall be as slippery ground in the dark for they shall be driuen on and fall therin And Thren 1.8 Hierusalem hath sinned a sinne therfore is she made vnstable XXXVI For which morall poynt we can alledg none more fitly then S. Gregory the Great whom the world
acknowledges to be a most profound master of spirit This holy Father Homil. 11. in EZechiel hath these remarkable words If sinne be not speedily wiped away by repeÌ„tance Almighty God in his iust iudgment permitts the soule of the sinner to fall into another sinne that he who by weeping aÌ„d correcting himselfe would not wash away what he had committed may beginne to heape sinne vpon sinne The sinne therfore which is not washed away with the sorrow of repentance is both a sinne and cause of sinne because from it procedes that wherby the soule of the sinner is more deeply intangled But the sinne which followes out of another sinne is both a sinne and a punishment of sinne because blindnes encreasing in punishment of the former fault it falleth out that increase in vice is as it were a kind of punishment in such a sinner For the most part one and the selfe same sinne is both a sinne and the punishment and cause of sinne These last words he hath also in Iob lib. 25. C. 13. Agreable to this is the saying of the Author Operis imperfecti in Matthaeum C. 21. As when the sterne is broken the ship is carryed whersoeuer the storme driues it so a sinner hauing by his sinne lost the assistance of diuine Grace doth not what he will but what the diuell wills XXXVII The same truth is also deliuered by the Apostle Rom. 8.5 They that are according to the flesh are affected to things that are of the flesh but they that are according to the spirit are affected to the things that are of the spirit and V. 8. concludes they that are in flesh cannot please God But all they who want the spirit and grace of God are in flesh according to the same Apostle V. 9. You are not in the flesh but in the spirit yet if the spirit of God dwell in you Therfor they that want the spirit or grace of God cannot please him which is done only by keeping the commandements Thus we find verefyed by daily experience That he who is once fallen into deadly sinne doth not easily abstaine from coÌ„mitting more vnless he speedily rise againe And in this Gods holy will is most iust not giuing those helps to his enemyes which he bestowes on his friends whose soules as his temples he often visits enlightens inflames and effectually strengthens to keepe his commandements XXXVIII It is the true doctrine of Diuines that an infidell cannot abstaine from deadly sinne so long as one endued with Faith He therfor who hath not Charitie cannot auoide mortall sinne so long as hee who is in state of grace and charity and receyues those particular helps which are connaturall to that blessed condition S. Thomas 1.2 q. 109. A. 8. corp giues as he is wont a solid reason hereof As saith he the inferiour appetite ought to be subiect to reason so reason ought to be subordinate to God As therfor there cannot but arise disordinate motions in the seÌ„sitiue apetite if it be not perfectly subject to reason so if reason be not perfectly subiect to God there cannot but happen many disorders in the reasonable portion of our soule For when man hath nor his hart setled in God as in the last end of all his actions many things offer themselues for the obtaining or auoiding of which he forsakes God by breaking his commandements vnless his disordered will be speedily reduced to due order by grace And indeed he who wittingly and willingly perseuers in sinne is not drawen from it either by considering that it is an offence against God since he out of deliberate choyse and election remains in such an offence or for the infinite and innumerable euills which arise from sinne all which he hath considered and knowes that they or the danger of falling into them are incurred already and yet is supposed not to forsake that damnable state And custome in euill is apt to breede either a secret or open dispaire of amendment or els a pernicious insensibility security and presumption laying the soule open to accept all impressions of spirituall enemyes as in the barren season of winter hedges are broken inclosures become commons and are turned to high wayes for all passengers But now it is tyme to performe what we promised in the beginning of this Section that besides Actuall grace there is also a permanent quality or gift inherent in our soule wherby we are called and are indeed just and Sonnes and Heyres to God and Coheires to Christ our Lord. SECTION IX Of Habituall or justifying Grace in it selfe XXXIX HItherto we haue spoken of Actuall grace necessary to workes of Christian Piety Faith Hope c. Or of Habituall in order to the keeping of the commandements Now we cannot omitt to say somthing of habituall and permanent justifying supernaturall Grace in it self Concerning which heretiques as their manner is fall vpon contrary Extremes Pelagius teaching that we may be saued by the forces of nature consequently must deny that any infused inherent supernaturall Gift was necessary to saluation but that some naturall â—nherent quality was sufficient Contrary to which is the doctrine of Caluin Lib. 3. jnstit C. 11. Num 23. That man is not iust by any justice inherent in himselfe but only because the justice of Christ is imputed to him Catholiques auoiding both these extreames belieue that we are truly just in not by our selues or our naturall forces but by supernaturall Grace infused into our soules for the merits of our Sauiour Christ as the sacred Councell of Trent Sess 6. C. 7. and Can. 11. hath defined XL. This is that diuine gift which makes men holy in this life and happy in the next a Amicus To 3. disp 29. n. 119. Other infused Habits are particular participations of Diuine operations namely Charity and Hope respectiuely of that loue wherby God loues himselfe and other things Faith of that infallible knowledg which God hath of himselfe and all creatures The light of glory lumen gloriae of that sight which God hath of his proper essence the morall infused Vertues of those actions which God exercises towards his creature But Grace is a Gift immediatly participating of the whole Diuine nature as it can be intellectually participated by an intellectuall creature As in our naturall life our soule is the roote of its powers which it requires as propertyes and is more eminent than they so in our spirituall life this Grace is the roote of all supernaturall Habits and farr exceedes them in perfection XLI Of this in a most singular manner are verifyed the Elogiums which holy Fathers giue of grace b Amicus To 3. Proem ante Disp 26. which according to S. Gregory Homil. 27. is the roote of good works which according to S Chrisostome Homil 7.2 ad Thimoth and 1. au Corinth Hom. 40 takes away the rust of sinne makes the soule resplendent and fiery which according to S. Augustine Libro de Spiritu littera Capite
30. Libro ad Simpitcianum quaest secunda enables vs to worke aright which according to S. Hierome Lib. 1. aduersus Pelagianos Capite tertio doth whiten which according to S. Gregory NaZianZen Orat. in sanctum Lavaâ—rum doth cast its beames vppon vs and make vs liketo God which according to N. Austin Epist 85. is the beauty of the internall man and the brightness of mans mynd which according to S. Ambrose Lib. 6. Hexameren Cap. 8. is the picture of God which according to S. Irenaeus lib. 5. aduersus haereses Cap. 8. is the image of God which according to Macarius de libero arbitrio is the garment of heauenly beauty which according to S. Greg. Nyssen de perfecta hominis forma is purity deriued from Christ as the riuer from the fountaine which according to S. Hierome Lib 3. aduersus Pelagianos is the First stole and heauenly dewe which according to S. Gregory Nyssen Homil. 4. in Cantica is the riches of the Diuine essence which according to S. Austin de spiritu litera Cap. 28. is the stamp of God which according to S. Isidore in primum Regum C. 10. is the milke of a mother XLII But if we consult holy Scripture this truth that we are iust by true inherent iustice is so frequently and so clearly deliuered therin that it may seeme a wonder how it can be so much as called in question by any who belieue the Scripture Let vs alledg some few Texts of the many which might be produced Rom. 5.19 As by the disobedience of one man many were made sinners so also by the obedience of one many shall be made just Since therfor none can deny but that we are sinners by sin or iniustice truly and really inexistent in our soules it followes that we are just by true inherent Justice And V. 17. If in the offence of one death raigned by one much more they that receyue the aboundance of Grace and of donation and of justice shall raigne in life by one Iesus Christ But death though proceeding from and by one Adam was truly participated by all and not meerly imputed to them Therfore the aboundance of Grace justice and life is really in all though by one Jesus Christ Ioan. 4.14 The water which I will giue him shall become a fountayne of water springing vp vnto life euerlasting And that this fountaine is the Holy Ghost dwelling in vs by Grace or Grace giuen by the Holy Ghost dwelling in vs appeareth in the 7. Chap v. 38. of the same Evangelist where our Sauiour hauing sayd He that beleeueth in me as the Scripture sayth out of his belly shall flow riuers of liuing water adds and this he sayd of the spirit that they should receyue which belieued in him S. Cyrill also Lib. 2. in Ioan Cap. 82 and Theophilact in cap. 4. Ioan. call this fountaine of liuing water the grace of the Holy Ghost S. Hierome in Cap. 55. Isaiae and S. Chrisostome Hom. 31. in Ioan Somtyme call it the Holy Ghost somtyme the grace of the Holy Ghost neither can any man doubt but that a fountaine signifyes a thing stable and permanent Rom. 5.5 The charity of God is powred forth in our harts by the holy Ghost which is giuen vs. 1. Ioan 4.7 Euery one that loueth is of God V. 16. God is charity and he that abideth in charity abideth in God and God in him Galat 3.29 You are all the children of God by Faith in Christ Jesus In which words that the Apostle speakes of a liuing faith appeares by the Chap 5. where hauing sayd V 4. you are euacuated from Christ that are iustifyed in the law you are fallen from grace V. 6. he explicates what that grace is saying in Christ Iesus neither Circumcision auayleth ought nor vncircumcision but faith that worketh by charity And Chap. 6. v. 15. this liuely faith he calls a new creature saying In Christ Iesus neither Circumcision auayleth ought nor vncircumcision but a new creature 1. Cor. 6.15.16.17.18 Know you not that your bodies are the members of Christ Taking the members of Christ shall I make them the members of an harlot God forbid Or know you not that he which cleaueth to an harlot is made one body For they shall be sayth he two in one flesh But he that cleaueth to our Lord is one spirit Fly fornication What then shall we say of them who blasphemously joyne the spirit of God with the spirit of satan the spirit of fornication and all other vices XLIII 1. Ioan 4.13 In this we know that we abide in him and he in vs because he of his spirit hath giuen to vs. Ioan C. 15.5 He that abideth in me and I in him the same beareth much fruite Behold a permanency or abiding before fruite or good workes 1. Ioan 3. v. 9. Euery one that is borne of God committeth not sinne because his seed abideth in him v. 24. He that keepeth his Commandements abideth in him and he in him And in this we know that he abideth in vs by the spirit which he hath giuen vs. Tit 3.5.6.7 He hath saued vs by the Lauer of regeneration and renouation of the Holy Ghost which he powred vpon vs abundantly by Iesus Christ our Sauiour That being iustifyed by his grace we may be heyres according to the hope of life euerlasting All these words clearly signify a supernaturall thing permanent and inherent in vs 2. Cor. 1.21.22 He that annointed vs God who also hath sealed vs and giuen the pledge of Spirit in our harts 1. Ioan 2.27 The vnction which you haue receiued from him let it abide in you 2. Pet. 1.4 By whom he hath giuen vs most great and precious promises that by these you may be made partakers of the diuine nature Ioan 15.15 Now I call you not seruants but you I haue called friends 2. Cor. 5.18 If then any be in Christ a new creature 1. Cor. 15.49 As we haue borne the image of the earthly let vs beare also the image of the heauenly Ioan. 14. v. 16.17 I will aske the Father and he will giue you another Paraclete that he may abide with you for euer the spirit of truth whom the world cannot receaue because it seeth him not neither knoweth him but you shall know him because he shall abide with you and shall be in you v. 23. If any loue me he will keepe my word and my Father will loue him and we will come to him and will make aboade with him 1. Ioan. 3.1 See what manner of charity the Father hath giuen vs that we should be named and be the sonnes of God Rom. 8.14 Whosoeuer are led by the spirit of God are the sonnes of God V 15.17 If sonnes heyres also heyres truly of God and coheyres of Christ Ioan. 1.12.13 As many as receiued him he gaue them power to be made the sonnes of God to those that beleeue in his name who not of bloud nor of the will of flesh
presented holy and immaculate and blamelesse before him that is such a faith as is absolutely necessary to saluation which is that which Chilling expressly and purposely denies See of this place what I alledg afterward out of S. Chrisostome Gal. 1.8.9 Although we or an Angel from Heauen euangelize to you beside that which we haue euangelized to you be he Anathema As we haue sayd before so now I say agayne if any euangelize to you beside that which you haue receyued be he Anathema Certainly if our Faith be but probable it were against reason not to belieue an Angel from Heauen auouching the contrary But of this Text more hereafter Now let vs see what is the sense of the holy Fathers for this poynt 10. S. Dionysius Areopagita Cap 7. de Diuin Nomin sayth Eum qui in veritate credit iuxta Scripturae fidem nihil remouebit a verae fidei auctore in quo constantiam immobilis atque immutabilis habebit Nouit enim penitus is c. Him who in truth belieues according to the faith of Scripturè nothing will remoue from the author of true faith in whom he being vnmoueable and immutable will haue constancy For well knowes he who is joyned vnto truth how well he is albeit many reprehend him as a mad man and distracted S. Basill Ep. 43. ad Gregor Nyssenum Euen as in those things which appeare to the eye experience seemes to goe further than the reason of the cause so in sublime matters of doctrine faith it selfe is of more accoūt thā the reach of discourses And in a Serm. vpō the 115. Psalm Let faith goe before and guide speaches concerning God Faith and not Demonstration Faith which drawes the soule vnto assent aboue rationall methodes Faith aboue logick discourses and aboue Demonstration In Regulis moralib Regula 80. Faith is a most certaine satisfaction of the mynd concerning the truth of diuine wordes S Chrysostome Hom 21. in Ep ad Hebr. vpon those wordes Cap 11. Est autem Fides sperandarum substantiâ rerum argumentum eorum quae non videntur saith O how admirable a word vsed he saying An Argument of those things which are not seene For it is an Argument in things very hidden Faith therfore is sayth he a seeing of things which appeare not and it leades vnto the same certainty to which those also lead which are seene Therfore neither can it be called credulity or incredulity of those things which are seene nor againe can it be called faith but when one shall haue certainty concerning those things which are not seene more than concerning those things which are seene And Hom 4. in Ep ad Coloss vpon those words Coloss C. 1. Siquidem permanseritis Fide fundati ac stabiles non dimoti in Spe Euangely he saith He did not absolutely say shall persist For it may come to passe that he persist also who wauereth and disagrees He also may stand and remaine who wanders vp and downe and errs but if saith he yee shall persist grounded and stable and not mooved What could be spoken more clearly for the stable infallibility of Faith against the probable floating faith of Chillingworth as if this Sainct had purposely impugned him out of holy Scripture so many ages before he appeared And Hom. 8. in Epist ad Rom. he so declares the sublimity and difficulty of Faith and necessity of a great strength for ouercoming temptations against it that it clearly appeares he requires an other kind of Faith then only a probable Assent For speaking of one who belieues he saith This man hath God a debter and a debter not of vulgar matters but of great ād high ones Moroeuer hauing shewed the sublimity and spirituall thought of such a mans mynd he did not absolutely say credenti to him that belieues sed credenti in eum qui justificat impium but to him that belieues in him who justifyes the wicked For thinke with thy selfe how great a matter this is namely to belieue and to conceyue a certaine perswasion that God can on a suddaine not only free from deserued punishment him who hath spent his life in jmpiety but also make him just and furthermore bestow on him immortall honours And vpon these words Sed robustus factus est side But hee Abraham was made strong in faith he saith Seing that he treated both of those who performe works and of those also who belieue he shewed that he who belieues does a greater worke than the other and hath need of greater fortitude ād strength And he shewed that not he only who exerciseth temperance or some other like vertue but he also who belieueth needs very great strength and power For euen as he hath need of great strength for resisting the assaults of intemperancie so likewise this man must haue great courage to resist and keep himself from thoughts of disbelief Wherin then did he proue himself to be strong he committed saith he the matter to Faith not vnto conjectures Otherwise he would haue fayld and lost courage Neither sayd he S. Paule of Abraham meerly belieuing but hauing conceyued a certaine perswasion our vulgare hath plenissime sciens Rhemes Testament most fully knowing For such a manner of thing Faith is to wit more open and more manifest than that demonstration which is begotten by the discoursing of a considering mynd and therfore hath greater force in perswading For it wauereth not if perhaps some other thought do present it self For he that lyes open to the discourses of a mynd moved hither and thither may verily also alter his iudgmēt But one that firmly settles himself by Faith shutteth his hearing and fortifyeth it as it were vvith a trench against hurtfull thoughts These words of this holy Doctour do not only affirme but proue the necessity of an jnfallible Faith vnless vve vvill be alvvays in perplexityes doubts and danger of denying Christian Religion S. Ambrose Enarratione in Psalm 40. As there are some vvho haue eyes and see not so there be some vvho not seeing with their eyes are beleeued to see more Whence also Prophets vvere called Seers euen those vvho did not see vvith their eyes S. Hierome Ep. 61. ad Pammachium C. 3. will you know hovv great the feruour is of those vvho belieue aright Giue eare to the Apostle Although we or an Angell from heauen should euangelize othervvise vnto you be he accursed And in Cap. 1. Ep. ad Galat. the Apostle shewes the firmeness of his fayth saying I knovv that neither death nor life c. And contralily if Faith vvere not most certainly true vvho could be obliged to die for auerringe the truth therof vvhich is the argument brought by S. Bernard against Abailardus saying Ep. 190. Fooles therfor vvere our Martyrs suffering so grieuous punishments for vncertaine things not doubting through a hard passage to suffer a long banishment for a doubtfull revvard S. Austine Tom. 10. de verbis Dom. Serm. 63. Speaking of an Article of Christian Faith sayth
Albeit vve see not this vvith our eyes nor vvith our hart as long as vve are clensed by Faith yet doe vve belieue it by faith most rightly and most strongly Surely this signifyes more than to belieue only with probability Richardus de S. Victore 1. de Trinit Cap. 2. As many of vs as are truly faithfull hold nothing vvith more certainty than that vvhich vve belieue by faith 11. What vve haue proued by Authority vve now will conuince by Theologicall Reasons and Arguments First vve haue demonstrated out of holy Scripture that Faith is an especiall Gift of God and that the Act or Assent therof proceeds from a particular Grace Motion Preuention and Supernaturall assistance of the Holy Ghost Therfore it cannot be but true othervvise vve might distrust the Truth of Scriptures and the predictions of the Prophets though we did belieue those to haue bene written and these to haue bene spokē by the direction and instinct of God himselfe And vvhat more satisfying assurance can there be giuen to any Christian yea to any reasonable creature than this God leades me this vvay therfore it cannot be but right neither can I erre in follovving it and euery vvay contrary to this must be wrong and erroneous Chilling Pag. 258. N. 16. confesseth that a thing vntrue cannot be foreseene by the Prophets Which he could not affirme if God could moue men to belieue a falshood And Pag. 36. N. 8. he says We cannot possibly by naturall meanes be more certaine of the conclusion than of the weaker of the Premises which supposes that by supernaturall meanes we may be more certaine And N. 9. he doubts not but that the spirit of God may and will aduance his seruants and giue them a certainty of adherence beyond their certainty of euidence Since therfore euery Act of Faith proceeds from the particular motion and spirit of God we must say that his supposition concerning some is actuated in all who belieue by a true Act of Christian Faith that is we must say that euen according to Chillingworth all true Christians belieue with absolute certainty and vvith an assent higher than that which we yield to probable premises 12. And out of this most certaine and Christian truth that Faith is the gift of God and requires his particular assistance aboue the force of nature it follows also by euidence of Reason that it must be an Assent aboue all Probabilityes or Arguments of Credibility For abstracting from some accidentall impediment or temptation our Vnderstanding is able of it selfe to draw a probable Conclusion from euident probable premises And therfore seing wee can neuer by naturall forces exercise an Act of true Christian Faith it followes clearly that it must be an Assent more than probable and raysed aboue all arguments of credibility Chilling saith Pag. 116. N. 159. We haue I belieue as great reason to belieue there was such a man as Henry the eight King of England as that Iesus Christ suffered vnder Pontius Pilate But as I noted aboue no man in his witts wil say that we cannot by naturall forces of humane reason belieue that there was such a man as Henry the eight Therfore no man ought to say that with the same forces of humane Reason we cannot belieue that Iesus Christ suffered vnder Pontius Pilate if Faith be only such a probable Assent 13. Beside if Faith do not excèede the force of nature seing Faith is the first beginning of Obediēce Merit and Saluation the beginning of all these should be attributed to nature and not to Grace yea if one can belieue by the force of nature so also he may Hope and Loue and attaine Beatitude by the same And how shall Beatitude it selfe be Supernaturall if the meanes to attaine it be naturall Thus the maine ground of Chilling That Faith is a Conclusion or Assent drawen from probable Premises and proportioned to them being ouerthrovvue all his Reasons relying on this ground vanish into nothing But yet let vs more and more proue this truth and turne the vveapons of our Aduersaryes agaynst themselues by demonstrating that Christian Faith must raise vs aboue the Arguments of Credibility vvhich I doe in this manner 14. If Faith exceede not the assent vvhich we giue to the probable motiues of Credibility there could be no captiuating of our vnderstanding nor Obedience or Freedom of will in belieuing the Articles of Faith But we are to captiuate our vnderstanding and exercise free obedience of our will in belieuing the Articles of Faith Therfor Faith must raise vs aboue the Arguments of Credibility The maior is cleare For where there is euidence and necessity to assent there is no place for captiuating or submitting our vnderstanding or free and voluntary obedience of our will which Chilling confesses Pag. 329. N. 7. wher speaking of obedience in Faith he saith which can hardly haue place where there is no possibility of disobedience as there is not where the vtderstanding does all and the will nothing Neither can it auaile him to say as he sayth in the same place that the Faith of Protestants implies an act of obedience because it is not pretended to haue the absolute euidēce of sence or demōstration For this is nothing to the purpose as long as he belieues the Articles of Faith with no higher thā a probable assēt proportionable to probable Arguments and rises not to a certainty of sense demonstration or any other aboue these probable Motiues because his fallible and only probable faith hath the certanty and euidence of demonstration for such a degree of probability it being no more certaine and euident that a Conclusion drawen from necessary Premises is necessary than that a Conclusion rightly deduced from probable Premises is probable which is all he requires for an assent of faith as he expressly affirmes Pag. 36. N. 8. saying God desires only that we belieue the Conclusion as much as the Premises deserue and N. 9. God requires of all that their faith should be proportionable to the motiues enforcing to it mark enforcing and Pag. 112. N 154. Neither God doth nor man may require of vs as our duty obserue what obedience and duty he requires to giue a greater assent to the Conclusion than the Premises deserue And finally this is his maine ground to proue that Christian Faith is not infallible but only probable that is such only as he holds the Premises and Arguments of Credibility to be wherby it is euident that in his way there is left no place for captiuating our vnderstanding by a voluntary free submission and obedience to Christ and his doctrine 15. Which yet to be necessary as I assumed in my Minor proposition cannot be denyed by any who belieues Holy Scripture as appeares 2. Cor. 10.5 B ringing into captiuity all vnderstanding vnto the obedience of Christ Rom. 1.5 By whom Iesus Christ we receyued grace and Apostleship for obedience to the Faith in all nations for the name of
any thing contrary to any Verity reuealed in the Word of God though neuer so improhable or incomprehensible to Naturall Reason For if his Faith be to his vnderstanding only probable how can he in prudence prefer it before the contrary therof which to his vnderstanding seemes euident and certaine Or how can an assent which I judge to be only probable enable me to belieue that which I judg to be euidently improbable And it is in vayne for him to tell vs of the certainty of Gods Reuelation since we do not compare Naturall Reason with Gods Reuelation but with those Motiues for which we belieue the diuine Reuelation which being to him only probable and esteemed such and no more must yeald to appearance of certainty of the contrary and therfor he must either confess that he contradicts him selfe or yield that Faith is infallible ād more certaine thā naturall reasō 30. To speake truth if we consider well this Socinian Faith can haue no other vse or effect except only to damne men by contenting themselues with a faith of probability when they may and ought to attaine a certainty He himselfe Pag. 36. N. 9. doubts not but that the spirit of God being implored by deuout and humble prayer and sincere obedience may and will by degrees aduance his seruants higher and giue them a certainty of adherence beyond theyr certainty of euidence And those that belieue and liue according to their faith he giues by degree the spirit of obsignation and confirmation which makes them know though how they know not what they did but belieue And to be as fully and resolutely assured of the Gospell of Christ as those which heard it from Christ himselfe with their eares which looked vpon it and whose hands handled the word of life Now if some men may arriue to so absolute an assurance why may not others why must not all Are not all bound to liue according to their Faith and to obserue the lawes of charity and obedience which doing you say they shall arriue to a full and resolute assurance euen aboue that which you call faith You say Pag. 227. N. 61. Gods assistance is alwayes ready to promote the Church farther on condition she does implore it And Pag. 175. N. 75. You grant the spirit of truth shall be giuen and will abide with those that loue God and keepe his Commandements Yea since true Faith is alwayes the Gift of God raysing vs vp by Grace aboue the strength of nature And that euery one is obliged ro haue true Christian Faith it is consequent that de facto all are bound to beleiue with a Faith produced by Grace aboue the forces of nature and consequently infallibly certaine For heere that excellent saying of S. Leo Serm. 16. de Pass Domini hath place Iustè Deus instat praecepto quia praecurrit auxilio He may well exact of vs an infallible Act of Faith seing he giues vs sufficient Grace to performe what he exacts And Pag. 34. N 6. you say The essentiall character of Charity is to judg and hope the best by which you are obliged to judg and hope vnless the contrary be manifest that euery one liues according to his belief by obseruing the Commandements and so in fact is arriued to a certaine and infallible Faith Since therfore you grant that the faith of those who liue according to their Belief is not to be regulated by the Lawes of Logicke and formes of Syllogismes with what shaddow of reason would you make men belieue that the Faith of all Christians necessary to saluation which is a speciall infused Gift of God must be subject to such Rules as if it were a meere Conclusion following only the weaker of the Premises and not measured by the speciall Grace and Motion of the Holy Ghost aboue all Logick Thus all your Objections against the infallible Faith of Christians must be answered by your self as false and sophisticall and consequently all Christians may and ought in despight of such paralogismes to assert and belieue the necessity of an infallible Faith And as I sayd the contrary doctrine can serue only to delude and damne those vnhappy soules who will be harkninge to such noueltyes I say to damne soules euen though it were falsely supposed that his doctrine were true For all Christians beside this man and such as hee sirmely belieuing Christian Faith necessary to saluation to be infallibly true and he acknowledging all poynts of Christian Faith to be but probable and surely he will not be so shamlesse as to say he belieues this particular fancy wherin he disagrees both from Catholiques and Protestants to be more certaine than all other Articles of Faith it cannot be denyed but that men are bound to belieue with an infallible Assent because as I sayd◠in matters absolutely necessary to saluation we are bound by the Law of God and Charity to our selues to embrace the safer way by meanes of an infallible Faith which he confesses may be obtained by prayer and obedience to Gods commandements And so vpon one account or other all are obliged vnder payne of damnation to belieue with an infallible Faith 31. As it is very true that there is no greater nor more foolish sinne than the sinne of Desperation irreuocably bringing damnation which might haue been auoided by Hope for which Gods Grace is neuer wanting if we cooperate so we may say that this fallible Faith infallibly dispatches men to Hell which mischief all may auoide by endeauouring to rayse their faith to certainty as he confesses they may doe by obeying and praying which endeauours the Grace of God puts in their power and will and if they reject it to none more justly then to this infortunate man and his fellowes may be applyd these words of the Prophet Ezechiel C. 18. V. 31.32 Why will yee dy returne and liue Which that they may doe either with more ease or become inexcusable if they doe it not we will more and more confute that Ground on which he doth in a manner wholy relie That the Conclusion following the weaker of the Premises one of which is in our case but probable the Conclusion can be no more than probable 32. For First I would for disputation sake aske of him whether he meane that the Conclusion doth so follow the weaker of the Premises that it receyues no strength or perfection from the fellowship of a better Premise than it selfe is If he answer that it receyues no strength then one will infer that one Premise contayning the Testimony or Reuelation of God an other the testimony of men could produce no stronger conclusion than if both Premises did containe only the testimony of men and so he must confess that de facto he belieues the Articles of Christian Faith no more than if by probable arguments they were proued to be testifyed by men alone If he answer that rhe stronger Premise may eleuate the weaker to produce a Conclusion stronger than
particular motion of Grace which irresistably drawes it Therfor from certainty of Faith we cannot inferr a necessary cooperation of the will or perfection of Charity You preâ—â—â—d to belieue or know wit◠〈…〉 to be obayed in all things and coâ—â—â—equently that the woâ—â—d 〈…〉 ouercome you may know with certainty that the morall 〈…〉 â—ments forbidding Actions repugnant to the light and law of naturaâ—â—eason are to be kept You cannot but know certainly in generall that all sinne is to be auoyded You teach that men euen by euidence of reason are to belieue with infallible certainty that they are firmely to belieue the truth of Christian Religion and consequently that all the commands of that Religion are to be obserued These things I say you belieue or know with certainty and yet I hope you will not grant that you cannot but obey God in all things and so ouercome the world that you cannot but keepe all the morall commandements that you cannot but auoyde all sinne that you cannot but obserue what is commanded in Christian Religion Therfore you must yield that certainty in the vnderstanding doth not inferr a necessity in the will and so still be forced to answer your owne argument 65. In the meane tyme I cannot but note how many damnable Heresyes you here ioyne togeather though contrary one to an other and euen to your selfe For example of Pelagianisme that the will may performe whatsoeuer the vnderstanding certainly iudgeth ought to be done which takes away the necessity of Grace or motion of the Holy Ghost I sayd that the will may performe but wheras you teach further that it must of necessity do so you fall from Pelagianisme to a contrary extreme by taking away Freewill which the very Socinians defend so farr that to make men free they make themselues sacrilegious in denying that God can see the future free Acts of our will 〈◊〉 you take it away in a worse manner than Caluinists doe who conceaue it to be taken away by supernaturall efficacious Grace or by infused justifying Faith but your doctrine must take it away by euery certaine knowledg though it be but naturall or by Historicall fallible Faith and historicall Faith according to Caluinists is common to all Christians And yet in another respect you fall into the very quintessence of Caluinisme and puritanisme that Faith once had can neuer be lost which is against moderate Protestants and yourselfe with Socinians For if Faith necessarily giue vs perfect Charity and the victory ouer the world and sinne Faith it selfe which cannot be lost without sinne is absolutely secured 66. Neither can you answer that your Objection goes not against all Faith but only impugneth an infallible Faith For you grant certainty of faith to diuerse as we haue obserued aboue concerning them who are aduanced to certainty and spirit of obsignation or Confirmation which are as many according to you who liue as they belieue as also 〈…〉 â—postles and those who heard our Sauiour preaching or 〈…〉 miracles yea whosoeuer only belieues or knowes with certainty that there is a God and that he is to be obeyed must of necessity worke according to his knowledg which if he doe he cannot loose the belief of God nor euer become an Atheist which I feare is too much against experieÌ„ce You must also agree with Calvinists in their Doctrine that only Faith justifyes seing as they so you teach that it necessarily brings with it charity and good works And to this same purpose I still vrge your owne assertio concerning those to whom you granta Certainty in Faith and I suppose you will not grant that such men are justifyed by faith only and other Christians by some other meanes V. g. justifyng inherent Grace or with Faith Hope and Charity and therfor you must deny that perfect Charity must necessarily flow from an fallible Faith 67. Sixtly you speake very imperfectly in saying Charing is the effect of Faith if therfor the cause Were terfect the effect would be perfect For the Habit of Charity being infused immediatly by the Holy Ghost is not the effect of Faith or of any Acts of our will no nor of the Acts of Charity it selfe But if you speake of the Acts of Charity they proceede from the Habit of Charity from the particular helpe and assistance of the Holy Ghost and from our will eleuated by such assistance which is freely offered by God and freely accepted by the will but in no wise proceeds necessarily from Faith whose office is only to direct and shew the object without any necessitating influence S. Paule sayth 1. Cor 13.13 The greater of these is Charity and who euer heard that the effect can be more perfect than the cause Or if you say that Faith is not the totall but only a partiall cause of Charity which therfor may be more noble than Faith it selfe then by what logike can you infer that Charity must be perfect because it is the effect of a partiall cause lesse perfect than it selfe Rather according to your discourse joyned with the words of S. Paule that Faith is less perfect than Chatity we must say thus Charity is the effect of Faith and therfor feing the cause is imperfect the effect must be imperfect which is directly opposite to your inference and intent Besides from what Philosophy can you learne that when some cause or condition concurrs to the production of an effect not by it selfe but necessarily requires the company and cooperation of other causes that such a cause or condition can by it selfe alone produce such an effect But let vs suppose Faith to be the cause of Charity and by it selfe alone sufficient for mouing our will to Acts of Charity doth it follow that it must do so irresistibly and in such manner as that it remaine not in the power of our will either to exercise no act at all or to produce a more or lesse perfect one Remember your owne distinction and words to Char Maintayned in your Pag 172. N. 71. That a man mâ—y fall into some errour euen contrary to the truth which is taught him if it be taught him only sufficiently and not irr-sistibly so that he may learne it if be will not so that he must and shall vhâ—ther he will or no. Nâ—w who can a sertaine me that the spirits teaching is not of this nature Or how can you poâ—â—â—y 〈…〉 it with your dâ—â—trâ—ne of free wâ—ll in betiâ—uing if it be â—ot of 〈◊〉 nature And you hauing endeauoured to proue this out of diuerse places of Scripture conclude God may teach and the Church not learne God may lead and the Church be resrachry and not follow 68. Now I retort this Argument and aske why a man may not fall into some errour contrary to the truth which he was taught and which once he belieued and committ some sinne which Faith dictates not to be committed if Faith teach him only sufficiently and not irresistibly and who can
the vnderstanding dres all and the will nothing And yet that it is Necessitated is a cleare truth since you professe to believe with no more certainty than is evidently deduced from evident Premises and the vnderstanding is no less necessitated to give assent to a probable conclusion draweÌ„ evideÌ„tly from knowen probable Premises than it is forced to an assent of a certaine Conclusion deduced from demonstratiue Premises Pag 331. N. 8. having sett downe some Principles which you judg to be evident and certaine you conclude thus From all these Premises this Conclusion evidently follows that it is infallibly certaine that we are firmly to believe the truth of Christian Religion And in the same Pag. 331. N. 9. There is an abundance of Arguments exceedingly credible inducing men to believe the truth of Christianity I say so credible that though they cannot make vs evidently see what we believe yet they evidently convince that in true wisdome and prudence the Articles of it deserue credit and ought so be accepted as things revealed by God therfor there is convincing evidence for the truth of Christian Articles as farr as you believe them And Pag 36. N. 9. you affirme that God requires of all that their Faith should be proportionable to the motiues and Reasons enforcing to it If the Reasons enforce to the Conclusion how is it not necessitated Therfor your Faith is both free according to your owne words and necessitated according to truth in your grounds which is also convinced by your saying that certainty cannot be without evidence And therfor the Faith of your choise elevated people which you say is certaine must be evident and consequently not free But our Faith raysing vs above the evident Arguments of Credibility remaines free and is in no sense necessitated 86. II. For your epithetons of being certaine and vncertaine we profess and believe nothing more certainly than that our Faith is certaine and not capable either of falshood or vncertainty But your Booke is Chiefly imployed to prove your Faith not to be certaine and we are well content it be so Yet if you remember what you say of your choysest persons and best Believers that they have a certainty beyond evidence and yet expressly teach that certainty cannot be greater than the evidence of the Object as I shewed above it followes clearly that you give them a certainty which your self hold impossible fot any to have and so you give them certainty and not certainty that is a meere contradiction or nothing 87. III. For the denominations of Evident Obscure They agree not to our Faith which we believe to be Obscure not evident as I have explicated elswhere But for your Faith according to your grounds it must be both evident and obscure Evident because you believe with no greater assent than you receyve by evident Arguments and accordingly you say Pag 329. N. 7. Nothing is more repugnant than that a man should be required to give most certaine credit vnto that which cannot be made appeare most certainly credible And if it appeare to him to be so then it is not obscure that it is so According to which we must say that nothing is more vnreasonable than that a man should be required to give probable credit vnto that which cannot be made appeare probably credible and if it appeare to him to be so then it is not obscure that it is so Therfore in your grounds you must believe nothing to be true but according to the evidence which you have therof And therfor Pag. 330. N. 7. you say in express termes That I should believe the truth of any thing the truth wherof cannot be made evident with an evidence proportionable to the degree of Faith required of me this I say for any man to be bound to is vnjust and vnreasonable because to do it is impossible Therfor your Faith is evident in respect of the truth which you believe according to the measure of your belief therof If you did believe with certainty a truth for which you haue only probable arguments such a truth I grant were not evident in proportion to your assent but since you believe the truth of Christian Religion only with a probable assent and that you have evidence of those Reasons which cause your assent to such a truth it is cleare that your Faith is evident to you as farr as your belief goes And yet you must hold it to be obscure otherwise it could not be capable of obedience as you pretend it to be because you say there can be no obedience where the vnderstanding doe all and the will nothing 88 Fourthly You say our Faith is prudent and foolish That our Faith is prudent and yours imprudent Charity Maintayned hath proved Chap. 6. and yet since you will say that yours is prudent it will remayne imprudent indeed and prudent in your words And indeed none but an enemy to Christianity can affirme our Faith and Religion to be imprudent if he consider well what a deadly wound he gives to Christian Religion by saying so For take from vs the Marks of a true Religion which are conspicuous in our Church only you deprivâ— Christianity of Motives or Arguments of Credibility sufficient to move or oblige men to embrace it where I pray except in our Church can be found Antiquity perpetuall Existence and Visibility Vniversality of Tyme and Place Succession of Pastours Vnity and effectuall meanes to conserve it Sanctity Miracles Efficacy in the conversion of Gentils which the Ancient Fathers vrge as a strong argument to prove the truth of Christian Religion against the Iewes Amplitude and Glory of Christs Kingdome fortold by the Prophets The very name Catholike with other Notes of the true Church which evidently agree to Our Church and are manifestly wanting to Protestants vnless they begg or vsurpe them from vs as the carefull Reader must confesse if he do but severally reflect on them While therfor you blaspheme the Faith of our Church to be foolish you do in fact lay the same imputation on Christian Religion Seing then you cannot without prejudice to Christian Religion affirme our Faith to be imprudent and foolish you must in good consequence be content that your owne beare that denomination Besides Pag. 331. N. 10. you say Charity maintayned was mistaken in making prudence not only a commendation of a believer and a justification of his Faith but also essentiall to it and part of the definition of it and did as if one being to say what a man is should define him a reasonable creature that hath skill in Astronomy For as all Astronomers are men but all men are not Astrâ—nomers and therfor Astronomy ought not to be put into the definition of men where nothing should have place but what agrees to all men So though all that are truly wise that is wise for eternity will believe aright yet many may beleeve aright which are not wise By which words you give vs to
evident he might perhaps haue fayled in some necessary poynt if the text had proved to be evident and yet vnknown to him for want of such examination Neither can it be answered that if a text be evident it will appeare to be such For a thing vpon due examination and study may appeare evident or obscure which at first sight did not seeme to be such And for this same reason every one must learne to reade the bible or at least procure that every text therof be read to him that so he may be sure to know all evident and consequently all necessary texts of scripture it being cleare that he cannot haue sufficient assurance that he knowes every particular text only by hearing sermons or ordinary casvall discourses or the like And this care every one shall be obliged to vse even for those books of scripture which are receyved by some Protestants and rejected by others least if indeed they be Canonicall and he remayne ignorant of any one poynt evidently contayned in them he put himself in danger of wanting the knowledg of some thing necessary to be believed You teach Pag 23. N. 27. that to make a catalogue of fundamentall points had been to no purpose there being as matters now stand as great necessity of believing those truths of scripture which are not fundamentall as thâ—se that are But it is necessary for every one learned or vnlearned to know explicitly all fundamentall truths Therfor it is necessary for every one to know explicitly all truths though not fundamentall Now who sees not that these are ridiculous vnreasonable and intolerable precepts and burthens imposed vpon mens consciences without any ground except an obstinate resolution to defend your opinion that all things necessary are evident in scripture And yet I do not perceiue how Protestants can avoyd these sequeles if they will stand to those principles For whosoeuer is obliged to attaine an End is obliged to vse that meanes which is necessary for that End Your self Pag 194. N. 4. hold it for an absurdity that it should be a damnable sin in any learned man and I may say much more in any vnlearned person actually to disbelieue any one particular Historicall verity contayned in Scripture or to belieue the contradiction of it though be know it not to be there conâ—â—â—ed Now I say according to this your Doctrine every one must know every truth in scripture and not only not contradict it but he must explicitly know it least otherwise he may chance to omitt the belief of some poynt necessary to be expressiy believed Which is a greater absurdity than only to say every one is obliged not to contradict any truth contayned in scripture though he know it not to be there contayned And as for our present purpose you clearly suppose that every man though he be learned is not obliged to know every truth contayned in Scripture and therfor your Doctrine which necessarily infers this obligation must be absurd and contradictory to yourself 27. Fourthly in Holy scripture two things are to be considered The words and sense or meaning of them The words are cleare in scripture as in other bookes to such as vnderstand the language But for the sense it may be affirmed with much truth that abstracting from extrinsecall helpe or autority euen in matters of greatest moment proper to Christian religion it is hard to fynd any one poynt so cleare of it self as to convince that it must needs be vnderstood in this or thar determinate sense For though the words may seeme clearly to signify such a thing in objects proportionate to our naturall reason yet the hardness and height of Christian belief is apt to withdraw our vnderstanding from yeilding a firme assent to points which truly are aboue and in shew seeme to be against reason For this I will alledg your selfe who Pag 215. N. 46. speake thus They which doe captivate their vnderstandings to the belief of those things which to their vnderstanding seeme irreconsiable Contradictions may as well believe reall contraditions Since then no man can belieue reall contradictions appearing such it followes according to your owne assertion that none can belieue those poynts which to his vnderstanding seeme contradictions and then he will be seeking some other by-sense of such words as taken in the obvious common signification may seeme in his way of vnderstanding to imply contradiction Which yet appeares more clearly out of other words of yours Pag 216.217 N. 46. where having sett downe divers contradictions as you vntruly apprehend in our catholique doctrine concerning the B. Sacrament of the Eucharist you conclude that if Char Maintayned cannot compose their repugnance and that after an intelligible manner then we must giue him leaue to belieue that either we do not belieue Transubstantiation or else that it is no contradiction that men should subjugate their vnderstandings to the belief of contradictions Which words declare how willing a mans vnderstanding or reason is to be at peace with it self and to belieue nothing wherin it cannot Compose all repugnance and that after an intelligible manner Seing then all Christians must belieue the words of scripture to be true and yet find difficulty in composing all repugnance to reason after an intelligible manner they are easily drawne to entertayne some interpretation agreeable to their vnderstanding though contrary to the signifitation which the words of themselves do clearly import and perhaps was intended by the Holy Ghost 28. From this fountaine arise so many and so different and contrary heresies concerning the chiefest articles of Christian Faith the difficulty of the objects and disproportion to our naturall reason first diverting and then averting our vnderstanding from that which it sees not cleared after an intelligible manner and the loss of the first evidence and vsuall signification of the words bringing men to a loss in the pursuite of the true sense of them For this cause the particular Grace of the Holy Ghost is necessary to belieue as we ought insomuch as Fulk against Rhem Testam in 2 Petr 3. Pag 821. saith As concerning the Argument and matter of the Scripture we confess that for the most and chiefest matters it is not only hard but impossible to be vnderstood of the naturall man Besides which difficulty arising from the Objects or Mysteryes in themselves there is another proceeding from the subject or Believer when one hath already taken a Point for true and for that cause will be willing to seeke and glad to fynd some sense of Scripture agreeable to his foreconceyved opinion though not without violence to the letter or words 29. And yet to these dissicultyes flowing from the Object and Sabject we may add another ex Adjunctis when one place of Scripture seeming cleare enough of it self growes to be hard by being compared with the obvious sense of that other Text as we haue heard out of Chilling Pag 41. N. 13. that Scripture may with so great
it is sayd It was seemly that we should haue such a high Priest holy innocent impolluted separated from sinners Heb 7. V. 26. O blasphemy against Christ our Lord as if he had bene truly a sinner as just men are truly just of whom we reade evident texts that they are renewed in the spirit of their mynd and haue put on the new man which according to God is created in justice and holiness of the truth Ephes 4.23.24 not of a falshood or disguise of truth that they are regenerated and Renewed of the Holy Ghost Tit 3.3 that their sins are taken away 1. Paral 21.8 that cleare water is powred vpon them and they clensed from all their contaminations Ezech 36.25 that they shal be sprinkled with hyssope clensed washed and made whyter than snow Psalm 50 9. that their sins shal be sought and shall not be found Psalm 9.5 that their sins are purged Prov. 19.27 that they are all fayre and there is not a spot in them Cant. 4.7 If thy sins shal be as scarlet they shal be made whyte as snow and if they be red as vermelion they shal be whyte as wooll Isay 1.18 they haue washed their robes and haue made them whyte in the bloud of the lamb Apoc. 7.14 With sundry other evident texts which I cited in the Introduction Sect. 9. And yet our Sectaryes will haue just men and Saints to be still in sinne and so Calvinian saints are eternally stayned with that which is the most detestable thing in the very Divells namely deadly sinne The Apostle sayth Rom. 5.18 As by the disobedience of one man many were made sinners so also by the Obedience of one many shal be made just Will Calvin say that we were made sinners only by imputation and not by true sin inexistent in our soule And how then can he deny but that men are just by true inherent Justice And if it be so how dare he blaspheme that Christ was a sinner as just men are just which is to say that he was a sinner by inherent sinne or injustice as other sinners are But this is the fruite of relying on scripture alone that is indeed of following their owne fancy What can be more evident and in more express words delivered in scripture than that without the speciall Grace of God merited by our Saviours Life and Death we cannot doe any worke or speak any words or think any thought avayling towards eternall salvation and yet Pelagians taught the contrary and Socinians hold that we merit all for our selves and Christ nothing for vs as contrarily Protestants commonly say that Christ merited all for vs and we nothing for our selves So contrary Heresyes arise when once men despise the Authority of Gods Church What Poynt more cleare in scripture and more purposely and carefully proved by S. Paule than that Article of our Creed the Resurrection from Death and yet the Socinians teach that in Heaven we shall haue I know not what celestiall body essentially different from that which was buryed in the graue (a) Vid Volkel de vera Relig Lib 3. Cap 35. Besides do not those Lutherans who defend the Vbiquity of our Sauiours Humanity vnderstand evident words or do they want skill in lang uages And yet it is manifest that they destroy all the Mysteryes of the Nativity Ascension c of our Saviour Christ For who can come or goe or ascend or descend from one place to another who is presupposed to be in all places no less then God is according to his Deity who therfor cannot be mooved from one place to another 32. Sixtly These things considered the Reader may justly wonder at Chilling who expressly specifyes the sayd Mysteryes of our Saviour Christ for instances that the Scripture is evident concerning them His words Pag 101. N. 127 are If any one should deny that God is Omnipotent Omniscient good just true mercifull a rewarder of them that seeke him a punisher of those that obstinately offend him that Iesus Christ is the senne of God and Saviour of the world that it is he by Obedience to whom men must looke to be saved If any man should deny either his Birth or Paâ—sion or Resurrection or Ascension or sitting at the right hand of God his having all power given him in Heaven and Earth That it is he whom God hath appointed to be judg of the quick and the dead that all men shall rise againe at the last day That they which believe and repent shall be saved That they which do not belieue or repent shal 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 obstinately contradict the truth of any thing plainly delivered in Scripture who does not see that every one who believes the Scripture hath a sufficient meanes to discover and condemne and avoyd that Heresy without any need of an infallible guide Thus he But by his leaue who does not see both by Reason and Experience the contrary of that of which he sayth who does not see And how hard is it to distinguish and judg what is or is not plainly delivered in Scripture if we respect the sense and not the words only And if we consider not one text alone but coâ—â— are it with other passages which seeme to signify a different or even contrary thing especially if he add the great disserence and contrariety of opinions amongst his Brethren the Protestants concerning such poynts some of them judging that to be plaine and evident in scripture which others belieue not only to be obscure but the contrary to be true and all this out of evident scripture as they apprehend as appeares by these very examples which he picks out for Truths plainly delivered in scripture as we haue alredy demonstrated For Gods Omniptency the scripture saith plainly Matth 3.9 God is able of these stones to raise vp children to Abraham And Matth 20.53 Thinkest thou that I cannot aske my Father and he will giue me presently more then twelue legions of Angels Luc 1.36 there shall not be impossible with God any word And yet Calvin in severall occasions impugnes the distinction of Catholique Divines of Potentia Dei ordinaria absoluta of Gods ordinary Power and his absolute power and rejects that which they call Potentia absoluta We haue shewed already that Gods Omniscience is denyed by the Socinians whom Chilling highly esteemes for learning and piety also as appeares in what he sayes in his Answer to the Direction to N.N. N. 29. and yet they did wel vnderstand the learned languages and the words of scripture for the Grammaticall signification 33. With what modesty can Hee say that it is evident in scripture that Iesus Christ is the son of God Saviour of the world and sitteth at the right haÌ„d of God and hath all power giveÌ„ him in heaveÌ„ aÌ„d
given to his Church the Gift of interpretation and I suppose Protestants will not say that the spirit of God the Grace of God and the Gift of interpretation given by God is necessary only for things not necessary and that we can attaine to the knowledge of poynts necessary by our own naturall forces which yet we might doe if reading alone could suffice vs for vnderstanding the true meaning of all necessary Mysteryes of Faith And it is strange that Dr. Morton should say Apolog. part 2. Lib. 1. Cap. 19. That which is questioned is whether all such thinges as are necessary to salvation are so very plaine that the most vnlearned believers by the reading therof may be instructed to piety and heretiques though not learned may clearly enough be confuted by them aÌ„d he holds the affirmatiue part And so ProtestaÌ„ts must either confess themselves to be Pelagians if they hold Gods speciall grace and spirit not to be necessary for vnderstanding scripture aright or if they acknowledg the necessity of such particular Grace they must yeald that scripture is not evident in all things necessary to be knowne Which argument may be yet inforced in this manner 54. The gift of interpretation is not given to every private person as we gather from the words of S. Paul 1. Cor 12. To one is giueÌ„ by the spirit the word of wisedome to another the word of knowledg to another interpretation of languages to another prophecy c which declare that the spirit of interpreting is not given to all in so much as Kemnitius Exam Part 1. Fol 63. teacheth that the Gift of Interpretation is not common to all no more then is the gift of healing and miracles aÌ„d therfor we can only be certaine that it is in the Church not in any private person Therfor the Scripture is not so evident that we can be sure of the meaning therof by the interpretation of any but of the Church 55. Which finally Protestants must either acknowledg or els pinfold themselves in an inextricable circle and labyrinth in this manner Scripture is evident only to those who are indued with the spirit of God and seing S. Iohn Ioan 1 Cap 4. V. 1. warnes vs. beleeue not every Spirit but proue the spirits if they be of God it followes that Protestants must haue some meanes to try this spirit before they can beleeue it which meanes with them must be only Scripture and therfor they must know the meaning of the Scripture before they can make vse of that spirit by which they are to know the meaning of the Scripture Therfor the same spirit is necessary to know the meaning of Scripture and Scripture necessary to try the truth of this spirit and so this spirit shal be necessary for attayning the meaning of Scripture which meaning of Scripture must be attayned before we can vse this spirit Therfore this spirit is necessary and not necessary for vnderstanding Scripture which we must vnderstand before we can try this spirit and Scripture necessary and not necesssary for trying this spirit which we must know to be from God before we vnderstand Scripture And in a word the spirit must depend on the vnderstanding of Scripture and the vnderstanding of Scripture must depend on the spirit and the finall conclusion will be that the same thing must depend on it selfe the spirit on spirit Scripture on Scripture and so both of them must exist both before and after themselves Neither is there any meanes to avoyd this Circle except by having recourse to Gods visible Church whose spirit needs no triall of men since God himselfe hath given a publike Approbation of Her spirit by obliging all to obey Her voyce and to receyue even Scripture it self from Her Authority and Testimony 56. Ninthly I now vrge more in particular that which heretofore I touched in generall that they can alledg no evident Text of Scripture declaring any command that we must haue recourse to Scripture alone for knowing the Objects or Articles of Faith and yet if the End which is Faith be necessary the only Meanes that is Scripture to attayne that End must also be necessary nor can they produce any evident Text proving that from Scripture alone we can learne all points necessary to be believed 57. The clearest and most effectuall way to proue the truth of this my Assertion wil be to examine such Texts as Protestants are wont to alledg and to shew how little they make to their purpose They produce these words Deut 4. V. 2. You shall not add to the word that I speake to you neither shall you take away from it keepe the Commandements of the Lord your God which I command you Search the Scriptures Ioan 5.39 these things are written that yee may beleeue Ioan 20.31 And that of the Beraeans dayly searching the scriptures Act 17. V. 11. we haue the Propheticall word more sure 2. Pet. 1.19 All Scripture inspired of God is profitable to teach to argue to correct to instruct in justice that the man of God may be perfect instructed to every good worke 2. Timoth 3.16 58. Now these Texts are so farr from proving evidently what is intended that it is evident that neither these nor any other can be alledged to proue that men are obliged to haue recourse to scripture alone The reason is because whatsoeuer can be alledged out of the old testament cannot be so vnderstood as to exclude the living Guides granted to that Church as Moyses the Prophets and writers of Canocall scripture nor out of the new testament to exclude the Apostles and preachers of the Gospell Therfor no scripture can be so vnderstood as to oblige vs to consult scripture alone Nay out of this ground I further infer that seing at that tyme Christians wanted not living infallible Guides they had no obligation at all to consult scripture and much less scripture alone and if they had no such obligation no Canonical scripture can with truth affirme that they were so obliged and consequently it is an injury to scripture to interpret it in that sense This my deduction is confirmed by a doctrine of Chilling Pag 116. N. 159. that God requires of vs vnder payne of danatioÌ„ only to belieue the verityes therin in scripture contayned and not the divine authority of the Bookes wherin they are coÌ„taynâ—d By which assertion he doth not only disoblige meÌ„ from having recourse to scripture but also froÌ„ believing it to be the word of God when the contents therof caÌ„ be learned by other meanes as they might while those visible guides were living Therfor no text caÌ„ be brought to proue that men were or are obliged to haue recourse to Scripture for matters of Faith though they are bound to belieue them to be the infallible word of God as in due tyme I will proue against his pernicious doctrine to the contrary delivered in this same page and number 59. But beside this there is another fundamentall
which may any way help or conduce to our salvation that may make the way to it more secure or lesse dangerous 76. These demands I say will in all reason be made and since they are but the very same doctrine which you deliver in the same words you must grant them all and then it is easy for vs to infer the necessity of a living infallible judg seeing all profitable poynts cannot according to Protestants be proved evidently out of scripture both because their Argument holds not in this case namely That if all things necessary were not evidently contayned in scripture they could not be necessary since we speake not of necessary but only of profitable and somthing profitable and lesser truths to vse your words And also because experience shewes that Protestants do not agree nor haue any infallible certaine meanes to bring them to an agreement concerning such poynts 77. But here is not an end of the advantages you giue vs against your self adding greater strength to this Argument For Pag 277. N. 61. You teach that such an assistance is conditionally promised vs as shall lead us if we be not wanting to it and ourselues into all not only necessary but very profitable truth and guard us from all not only destructiue but also hurtfull Errours And afterwards speaking of a Church which retaynes fundamentall truth but is regardless of others you say Though the simple defect of some truths profitable only and not simply necessary may consist with salvation yet who is there that can giue her sufficient assurance that the neglect of such truths is not damnable Besides who is there that can put her in sufficient caution that these Errours about profitable matters may not according to the vsuall fecundity of errour bring forth others of a higher quality such as are pernicious and pestilent and vndermine by secret consequences the very foundations of Religion and piety Who can say that a Church hath sufficiently discharged her duty to God and man by avoyding only Fundamentall Heresyes if in the meane tyme she be negligent of others which though they do not plainly destroy salvation yet obscure and hinder and only not block vp the way to it Which though of themselves and immediatly they damne no man yet are causes and occasions that many men run the race of Christian piety more remissly then they should many defer their repentance many goe on securely in sinnes and so at length are damned by meanes and occasion of their Errours though not for them And Pag 218. N. 49. you say I would not be so mistaken as if I thought the errours even of some Protestants vnconsiderable 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 saued with them yet are too frequent occasions of our remissnes and stackness in running the race of Christian Profession of our deferring Repentance and Conversion to God of our frequent relapses into sinne and not seldome of security in sinning and consequently though not certaine causes yet too frequent occasions of many mens damnation And Pag 280 N. 66. Capitall danger may arise from errours though not fundamentall And how can an inanimate writing declare for all variety of circūstances whē such danger is particularly to be feared 78. From these your sayings I gather 2. things the one how dāgerous Errours are in matters belonging to Faith though they concerne only profitable Poynts The other That God hath promised an assistance sufficient to lead vs into all not only necessary but very profitable truth if we be not wanting to it From the first I collect as before the necessity of some sure Meanes to avoyd Errours against profitable Truth And that you speake very irreligiously in saying That if controversyes concerning them be continued and increased it is no matter From the second I frame this demonstratiue Argument If God hath promised an assistance for attaining the knowledg of profitable Truths he hath not fayled to leaue some Meanes wherby we vsing our best endeavours may certainly attaine that knowledg by those Meanes But this meanes cannot be scripture alone the interpretation wherof remaynes vncertaine even though we vse all the Rules prescribed by Protestants as we haue proved and they confess Therfor scripture alone cānot be that Meanes wherby we vsing our best endeavours may attaine the knowledg of profitable truths Therfor we must have recourse to an infallible living judg And now I beseech the reader to consider how vnreasonable and vnconscionable a thing it is First to avouch a very great danger of being damned vnless one come to the knowledg not only of necessary but also of profitable poynts and that God hath promised sufficient help and assistance to attaine such a knowledge and yet Secondly that it is impossible for vs to fynd or vse any certaine meanes which God hath left for that end of knowing things not only necessary but also profitable This contradiction or inconvenience cannot be avoyded except as I sayd by acknowledging and submitting to a living judg 79. Before I leaue this poynt I must not omitt to touch some inconsequent sayings of yours and then goe forward You confess Pag 277. N. 61. that Dr. Potter affirmes that God hath promised absolutely that there shal be preserved to the worlds end such a company of Christians who hold all things precisely and indispensably necessary to salvation If this be so why do you not object against the Doctour as you do against vs and aske him whether that company of Christians can resist Gods motions and helps wherby they are preserved in the belief of things necesary As also how do you defend the Doctour since you do not hold it absolutely certaine but only hope that there shal be such a company of Christians to the worlds end wheras the Doctour alledges and relyes on the promise of God for such a stability of his Church and so must hold it for ā article of Faith as he professes to doe Surely this is a poynt of greatest importance and more then only profitable and scriptures speak clearly enough for the perpetuity of Gods Church and yet you two do not agree therin which shewes how impossible it is to decide controversyes by scripture alone 80. Another saying of yours will I belieue hardly be defended from a contradiction For Pag 277. N. 61 having spoken of Errours against profitable truths and declared how extremely dangerous they are you say P. 278. Those of the Roman Church are worse even in themselves damnable and by accident only pardonable Now an errour to be damnable in it self must consist in this that it opposes some truth revealed by God which is intrinsecè matum essentially evill a deadly sin against the will and Command of God and therfor damnable in it self and by accidēt
to our owne conjectures may be alledged contrary wayes as for example you say that the doctrine of indulgences is dangerous because it may take away the feare of Purgatory And why may not I say that the denying of Indulgences besides the Heresy which is of it selfe damnable is dangerous for the sequeles because the want of that devotion and omission of very many works of many vertues as repentance pennance Charity c to which a desire and endeavour to gaine Indulgences would moue vs would very probably hinder the salvation of many which otherwise might haue bene saved as you say of hearing the publike Offices celebrated in a toung not vnderstood by all Concerning which instances I say That if the doctrine of Protestants in this matter be false as most certainly it is then not very probably as you threaten vs but certainly they shall be damned who in this particular oppose their judgment and Practise against the Belief and Practise of the Catholique Church spread over the world before Luther appeared Nay I say morè that though we did suppose which we can never grant the Church to erre is this Poynt yet godly Laymen as you speake who in simplicity of hart and out of Ignorance obey the Church by this their Obedience oblige as I may say Allmighty God never to permit that their goodness and godliness proue to them an occasion of perdition Rather according to your manner of arguing and according to truth the defect of Obedience Religion and of other vertues which they exercise in hearing those Offices would hinder the salvatien of many which otherwise might haue bene saved Besides if the want of devotion which the frequent hearing the Offices vnderslood might happily beget may very probably binder the salvation of many which otherwise might haue bene saved why shall not Protestants be obliged in all their Churches to more frequent Service daily and howerly and be still receyving their Sacrament least for want of devotion which that frequency might happily beget the salvation of many be hindered which otherwise would haue bene saved In the Vniversityes they haue for most dayes in the weeke their publike Service in Latine which divers Lay men who may be present cannot vnderstand and so be deprived of that devotion the want wherof may hinder the salvation of many which otherwise might haue bene saved But seing many Catholique Writers haue handled this Poynt of publike Prayers in Latine both copiously and learnedly it is enough for me to haue answered and retorted your Objections vpon yourself and your Brethren and it is a great foolery to depriue men as you doe of their liberty by imaginary conditionall effects which without end may be turned on all sides 87. Your last Example deserves no other Answer than that it is grounded on a wicked supposition that to belieue the Vicar of Christ to be infallible in his Definitions could be a congruous disposition to belieue Antichrist or that Antichrist could get into that See as you impiously speake There is no malice comparable to the malice and blindness of Heresy But it is tyme for mee to returne from this necessary digression and to go forward in confuting the doctrine of the sole-sufficiency of Scripture And therfor 88. 15. From Protestants themselves I argue in this manner Most Protestants hold that we know Scripture to be the word of God by the private spirit or some quality inherent or internall to Scripture it self and think it so evident that to aske how we can know Scripture to be the word of God Calvin Lib. 1. Inst Cap. 7. sayth is all one as to aske whence we may learne how to discerne light from darkness white from blacke sweet from soure And the Scottish Minister Baron in Apodixi Tract 9 Q 4. Pag. 630. and Q. 6. Pag 663 Sect 2. saith The Scripture doth sufficiently manifest its devineness by its owne internall light majesty and efficacy Amesius de Circulo Pontificio saith We belieue that the Scriptures do shine by their owne light Whitaker De Scriptura Q. 3. Cap 3. ad 3. They who haue the Holy Ghost can know Gods voyce even as a frend is wont to know by the voyce his friend with whom he hath conversed most familiarly a long tyme. Potter sayth Pag 141. That Scripture is of divine authority the believer sees by that glorious beame of divine light which shines in Scripture and by many internall arguments found in the letter it self Which words while Chill interprets to signify only that men are strengthned in their belief by that beame of light which shines in Scripture he leaves no meanes for his client Potter to belieue with certainty the Scripture For he saith expressly in the same place that the Church only presents disposes and prepares which supposed there is saieth he in the Scripture it self light sufficient which though blind and sensuall men see not yet the eye of reason cleared by grace and assisted by the many motives which the church vseth for enforcing of her instructions one may discover to be divine descended from the Father and fountaine of light But how come you M. Chilling worth to know Scripture to be the word of God We take it from your owne words Pag 69. N. 46. where you say to your adversary The conclusiō of your tenth § is that the divinity of a writing cannot be knowen from it self alone but by some extrinsecall authority which you need not prove for no wise man denyes it But then this authority is that of vniversall traditiō not of your church Behold the agreemēt of protestāts in this maine poynt on which their whole religion depēds According to Potter Chill is a blind ād sesuall mā who sees not that glorious beame of divine light which shines in Scripture And Potter Calvin Baron ād other Protestants deny that which in Chilling worths judgment no wise man denyes Out of which premises of protestants it is easy to conclude That seing so many of them imagine a cleare light to shine in Scripture which others affirme no wise man can imagine which is very true for if there be such a light evidently shining in Scripture how is it possible that they can disagree about the Canon of Scripture or how could some books haue once been questioned which now are receyved for canonicall We must affirme that much more a particular text may to one seeme evidētly to signify that which to an other doth no way appeare but perhaps directly the contrary And therfor although we haue heard Calvin saying that it is as easy to discerne which be true scriptures as to distinguish betweē white ād blacke yet it appeares by what he writes L 4 Inst C. 9. N. 13. that for the interpreting of scripture more labour ād industry is required as is also cleare by the many ād hard rules which protestants require for interpretation therof as we haue seene aboue and therfor it is cleare evē frō the doctrines of
set downe Therfor we cannot gather pecisely from the quality of the things in themselves the necessity of their being set downe in writing 137. Thus I hope your Objections and Demands set out with so great pompe and demonstration of some hidden mystery only to amuse some vnwary Reader are answered and confuted and demonstrated to begg the Question and to contayne either manifest falshood or to be wholy impertinent wherin I haue stayed the longer because this Argument taken out of S. Luke is that wheron you most rely as also in regard that what I haue sayd here will serue a fortiori to answer the Reasons which you bring to proue that every one of the foure Evangelists hath set downe all things necessary to be believed though you thinke it most certaine of S. Luke 138. This you endeavour to proue Pag 210. N. 40.41.42.43 though N. 40. you say only that of all foure it is very probable but of S. Luke most apparent and N. 43 It is very probable that every one of the foure Evangelists has in his booke the whole substance all the necessary parts of the Gospell of Christ But for S. Luke in my judgment it ought to be no manner of Question Now this doubtfulness being acknowledg by you and your conclusion pretend to be no more then probable your reasons can be only probable and some topicall congruityes and then I confute you with your owne words Pag 60. N. 21. for ending of civill controversyes who does not see it is absolutely necessary that not only judges should be appointed but that it should be knowen and vnquestioned who they are Otherwise if it were a disputable thing who were these judges and they had no certaine warrant for their Authority but only some Topicall congruityes would not any man say such judges in all likelyhood would rather multiply Controversyes then end them If this be true how will you haue vs in matters of Eternity and of infinitely higher concernement than civill Controversyes take for a Rule or as Protestants speake a judg every one of the foure Gospells since according to your owne Axiom it is absolutely necessary that it should be knowen and vnquestioned that they are such Otherwise if it be a disputable thing whether they be judges and we haue no certaine warrant for their Authority but only some Topicall congruityes vvill not any man say such judges in all likelyhood vvill rather multiply Controversyes than end them Besides Christian Faith must rely not vpon probable but on some infallible and vndoubted authority vvhich that Rule or judg cannot pretend whose Authority they who are to be tryed by it and who appeale to it directly acknowledg not to be such Morover seing Protestants hold that scripture is not only the Rule but the only Rule of Faith topicall Arguments or congruityes which in other matters might be of some waight can be of no force with them in this our case And therfor your endeavours are in vaine vnless you bring some text yea aÌ„d some evideÌ„t text of scripture to proue this tenet which since you do not as will appeare your argumeÌ„ts aÌ„d hath bin coÌ„fessed by your self I might wel reject all your proofes draweÌ„ only froÌ„ humane reasons as insufficieÌ„t aÌ„d impertineÌ„t without any other particular answer Yet that it may appeare how weake your proofes are I will examine every one in particular aÌ„d I belieue they will be found no better thaÌ„ a perpetuall begging of the questioÌ„ aÌ„d to proue nothing vnless you presuppose that all necessary points must be particularly set downe in holy scripture and that although you seeme to multiply arguments yet indeed you do but repeete the same to witt that no reason can be imagined that any of the Evangelists should omitt any thing necessary and the like conjectures of your owne 139. That this may appeare more clearly let vs propose three Propositions First the doctrine of Catholiques that scripture taken alone contaynes not particularly and evidently all things necessary to salvation then that it is doubtfull whether or no scripture containes all such necessary points thirdly that all things necessary to salvation are particularly and evidently contained in scripture as the Protestants hold This being premised I hope to demonstrate that every one of your arguments must either begg the Question or at least proue nothing 140. Pag 210. N. 40. you say VVhat reason can be imagined that any of them should leaue ouâ— any thing which he knew to be necessary and yet put in many things as apparently all of them haue done which they knew to be only profitable and not necessary VVhat wise and honest man that were now to write the Gospell of Christ would do so great a worke of God after such a negligent fashion 141. Answer First let vs apply to this your Objection the three propositions I mentioned First then Catholiques belieue that all necessary Points of Faith are not expressly and evidently contayned in scripture therfor no reason can be imagined that any of the Evangelists hath left out any thing which he knew to be necessary Yourself will not approue of this consequence but we must say the contraty therfor we can haue no reason to belieue that they were obliged to do so it not being a thing necessary to be done by them or any Canonicall Writer and to retort your owne words what reason can be imagined to oblige them therto Therfor vnless you expressly presuppose our doctrine all things necessary are not evideÌ„tly contained in scrip ture to be false and your contrary assertion true your argument hath no force and what is this but still to be begging the question Do you not know that according to the Rules of Logick the disputant must proue and that it is sufficient for the defendant to stand to his Conclusion till you can remoue him from it by force of argument And yet for the present I need not make vse of this Right but only abstract from the truth or falshood of our most true doctrine in this matter and therfor secondly let vs suppose it to be doubtfull whether all things necessary are contained in the whole bible In this case it must remayne much more doubtfull and so not so much as probable but only by Imagination whether every one of the Evangelists hath set downe all such things For it may be supposed not to be done by every one but by all of them or by all the Canonicall Writers collectiuè as it is the common opinion of ProtestaÌ„ts who therfor must solâ—e your Objections no lesse thaÌ„ we Catholiques 3. Although we suppose your false Doctrine about the sufficiency of scripture alone to be positively true and notonly doubtfull yet you can only infer from thence that all necessary points must be contained in the whole bible as other Protestants teach but you cannot gather that they must be contained in all and much less in every one of the Gospelss Contrarily vnless you
suppose your owne tenet that the scripture alone containeth all things necessary that is vnless you begg the Question you cannot so much as pretend that every one of the Gospells contaynes all such poynts 4. you hold it only probable that every one of the Evangelists hath written all necessary points therfor you belieue it cum formidine oppositi and must think it not impossible but that some good reason may be alledged and much more imagined which is your word for the contrary 142. Secondly I answer you ought to remember that as the Apostles and other Canonicall Writers wrote not their owne humane sense but were inspired and directed by the Holy Ghost of whom we must say Quis Consilarius ejus fuit Rom 11. V. 34. Who hath been his Counseller So you must not expect that we rely on your Topicall cōgruityes for finding out what in particular◠was fit for them to write that is what was the will of God that they should write What reason I pray you can be given why that Holy spirit did inspire foure Evangelists to write neither more nor fewer Why these men were chosen and not others Why they wrote no sooner and not all at once but at very different tymes Why they omitt millons of things and write others and those very few in comparison of those which they omitted and why rather these few in particular which they wrote than some few of those which they wrote not Why some things are written by all of them some only by some and some by one only VVhy other Canonicall VVriters write many profitable but not all necessary things and yet they were wise and honest men and wrote not in a negligent fashion And particularly what reason can be imagined according to your manner of discoursing why any of the Evangelists or other writers of scripture should leaue out any thing necessary for the whole Church as forme of Government Matter ād forme of Sacraments c and yet put in many things which they knew to be only profitable and not necessary either for the whole Church or every particular person or had they great care of what is necessary for particular men and regarded not what was necessary for the whole Church Of this we are very sure that they complyed with that end for which the Holy Ghost moved them to write and the conjectures of such considering men as you take pleasure to be styled cannot be of force with any religious mynd except to condemne you of presumption in prescribing to the Holy Ghost what he should haue moved the Apostles to write vnder payne of forfeiting the repute of vvise and honest men and of being censured of having done so great a worke of God after such a negligent fashion 143. Thirdly I Answer If you will needs haue reasons though we must not rely vpon our owne reason in matters of this nature jam sure betterreasons may be given to proue that the Evangelists were not obliged to write all things necessary then you can with any least ground bring them vnder any such burthen 144. First he who will impose an obligation vpon another in the first place obliges himself to a positiue proofe of what he sayes For till that be done every one by the law of nature enjoyeth the liberty of which he is possessed as on the other side he who denyes an obligation of performing this or that doth sufficiently acquitt himself by pleading that no such obligation can be proved And this is not a bare word or voluntary affirmation as if in that case both contrary parts had equall reasons because neither of them seemes to bring any positiue proofe but such a denyall of an obligation not sufficiently proved is a solid and convincing reason grounded vpon positiue Axiom Melior est conditio possidentis in vaine therfor do you aske what reason can be imagined why any of them should leaue out any thing which he knew to be necessary c it being a most sufficient proofe that they had no such obligation because you can bring no positiue proofe for the contrary and if they were not obliged to do it how can you accuse them for doing so great a work of God after such a negligent fashion meerly because they do not that which they had no obligation at all to doe 145. A second reason may be not only imagined but truly deduced both from your particular Assertion and from the generall doctrine of Protestants You teach that he who wrote the First Gospell S. Matthew delivered evidently all things necessary which to the other Euangelists might be a very sufficient reason to hold themselves free from obligation of repeeting those things which had bene delivered already with evidence and which they did certainly know if the thing were true to haue bene so delivered And this reason vrges yet more concerning S. Luke who vvrote his Gospell after S. Matthevv and S. Mark had vvritten theirs and as I sayd did knovv certainly that they had vvritten all necessary points if indeed they had done so Lastly S. John before he wrote his Gospell had seene the Gospels of the other three Evangelists beside other canonicall scriptures and therfor might with good reason think himself disobliged from doing that which had bene done by so many before him And that Holy Spirit which directed the first Writer of scripture S. Matthew foreseeing all future Canonicall writings in which many necessary points were to be expressed might even according to your humane discourse moue him to omitt so me necessary points which he saw would be delivered in other Scripture or tradition especially if we reflect that a truth once delivered in scripture beleeved to be Gods word is a much as a million of tymes Now from the generall doctrine of Protestants that all necessary things are contained in the vvhole scripture collectiuè not in every part therof a cleare reason may be taken to disoblige the Evangelists from vvriting that vvhich they vvere sure could not but be vvritten in other parts or bookes of holy scripture because that Doctrine implyes that the sole-sufficiency of scripture is perfectly asserted and maintayned if all necessary Points be contained in the whole Bible though they be not all set downe in any one Part or booke therof 146. A third reason may be taken from the End which moved the Evangelists to write which as I haue often sayd being not to make a Cathechisme or a Summe of Christian Doctrine what reason can be imagined that any of them should think himself obliged to set downe in particular all necessary points 147. Will you haue a Fourth reason Let it be this which may also serue for a wholsome and necessary document for you and such as you are we haue good reason to belieue that the Holy Ghost thought not fitt to express either in the Gospells or other Parts of Scriptures all necessary things that we might be put vpon a wholsome and happy necessity
the same tyme in thâ— same circumstances necessary to be belieyed Out of which words it followeth that seing one can at no tyme disbelieue or dissent from that for which he hath the same reason in vertue wherof he belieues another thing he must necessarily belieue it according to your doctrine Secondly If we belieue a thing meerly for some humane or naturall Reason you will not I belieue be able to shew that we are obliged to belieue any one thing and are not obliged to belieue another for which we haue the same reason For if the command be only this that reason obliges vs to belieue that which in reason deserves belief the reasons being equall the necessity of believing must be equall But if the command of believing be supernaturall or some Positiue Divine Precept then this must be notifyed to vs by revelation and so there will not be the same reason for both but as different as is between humane reason and divine revelation and therfore Thirdly If I haue the same reason of divine revelation to belieue both there is alwayes an equall necessity for the belief of those things for the belief wherof there is that equall reason of divine reuelation and so your subtilty That there is not alwayes an equall necessity for the belief of those things for the belief wherof c is against reason against yourself aÌ„d against all divinity 11. I haue no tyme to loose in examining your saying If any man should doubt or disbelieue that there was such a man as Henry the eight king of England it were most vnreasonably done of him yet it were no mortall sin nor sin at all God having no where commanded men vnderpayne of damnation to belieue all which reason induceth them to belieue Yet perhaps some wold aske whether you suppose that he who in the example you giue so doubts or disbelieves doth it vincibly or invincibly If invincibly then in him it is not vnreasonable because he in such circumstances could judg no otherwise and so in him it is reasonable For it falls out often that a true judgment may be imprudent and vnreasonable if it be framed lightly and for insufficient reasons and contrarily one may judge amisse for the materiall truth in it self and yet judg prudently if he be moved by probable reasons and so a true judgment may be rash and a false one prudent But if he who so doubts be supposed to erre vincibly you will not easily excuse him from all fault for example of pertinacy and obstinacy of judgment against all wise men or precipitation or imprudency or at least from an idle thought in his extravagant vnreasonable false and foolish belief which surely can be of no solid profit for himself or others or for the glory of God and you know our B. Saviour hath revealed that every idle word is a sin But whatsoever be sayd of your Doctrine taken in generall that God hath no where commanded men to belieue all which reason induceth them to belieue yet I leaue it to be considered whethert he particular example which you giue may not seeme in it self to imply somthing of the dangerous for if it be no sin at all to belieue that there was never any such man as Henry the eight and I suppose you will say the same of other like examples of Kings Princes Commonwealths and Magistrats some perhaps will infer That if your Doctrine were true it could be no sin at all to belieue that they had no lawfull Successours seing no body can succeed to a Chimera or to a No-Body or a Non-Entity as you say King Henry may be without sin believed to haue bene 12 But at least your frends will thinke you haue spoken subtilly and to the purpose in your other reason or example That as an Executor that should performe the whole will of the dead should fully satisfy the law though he did not belieue that Parchment to be his written will which indeed is so So I belieue that he who believes all the particular doctrines which integrate Christianity aÌ„d lives according to theÌ„ should be saved though he neither believed nor knew that the Gospels were written by the Evangelists nor the Epistles by the Apostles Yet in this also you either erre against truth or overthrow your owne maine cause For if such an Executor did not belieue that Parchment to be the dead mans written will and had no other sufficient ground to belieue the contents to be his will he should neither satisfy the law which gives him no power but in vertue of the dead mans will nor his owne conscience but should vsurpe the office without any Authority and expose himself to danger of committing great injustice by disposing the goods of the dead against his meaning and depriving of their right those to whom for ought he knowes they were bequeathed by the true will of the party deceased Now apply this your case to our present Question and the result will be that seing according to Protestants de facto we know the contents of Scripture and the Will and Commands of God delivered therin only by Scripture it selfe aÌ„d by no other meanes of Tradition or declaration of the Church if one be not obliged to belieue the Scripture he cannot be obliged to belieue all or any of the particular doctrines which integrate Christianity nor can judge himself obliged to liue according to them nor can any man without injury depriue men of the liberty which they possess by imposing vpon their consciences such an obligation 13. And here I must not omitt your saying that a man may be saued though he should not know or not belâ—â—ue the Scripture to be a Rule of Faith no nor to be the word of God Where you distinguish between being a Rule of Faith and being the word of God wheras it is cleare that nothing caÌ„ be a Rule of ChristiaÌ„ Faith except it be the word of God because Christian Faith as I sayd hath for its Formall Object the Divine RevelatioÌ„ or word of God aÌ„d nothing which is not such caÌ„ be a Rule of our Faith D. Potter Pag 143. saith The chief Principle or ground on which faith rests and for which it formally assents vnto those truths which the Church propounds is Divine Revelation made in the Scripture Nothing less then this nothing but thâ—s caÌ„ erect or qualify an act of supernaturall faith which must be absolutely vndoubted and certaine In which words although he erre against truth in saying that the Divine Revelation on which Faith must rest must be made in scripture seing Gods word or Revelation is the same whether it be written or vnwritten yet even in that errour he shewes himself to be against your errour that one may belieue or reject scripture in which alone divine revelation is made according to him aÌ„d so take away scriptures or the belief of them all Revelations and Faith must be taken away and he declares
that we are obliged to belieue the contents or verityes contained in scripture but one of those is that scripture it self is the word of God and inspired by Him therfor we are obliged to belieue scripture to be the word of God The minor is proved out of S. Paul 2. Timoth 3.16 All scripture divinely inspired is profitable to teach c. that the man of God may be perfect instructed to every good worke Which words Protestants and yourself in part alledg to proue that scripture is a perfect and totall Rule of Faith And if it be a perfect Rule certainly it must be a Rule therfor that scripture is a Rule of Faith is a truth contayned in scripture and consequently a materiall Object of our Faith Or if you will needs say that we do not belieue as an Object of Faith scripture to be a totall Rule of faith you overthrow the cause of Protestants and yourself by confessing it cannot be proved out of scripture that scripture is such a totall Rule which is the thing I haue mainly vrged against you in my last Chapter and if this cannot be done why do you goe about to doe it by alledging texts of scripture for that purpose Or out of what ground can you possibly pretend to proue that scripture alone is the Rule of Faith if you graÌ„t it cannot be proved out of scripture on which you profess all matters of Faith to be grounded Yourself P. 143. N. 30. note it is saied in scripture All scripture is divinely inspired Shew but as much for the Church shew where it is written that all the decrâ—es of the Church are divinely inspired and the controversy will bâ—at an end that is you will belieue as a matter of Faith that the decrees of the Church are infallible seing then scripture saith that itself is divinely inspired you must belieue as a matter of faith that it is infallible or the word of God The like argument I take from the doctrine of Protestants and their endeavour to proue out of scripture that it is a Rule evident for all necessary Points for which they are wont to alledg the words of the Psalme 18. V. 9. The precept of our Lord lightsome illuminating the eyes and Psalm 118. V. 105. Thy word is a lampe to my feete and 2. Pet 1. V. 19. which you doe well attending vnto as to a candel shining in a darke place Therfor according to them this Proposition scripture is an evident Rule for all necessary Points is a truth contayned in scripture and a materiall Object of Faith vnless they will grant what we vrge against them that it cannot be proved out of scripture that it is an evident Rule for such Poynts Besides Pag 143. N. 30. you bring the said words of S. Paul All scripture is divinely inspired expresly and immediately to proue that the Apostles were infallible in their writings Therfor it is a truth contayned in scripture and consequently by your owne confession a materiall Object of Faith Morover we read 2. Pet. 1.20.21 vnderstanding this first that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation For not by mans will was prophesy brought at any tyme but the Holy men of God spake inspired with the holy Ghost Therfor we are obliged to belieue as a truth contayned in scripture that the writers therof spoke and wrote inspired by God And what is oftner repeated in the Prophets then the word of our Lord was made to me or the like Therfor one truth contained in scripture is that they wrote by divine inspiration Doth not S. John begin his Apocalyps with these words The Apocalyps of Jesus Christ which God gaue him c blessed is he that readeth and heareth the words of this prophecy Which words declare that he wrote a Prophecy which God gaue him or inspired into his mynd and so it is contained in scripture and a materiall Object of our Faith and his Apocalyps is the word of God Which Truth being declared by S. John men are bound to belieue it as a matter of Faith though they were supposed to know all the contents of the Apocalyps by other meanes for example by immediate Revelation or Inspiration as S. John himself came to know them vnless you will say that men may reject what an Apostle hath set downe in writing Doth not S. Peter also 2. Epist Cap. 3.15.16 teach that S. Paul wrote his Epistles by wisdom and inspiration from God Therfor it is a materiall object of Faith that S. Paules Epistles are the word of God even although one were not bound to know the particular contents of them or had knowne them by some other meanes Therfor your Doctrine that it is sufficient for Salvation to believe the conteÌ„ts of scripture though we deny scripture itself is clearly against scripture and repugnant to a truth contayned therin 24. Ninthly and lastly in stead of an argument I may express a just admiration how such a Doctrine as this could appeare in a Book printed in England and approved as agreeable to the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England Fulke a chief man amongst English Protestants saith plainly in his Confutation of Purgatory Pag. 214. Whosoever denyeth the Authority of the Holy Scriptures therby be wrayeth himself to be an heretike And hitherto all English and other Protestants haue pretended to oppose themselves against the Swenckfeldians who rejected all the Scripture as you say one may doe and yet be saved And certainly if men be not obliged to belieue Scripture as a matter of Faith it imports nothing whether they accept or reject it if also they do not belieue it to be the word of God what certaine credit can they giue to it and if Christians did not belieue it to be such they would account it very great foolishnesse to belieue Mysteryes which seeme repugnant to all Philosophy and naturall Reason and depriue men of those things to which nature is most inclined vpon any Testimony or Authority less then Divine And this your Doctrine is less tolerable because you are not able to bring in favour therof any one argument deserving answer 25. You say indeed Pag 116. N. 159. that without knowing or believing scripture one may performe the entire condition of the new Covenant which is that we belieue the matter of the Gospel and not that it is contayned in these or these Bookes 26. But this is a plaine begging the Question to suppose or affirme without proofe that one condition of the new Covenant is not to belieue scripture to be the word of God Yourself Pag 134. N. 13. expressly teach that among the conditions which Christ requires one is that we belieue what he has revealed when it is sufficiently declared to hane beene revealed by him Now that scripture hath bene revealed by God is proved with the many Miracles which the Apostles wrought to confirme that they were messengers of God and Infallible in all matters which they
your flying to such poore signes as these are is to me a great signe that you labour with penury of better Arguments and that thus to catch at shaddowes and bulrushes is a shrewd signe of a sinking cause 59. Answer What greater signe of particular Assistance and as it were a Determination to Truth from some higher cause than consent and constancy of many therin while we see others change alter and contradict one another and even the same man become contrary to himself who yet in all other humane respects haue the same occasion ability and reason of such consent and constancy Tertullian Praescript Chap 28. saith truly Among many events there is not one issue the errour of the churches must needs haue varied But that which among many is found to be one is not mistaken but delivered And the experience we haue of the many great and endless differences of Protestants about the canon of scripture and interpretation therof is a very great argument that the church which never alters nor disagrees from herself is guided by a superiour infallible Divine Spirit as Christians among other inducements to belieue that scripture is the word of God alledg the perfect coherence of one part therof with another 60. Before I passe to your next Errour I must aske a Question about what you deliver Pag 141. N. 28. where speaking of some Bookes of scripture you say Seeing after the Apostles the Church pretends to no new Revelations how can it be an Article of Faith to believe them Canoncall And Pag 142. N. 29. If they some certaine bookes of scripture were approved by the Apostles this I hope was a sufficient definition How I say you who hold that Scripture is not a Point of Faith nor revealed by God can say that to propose bookes of scripture though they had bene proposed before is to propose new Revelations or Definitions of the Apostles But as I sayd hertofore it is no newes for you to vtter contradictions 61. A seventh Errour plainly destructiue both of scripture and all Christianity is taken out of your Doctrine of which I haue spoken hertofore that the Bible was proved to be Divine by those Miracles which were wrought by our Saviour Christ and his Apostles and yet that God may permit true Miracles to be wrought to delude men Which Assertions put togeather may giue occasion to doubt whether those Miracles wherby the Scriptute was confirmed were not to delude men and so we can haue no certainty that Scripture is the word of God 62. To this I will add a Doctrine of yours delivered Pag 69. N. 47. which overthrowes all proof that can be takeÌ„ from Miracles for confirmation either that scripture is the word of God or that other articles of Christian Faith are true Thus you write For my part I profess if the Doctrine of the scripture were not as good and as sit to come from the fountaine of goodness as the Miracles by which it was confirmed were great I should want one maine pillar for my Faith and for want of it I feare should be much staggered in it Doth not this assertion declare that true Miracles are in sufficient of themselves to convince that a thing confirmed by them is true or good vnless men do also interpose their owne judgment that the things in themselves are such which is not to belieue the Miracles or God speaking and testifying by them but to subject the Testimony of God to the judgment of men wheras contrarily we ought to judge such things to be good because they are so testifyed and not belieue that Testimony to be true because in our judgment independently of that Testimony the things are good in themselves which were to vary our belief of Gods Testimony according as we may chance to alter our judgment at different tymes and vpon divers reasons which may present themselves to our vnderstaÌ„ding Do not you in divers places pretend that this reason is aboue all other God sayes so therfor it is true and further do you not say Pag. 144. N. 31. If you be so infallible as the Apostles were shew it as the Apostles did They went forth sayes S. Mark and preached every where the Lord working with them and confirming their words with signes following It is impossible that God should ly and that the Eternall Truth should set his hand and seale to the confirmation of a falshood or of such Doctrine as is partly true and partly false The Apostles Doctrine was thus confirmed therfor it was intirely true and in no part either false or vncertaine If the testimony of God be with you aboue all reason and that by signes or Miracles the Eternall Truth sets his hand and seale to the confirmation of what is so confirmed how comes it that your Faith could be staggered notwithstanding the working of such Miracles if in your judgment the doctrine of the scripture were not as good as the Miracles by which it was confirmed were great Or what could it availe vs to proue our doctrine by Miracles as the Apostles did if the belief of those Points so proved must stand to the mercy of your judgment which as I saied may vary vpon divers occasions and yet this diversity of judgment you must according to this your doctrine follow even against any point though confirmed by Miracle It is therfor cleare That in your Principles you can haue no certainty of the truth of scripture nor of the contents threrof although it were supposed that it alone did expressly and inparticular containe all Points necessary to be believed 63. Your 8. Errour consists in this that beside what I haue sayd already in your second and third Errour that you impeach the certainty of scripture by taking away vniversall infallibility from the Apostles who wrote it and for whose Authority we belieue it I find you do the same in other places You say P. 144. N. 30. The infallibility of the Church depends vpon the infallibility of the Apostles and besides this dependance is voluntary for it is in the power of the Church to deviate from this Rule being nothing else but an aggregation of men of which every one has free will and is subject to passions and errour Change the tearmes and say The infallibility of the Apostles depended â—pon the infallibility of our Saviour and this dependance was voluntary for it was in the power of the Apostles to deviate from this Rule being nothing but a number of men of whom every one has freewill and is subject to passion and errour and that we way be sure of this last in the very next N. 31. you teach That the Apostles themselves even after the sending of the Holy Ghost were and through inadvertence or prejudice aÌ„d P. 137. N. 21. to tinadvertence or prejudice you add or some other cause which gives scope enough to censure the Apostles continued for a tyme in an errour repugnant to a revealed truth notwitstanding
Scripture or what Books be CaÌ„onicall is not one of those principles which God hath written in mens harts nor a conclusion evidently arising from them nor is contained in Scripture in express termes or deducible from it by apparent consequence it being your owne Assertion Pag 69. N. 46. that it need not to be proved that the Divinity of a writing cannot be knowne from itself alone but by some extrinsecall Authority for no wise man denyes it it followes that according to your Principles it can be knowne only by the constant and Vniversall delivery of all Churches ever since the Apostles Now as you say there is no certainty but that a Doctrine or truth even a Divine truth constantly and vniversally delivered by the Apostolique Churches may through mens wickedness be contracted from its vniversality and interrupted in its perpetuity So also may the Canon or Bookes of Scripture which can haue no other argumeÌ„t to justify and support them beside Tradition run the some hazard by the wickednenss of meÌ„ and so come to loose vniversality aÌ„d perpetuity aÌ„d so cannot justify aÌ„d support any Divine truth And as true Books may come to loose so false ones may by the wickedness of meÌ„ come to gaine authority vnless we be assured of the contrary by the belief of an infallible Guide which can never admit of Apocryphall of false Scripture 89. 11. I goe forward to impugne your Tradition out of your owne words Pag 14. N. 14. were you say Though you say that Christ hath promised there shall be a perpetuall visible Church Yet you yourselves doe not pretend that he hath promised there shall be Historyes and Records alwayes extant of the professours of it in all ages nor that he hath any where enjoyned vs to read those Histories that we may be able to shew them Out of these words I argue thus It is not sufficient for your vniversall Tradition of all Ages that the whole Church of this age for example accept a Booke for Canonicall vnless it can be proved to haue bene receyved by all Churches of all ages as Pag 152. N. 44. You openly profess to dissent from S. Austine in this that whatsoever was practised or â—eld by the vniversall Church of his tyme must needs haue come from the Apostles and therfor it is necessary for you to affirme that there alwayes must be Historyes and records which one Age is to receyve from another to proue that Scripture was delivered for the word of God by the Apostles But You do not pretend that God hath promised that there shall be Historyes or Records alwayes extant nor that he hath any where enjoyned vs to reade these Historyes that we may be able to shew them and by them know the true Books of Scripture Therfor you must grant out of your owne assertion that you haue no sufficient meanes to know and rely vpon your Tradition especially if we consider that vnlearned men cannot possibly know whether there be such sufficient ground and Historyes as are necessary to make it Vniversall and yet all sorts of people must haue necessary and sufficient meanes for the knowledg of all things necessary to salvation which meanes Protestants affirme to be the Scripture alone But with vs the case is farr different who belieue a Perpetuall Visible Church For we believing that Church to be Infallible in one age as well as in another are not obliged to seeke after historyes or Records of tymes past as you are for your humane fallible Tradition in regard the Church being alwayes existent and Visible is perpetually indued whith such Notes Prerogatives and Evident Signes as make her manifest in every age and worthy of credit in matters belonging to Religion and among other Points for this in particular that herself must alwayes be Visible as shall be declared herafter more at large though it be also true that it may be evidently shewed for every age by all kind of Witnesses as well friends as Adversaryes that our Church hath alwayes had a visible Being and Prosessours of her Doctrine with a perpetuall Succession of Pastours and this so manifestly that it can no more be denyed than that there haue bene Christians ever since the tyme of the Apostles yea or that there have bene Emperours Kings Writers Warrs or such publike things as no man can deny But you who ground your belief of Scripture and all Chaistianity vpon a fallible Tradition knowne by Humane Historyes and Records of all ages and every one of your sect must either despayre of salvation or els procure to be learned and versed in all Historyes though yet even this will not preserue them from cause of despaire considering how insufficient humane Tradition is of itself as I haue proved out of your owne words and to the rest I will add your saying Pag 361. N. 40. The Fathers did vrge the joynt Trad 〈…〉 all the Apostelique Churcher with one mouth and one voyce teaching the same Doctrine not at a demonstration but only as a very probable Argument If this be so seing your vniversall Tradition can I hope be no better than the joynt Tradition of all the Apostolique Churches surely you can Vrge it only for a very probable and no demonstratiue Argument especially if we reflect that you profess the whole vniversall Church before Luthers tyme to haue fallen into many great and gross errours even concerning the Canon of Scripture and consequently that the first vniversall Tradition from the Apostles came to be altered and corrupted and that your forsayd very probable Argument de facto hath fayled if your Heresy were true that the whole Church hath fallen into errour 90. 12. Pag 149. N. 38. You say I must learne of the Church or of some part of the Church or I cannot know any thing Fundamentall or not Fundamentall For how can I come to know that there was such a Man as Christ that he taught such Doctrines that he and his Apostles did such Miracles in confirmation of it that the Scripture is Gods Word vnless I be taught it So then the church is though not a certaine foundation and proof of my Faith yet a necessary introduction to it I confess I haue studyed to find what sense you can haue in these words and can find nothing but contradictions and finally that your owne Tradition cannot be a sufficient ground for our belief of Scripture You say I must learne of the Church or of some part of the Church or I cannot know any thing Fundamentall or not Fundamentall And in particular That Scripture is the Word of God I askeâ— what you meane by the Church or some part of the Church Is your meaning that the Tradition of some part of the Church is sufficient to believe Scripture to be the Word of God Against this you profess every where that the Scripture is to be receyved only vpon vniversall Tradition of all Churches and Times from the Apostles At least will you
his defence of Hooker teachers the same Doctrine and neither you nor any Protestant in the world can haue any ground to thinke that it is possible to convince them of fal shood in this matter and therfor this vncertainty which you impute to vs falls heavy vpon yourself and other Protestants if indeed they administer Sacraments without such an intention as all Catholikes aÌ„d some chief ProtestaÌ„ts belieue to be necessary 33. Now as for the Doctrine itself of Catholikes about the necessity of Intention it is so reasonable and cleare that it is strang any can call it in Question For I beseech you if a madman or a foole ar a drunken man or an infant or one in his sleepe should chance to cast water vpon one and pronounce the Forme should such an one be baptized or if he were baptized already were such an action of such persons a rebaptizatioÌ„ If one with purpose only to learne the manner of baptizing did practise the pronouncing the words and applying the Matter should that be true Baptisme If one by chance reading or disputing or for some other end should pronounce the words of Consecration out of Scripture and that without his knowlege there should chance to be bread aÌ„d wine with in a morall distaÌ„ce should he consecrate the Eucharist Or are men obliged never to pronounce those words in such occasions as I specifyed least they consecrate whether they will or noâ— Are not these foolish absurdityes If you say and it is all that can be imagined you can say that at least he who pronounces the words must exercise a deliberate humane morall free Action which madmen infants c. nor even men in their wits cannot exercise when they are ignorant of the morall presence of the matter that is to be consecrated but that it is not necessary besides the substance of a morall Action to intend also to administer a Sacrament I answer first This answer evacuates the ground of Heretiks who say That intention is not necessary because the words receive force only from the Will and Institution of God and therfor must not depend vpon the morality of that Action which morality depends vpon the intention of him that pronounces the words to wit that he intend to doe it seriously aÌ„d not in jeast or by way only of pronouncing the materiall words without their signification and so the salvation of soules must depend vpon a secret intention of which we cannot be sure as men exercise many indeliberate actions without any virtuall or actuall inteÌ„tion If for the validity of a Sacrament it be sufficient to exercise a deliberate action without any further reference or Intention one could not without a deadly sin wash an infant already baptized and for devotion say I wash the in the name of the Father c as meÌ„ are woÌ„t to say I doe this in Gods name because according to this answer it would be repabtization 2. I answer if one be supposed to intend the performance of the Sacramentall action for the substance no reason can be imagined why he should not inteÌ„d to doe as others do in such an action for example if the child be brought to be Christened and the Minister deliberately apply water and pronounce the Forme ether can be no cause which can moue him at least not to intend that which there are wont to do in the like case and to thinke the contrary may easily or almost possibly happen argues only in you an excessiue desire to impugne by whatsoever arguments our Catholique Doctrine 34. And here I must of necessity make a diversion rather than a digression and answer some Points to which you referr yourself in this Pag 94. N. 109. in these words All which things as I haue formally proved deâ—end vpon so many vnâ—ertaine suppositions that no human judgment can possibly be resolved in them For although what you pretend to haue bene formally proved hath bene in effect answered already yet I thought sit to examine every point in particular that so the Foundation of your assertions in this place being overthrowne all the superstructions which you and other Protestants are wont to make may evidently appeare false and ruinous and so fall to the ground 35. Cha Ma Part. 1. Chap 2. N. 16. having shewed out of Brierly Tract 1. Sect 10. subd 4. joyned with Tract 2. Chap 2. Sect 10. Subd 2. That the Translations of Scripture made by Luther Zwinglius Oecolampadius and the Divines of Basill Castâ—lio Calvin Beza and Geneva Bibles as also the English Translation are mutually condemned by Protestants themselves respectiue as corrupting the Word of God and the Authors as Antichrists and deceivers Wicked and altogeather differing from the mynd of the Holy Ghost sacrilegious Ethnicall making the Text of the Gospell to leap vp and downe vsing violence to the letter of the Gospell adding to the Text changing the Text deserving either to be purged from those manifold errours which are both in the Text and in the margent or els vtterly to be prohibited in the Translation of the Psalmes in addition substraction and alteration differing from the Truth of the Hebrew in two hundred places at the least and such as is doubtfull whether a man with a safe conscience may subscribe therto depraving the sense obscuring the truth deceiving the ignorant in many places detorting the Scripture from the right sense and that the Translators shew themselves to loue darkness more than light falshood more than truth taking away from the Text adding to the Text to the changing or obscuring of the meaning of the Holy Ghost c. This I say Charity Maintayned having shewed adds these words Let Protestants consider duly these Points Salvation cannot be hoped for without the true Faith Faith according to them relyes vpon Scripture alone Scripture must be delivered to most of them by Translations Translations depend on the skill and honesty of men in whom nothing is more certaine then a most certaine possibility to erre and no greater evidency of truth than that it is evident some of theÌ„ embrace falshood by reason of their contrary Translations What then remayneth but that truth Faith Salvation and all must in them rely vpon a fallible and vncertaine 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 therfor if they will be assured of true Scriptures fly to the alwayes visible Church against which the gates of Hell can never so farr prevaile as that she shall be permitted to deceyue the Christian world with false Scriptures 87. Against these words Pag 76. N. 63. you speak in this manner This Objection though it may seeme to do you great service for the present yet I feare you will repent the tyme that ever you vrged it against vs as a fault that we make mens salvation depend vpon
attaine Faith by the mere consideration of Gods creatures or by the Law written in our harts or by immediate extraordinary lights but by the Ministery of the Church and therfor Ephes 4.11.12 Pastours and Doctours are sayd to be given to the consummation of the Saints vnto the worke of the Ministerie vnto the edifying of the Body of Christ Which declares that men cannot be made members of the Body of Christ but by the Ministery of Pastours and Doctours And even those Protestants who rely vpon the private Spirit for knowing true Scripture will grant that the Spirit is not given but when the Churches Ministery precedes as an Introduction or as Potter Pag 139. speakes the present Church workes vpon all whithin the Church to prepare induce and perswade the mynd as an outward meanes to imbrace the Faith to reade and belieue the Scriptures 71. It remaymes then that not Scripture but the Church which was before Scripture and from which we receaue it must be the necessary meanes in the ordinary course which God hath appointed to produce Faith and decide Controversyes in Religion and consequently must be infallible according to your owne Doctrine Pag 35. N. 7. that the meanes to decide Controversyes in Faith and Religion must be indued with an vniversall infallibility in whatsoever it propoundeth for a divine truth For if it may be false in any one thing of this nature in any thing which God requires men to belieue we can yield vnto it but a wavering and fearfull assent in any thing 72. 5. I vrge the Argument of Charity Maintayned Part 1. Chap 2. N. 23. Pag 69. If Protestants will haue Scripture alone for their Judge or Rule let them first produce some Text of Scripture affirming that by the entring therof infallibility went out of the Church 73. To this you answer Pag 104. N. 138. In these words As no Scripture affirmeth that by the entring of it infallibility went out of the Church so neither do we neither haue we any need to do so But we say that it continued in the Church even togeather with the Scriptures so long as Christ and his Apostles were living and then departed God in his Providence having provided a plaine and infallilde Rule to supply the defect of Living and infallible Guides Gertainly if your cause were good so great a wit as yours is would devise better Arguments to maintaine it We can shew no Scripture afsirming infallibility to haue gone out of the Church therfore it is infallible Some what like to his discourse that said it could not be proved out of Scripture that the King of Sweden was dead therfore he is still Living Me thinks in all reason you that chaleng privileges and exemption from the condition of men which is to be subject to errour you that by vertue of this privilege vsurpe Authority over mens consciences should produce your Letter-patents from the King of Heaven and shew some express warrant for this Authority you take vpon you otherwese you know the Rule is vbi contrarium non manifestè probatur presumitur pro libertate 74. This Answer is easily confuted First I must returne it vpon yourself with thankes for your voluntary express grant That no Scripture afsirmes that by entring of it infallibility went out of the Church Remember your owne saying that there are only two Principles common to Christians Reason and Scripture Seing then it is evident that meere naturall Reason cannot determine any thing in this matter and that you grant it cannot be proved by Scripture that infallibility went out of the Church by the entring of Scripture what remaines but that you haue no proofe at all for it And since that you directly grant infallibility to haue continued for some tyme in the Church even togeather with the Scriptures and that neither by reason nor Scripture you can proue that it ever departed from Her we must of necessity conclude that she still enjoyes that priviledge most necessary for deciding controversyes belonging to infallible Christian faith You say God hath provided a plaine and infallible Rule to supply the defect of living and infallible Guides But we haue proved the contrary That Scripture is not plaine in all Points belonging to Faith and though it were so yet yourself confess in this place that infallibility in the Church may stand with the sufficiency and plaines of Scripture and therfore you cannot inferr scripture is sufficient therfore the Church is not infallible You teach Pag 101. N. 126. That though all the necessary parts of the Gospell be contained in every one of the foure Gospells yet 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 sayd divers tymes and be teslifyed by divers witnesses Therfore the Testimony of the Church if she were supposed to be infallible might be profitable although Scripture were cleare and sufficient Protestants pretend that we can proue matters belonging to Faith only by Scripture Wherfore you must either proue by some plaine Text of Scripture that infallibility dyed as I may say with the Apostles or never affirme herafter any such groundless voluntary and pernicious Proposition From Scripture we learne that with out repentance are the gifts of God Rom 11.29 And it is an Axiome of naturall Reason Melior est conditio possidentis God once bestowed vpon the Church the gift of infallibility and therfore without some evident positiue proofe you are not to depriue her of it And we are not obliged to produce any other Argument except to plead Possession which you cannot take from vs without some evident proofe to the contrary And you being the Actor and we the Defendents not wee but you must prove and performe what you exact of vs to shew some express warrant c though it be also most true that we haue great plenty of convincing proofes for the infallibility of Gods Church 75. As for your Instance about the King of Sweden I belieue you will loose your jeast whē I shall haue asked whether this were not a good Argument we can know by Scripture alone whether the King of Sweden be aliue or dead but we know by Scripture he was once Living and know not by any Scripture that he is dead Therfore for ought we know he is aliue and so your example returnes vpon yourself that seing you know by Scripture infallibility to haue bene once in the Church and that by no Scripture which with you must be the only proofe in this case you know that it ever departed from Her you must belieue that still she enjoyes it As for vs we challeng no Priviledges but such as were granted by our Saviour to his Church and which we proue by the same Arguments wherby the Apostles and their Successors proue their Authority as shall be shewed herafter and the Rule Ubi contrarium manifestè non probatur praesumitur pro libertate
in regard that these may chance not to be so cleare as of themselves alone to convince 2. He teaches That the objects of Her certainty are not Questions vnnecessary but such as belong to the substance of Faith publike Doctrine and things necessary to salvation and we haue heard him say ad fundamentum Fidei pertinere quidquid Ecclesia tenet sive in Doctrina sive in cultu That whatsoever the Church holds either in Doctrine or in worship belongs to the fundation of Faith and that all things defined by the Church are as if they were primary principles of Faith and so according to him all things defined by the Church belong to the substance of Faith and are necessary to salvation 98. But here is not an end of Potters taxing Dr. Stapleton without ground and against truth For Pag 161. he saith Stapleton hath a new pretty devise that the Church though she be fallible and discursiue in the Meanes is yet Propheticall and depends vpon immediate Revelation and so infallible in delivering the Conclusion And Pag 169. he saith Bellarmin leaves his companion Stapleton to walke alone in this dangerous path and avoweh to the contrary De Concil Lib 1 Chap § Dicuntur igitur that Councells neither haue nor write immediate Revelations But Mr. Doctour to speake truth Bellarmin leaves Stapleton just as you leaue your art of citing Authors against their meaning Bellarmin teaches That Councells neither haue nor write immediate Revelations And does not Stapleton purposely teach and carefully proue the same And does he not doe it even in the first and Third Notabili which immediatly precede that fourth Notabile out of which you pretend to draw that which you call a new pretty devise How then can you say that Stapleton teaches that the Church is Propheticall and depends vpon immediate Reuelation in delivering the Conclusion seing he teaches expressly the contrary Nay doth he not in that very fourth Notabili which you cite expressly say Ecclesiae Doctrina non est simpliciter Prophetica aut ex Revelationibus immediatis dependens The doctrine of the Church is not simply Propheticall or depending vpon immediate Revelations Who would haue believed that in matters of so great consequence you could vse so litle sincerity Dr. Stapleton teaches the same and proves very learnedly Princip Doctrin Contr 4. Lib 8. C. 15. Which very Chapter you also cite and yet make no conscience to tell vs that Bellarmin in this leaues Stapleton But how then doth Stapleton say the Doctrine of the Church is discursiue in the Meanes but is Propheticall and divine in the Conclusion Answer We haue shewed that Stapleton sayes expressly in the same place That the Doctrine of the Church is not Propheticall And besides he explicates the word Prophetica by the word Divina which you leaue out and sayth it is divina propter ea quae in tertio quarto Argumentis produximus for the causes which we alledged in the Third and Fourth Arguments In which Arguments he proved that the Church is infallible and cannot erre because she is guided and taught by an infallible maister the Holy Ghost as the Prophets were and in this agrees with Prophets though as I sayd out of Stapletons express words with this difference that the Prophets had immediate Revelations which the Church pretends not to haue but is infallibly directed by the Holy Ghost to imbrace and declare former revelations made to the Apostles vppon which assistance the certainty and infallibility of her definitions rely and not vpon discourses or inducements 99. Potters falsification will appeare more by these words of Stapleton The Doctrine of the Church is discursiue in the meanes but is propheticall and Divine in the Conclusion which Potter cites thus the the Church though she be fallible and discursiue in the Meanes is yet Propheticall and depends vpon immediate Revelation and so infallible in delivering the conclusion What a mixture is here of Potters words with the words of Stapleton Which say not that the Church depends vpon immediate Revelation but the direct contrary as we haue sayd and his Parenthesis and so infallible is also a falsificarion as if Stapleton had grounded the infallibility of the conclusion vpon immediate revelation wheras he groundes it vpon an other principle as we haue seene This being supposed that Stapleton teaches the Church to haue no immediate Revelations and the certainty of her Definitions to depend on the assistance of the Holy Ghost not vpon humane disceâ—â—se and inducements or Premises the Doctour had no Reason to say that Stapletons doctrine is a fansie repugnant to Reason and to itself He Objects pag 168. A conclusion followes the disposition of the Meanes and results from them But this is not to the purpose seing the Definitions of the Church are called by Stapleton Conclusions only because they are that which the Church determines and concludes not because they are formall Conclusions essentially as such depending on Premises Neither doth it follow that there can be no vse of diligence and discourse if the Church be infallible in the sense I haue declared Thus the Apostles in their Councell Act. 15. did vse diligence and as the Scripture saith there was made a great disputation and they alledged the working of Miracles aÌ„d other Arguments of Credibility and yet no Christian will deny but that the Apostles were infallible So the Church must on her behalfe vse diligence and discourse that all things on her parte may be done more sweetly in order to the perswading of others but the absolute certainty of her definitions and conclusions must rely vpon those words which the Apostles vsed Visum est Spiritui Sancto nobis It hath seemed good to the holy Ghost and vs. Neither likwise doth it follow that the Canons of Councells are of equall authority with holy Scriptures in which every reason discourse Text and word are infallible which we need not say of Councells though they be certaine and infallible for the substance of their definition Wherof more may be seene in Catholique Writers and particularly in Bellarmine whom even Potter doth cite de Concill Lib 2. Chap 12. and yet as if he had seene no such matter in Bellarmine inferrs against Stapleton who fully agrees with Bellarmine that if the canons of Councells be divinely inspired they must be of equall Authority with the Holy Scriptures 100. Many other Arguments might be brought to proue the necessity of an infallible Living Guide and Ecclesiasticall Traditions from Scriptures Fathers Theologicall Reasons which I omitt referring the Reader to Charity Maintayned Part. 1. Chap 2. and 3. and in this whole Worke I haue vpon many occasions proved the same For this point is so transcâ—â—dent and necessary that we must meete with it almost in all Controversyes concerning Faith and Religion This I must not omitt that I having answered and confuted all the Objections which you could make against the Arguments and Reasons alledged by Charity
most Fundamentall of all Articles in the Church that Iesus Christ the Son of God and the Son of Mary is the only Saviour of the world Surely one of you must be in such a most important and most Fundamentall errour that you cannot both be saved though you were inculpably ignorant of it as we haue seene out of Potter Pag 243. even concerning this particular Article And now I pray you consider this agreement of Protestants in the foresayd Articles of Repentance and Faith in Christ Iesus the Son of God and Saviour of the world which yet you confess to be simply necessary 24. Object 3. In the same Pag 159. N. 52. You say Suppose a man in some disease were prescribed a medicine consisting of twenty ingredients and he advising with Physitians should find them differing in opinion about it some of them telling hem that all the ingredients were absolutly necessary some that only some of them were necessary the rest only profitable and requisite ad melius esse lastly some that some only were necessary some profitable and the rest superfluous yet not hurtfull yet all with one accord agreeing in this that the whole receypt hid in it all things necessary for the recovery of his health and that if he made vse of it he should infallibly find it successfull what wise man would not thinke they agreed sufficiently for his direction to the recovery of his health I ust so these Protestant Doctours with whose discords you make such Tragedyes agreeing in Thesâ— thus far that the Scripture evidently containes all things necessary to salvation and that whosoever believes it and endeavours to find the true sense of it and to conforme his life vnto it shall certainly performe all things necessary to salvation and vndoubtedly be saved what matters it for the divection of men to salvation though they differ in opinion touching what Points are absolutly necessary and what not 25. Answer You Socinians who adore naturall reason and take pleasure in being esteemed considering men are much delighted in proposing similitudes which make a faire shew and may seduce the ignorant but being examined proue nothing against any except yoursel ves First This similitude can proue nothing vnless you begg the Question and suppose one receypt to haue in it all things necessary for the recovery of the diseased mans health that is Scripture to containe all Points necessary to salvation which you know we deny and say you erre in Thesi If with Scripture you would joyne the Tradition and Definitions of the Church your suppositions were true and your parity good Otherwise your receypt cannot haue all necessary ingredients 26. Secondly Suppose the sick man had great reason to belieue that the ground vpon which the Physitians build their opinion and agreement were not good nor such as he had any obligation at all to credit what sick man if he were also wise could judg their agreement to be sufficient for an vndoubted direction to the recovery of his health Heere then as in other severall occasions I must put you in mynd of your doctrine that we are not bound to belieue as an Object of our Faith Scripture to be the word of God but that we may reject it What then availes it me towards the belief of such or such Points that they are evident in Scripture if I do not belieue Scripture itself 27. Thirdly Suppose the ingredients were very soveraine and sufficient in themselves but that it were not in the sick mans power to procure them were the speculatiue agreement of the Physitians sufficient for his recovery So here It is impossible for most men to know all evideÌ„t texts of scripture which yet according to your grounds must make vp that number of Truths wherin one shall be sure to find all Fundamentall Points and so the agreement of Protestants that all necessary Truths are evidently contayned in Scripture is to little purpose since they cannot distinguish them from Points not necessary and for all men to know all Points evident in Scripture but not necessary is impossible and though it were possible yet being not of obligation for any man even though he be learned to know all such Texts defacto he might without sinne be ignorant of necessary Points which he can be certaine to know only by knowing absolutly all cleare places of Scripture and so be damned for want of believing some Point absolutly necessary necessitate medij which is a plaine contradiction that some Points should be necessary to salvation and yet that we are not bound to attaine the knowledg of them or that the End which is the knowledg of such Points should be necessary and the only meanes to attaine it be either impossible or at least not of obligation to any as certainly no man is obliged to know precisely all and every particular evident Text of Scripture which â—et in your way is the only meanes to know all Fundamentall Points as in your example if a sick man were obliged to procure the recovery of his health he must be obliged to make vse of that receypt which alone could be effectuall in order to that end 28. Fourthly Suppose I could not take such a receypt without danger of drinking poyson togeather with the wholsome ingredients your similitude which goes vpon the contrary supposition doth clearely proue nothing Thus it passes in our case Men left to themselves without the Direction and Traditions of the Church yea with direct opposition to her Definitions and Authority cannot chuse but by occasion of reading Scripture alone fall into many errours against some Divine Revelation delivered either in Scripture or by Tradition that is in the written or vnwritten word of God as we see by experience of old and new Heretikes and particularly by the dissensions of Protestants wherof some must needs contradict some Truth delivered in Gods Word either by detracting from or by adding to the true sense therof Now in divets places you affirme that every errour contrary to any revealed Truth is in its owne nature damnable without Repentance and you add Pag 158. N. 52. that for the most part men are betrayed into errours or kâ—â—t in them by their fault or vice or passion And therfore the true Conclusion will be that men presuming to reade and interpret Scripture by their owne wit without dependance on the Church ought to conceaue that they expose themselves to certaine danger of erring against some Divine Truth or Revelation that is to a thing in itself damnable Neither can they hope for any helpe from Sectaryes whom they see infinitly divided among themselves And if they take such men for their Physitians some of them will affirme some ingredients to be necessary or profitable which others will sweare to be ranke poyson and so every Protestant is left to himself and a particular Catalogne of Fundamentalls is necessary for every one All which is strongly confirmed by calling to mynd that even the most learned
is the only thing in question Thus hee 33. To which I answer That the state of the Question being whether both Catholiks and Protestants be capable of salvation in their severall Faiths and Religions and the same reason is of all who differ in any matters of Faith though of themselves they be not Fundamentall and Protestants judging vs to be very vncharitable in saying they cannot be saved seing they hold the Creed and all Fundamentall Points as they conceaue and therfore if they be in errour it is only in Points not Fundamentall Charity Maintayned said that Potter never answered to this Point clearly directly and constantly as he ought to haue done that is he never declared whether different beliefe in Points not Fundamentall doth so destroy the vnity of Faith in persons so disagreeing as that they cannot be sayd to be of one Faith for the substance or of one Church and Religion in such manner as one might absolutly say Catholiks and Protestants are of one Faith and Church and capable of salvation in their severall beliefs and professions of Faith This Potter never did nor in policy durst doe because saith Charity Maintayned Part 1. Pag 3. He was loath to affirme plainly that generally both Catholiks and Protestants may be saved And yet seeing it to be most evident that Protestants cannot pretend to haue 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 vs he thought best to avoid this difficulty by confusion of Language and to fill vp his Booke with Points which make nothing to the purpose Besides if once he grant that difference of belief though it be only in Points not Fundamentall destroy the true Faith Church and Religion he could not pretend that Protestants disagreeing among themselves could be all of one Church or substance of Faith and Religion and capable of salvation What remedy then but that he must contradict himselfe accordingly as he might be pressed by diversity or contrariety of difficultyes and so by vttering contradictions say Nothing at all to the maine question or els speak equally in favour of both Contradictories For what implyes contradiction implyes only nothing But let vs go forward and add to what we haue already cited out of Chillingworth his other words Pag 21. If any Protestant or Papist be betrayed into or kept in any errour by any sin of his will as it is to be feared many millions are such errour is as the cause of it sinfull and damnable The same doctrine he pretends to deliver through his whole Booke wherby it seemes that both he and Potter hold in words that to belieue any errour against Divine Revelation sufficiently propounded is sinfull and damnable and destroyes the fundation of Faith being as Chilling saith P. 11. no less than to giue God the ly 34. Nevertheless it is evident that in reality and deeds yea and in express profession they and other Protestants do and must maintayne the contrary vnless they haue a mynd to contradict themselves in Points of heigh concernment for their cause This I proue by these considerations 35. First The World knowes that nothing is more frequent in the mouth of Protestants than that they all hold the same substance of Faith and retaine the essence of a true Church because they agree in Fundamentall Points which they are wont to proue because they belieue the Apostles Creed and the foure first Generall Councells and Potter in particular Pag 216. teaches that the Creed of the Apostles as it was further opened and explained in some parts by occasion of emerfent Heresyes in the other Catholike Creeds of Nice Constantinople Ephepsus Chacedon and Aranesius containes all fundamentall truths and from thence inferrs Pag 232. that Protestants agree in fundamentalls and Pag 241. he saith the Creed is the perfect Summary of those fundamentall truths wherin consists the vnity of Faith and of the Catholique Church But these assertions were very false and impertinent if it be damnable and even Fundamentall against Faith to belieue any errour repugnant to Divine Revelation though in a Point not Fundamentall of itself For what imports it to belieue all the Articles of the Creed if in the meane tyme they deny some other truths revealed by God and sufficiently proposed for such for example innumerable Texts of Scripture containing no matters Fundamentall of themselves As certainly some Protestants must doe seing two contradictoryes cannot be true Or why do they deceaue men in telling them that by believing the Creed they cannot erre Fundamentally seing they hold that there are millions of truths which to deny were a damnable and Fundamentall errour If therfore they will keepe this ground that they haue the same substance of Faith and hope of salvation because they agree in Fundamentall Points they must affirme that disagreement or errour in a Point not Fundamentall doth not destroy the substance of Faith or depriue men of hope to be saved nor is a Fundamentall errour as Potter and Chilling somtyme say it is as we haue seene and Chilling saith in particular Pag 131. N. 9. If Protestants differ in Points Fundamentall then they are not members of the same Church one with another no more than with you he meanes vs Catholikes Wherfore vpon the matter if to deny Points of themselves not Fundamentall sufficiently propounded be a Fundamentall errour de facto Protestants are not members of the same Church one with another according to Chillingworths owne words If it be not a Fundamentall errour the contrary Truth is not necessary and so one may be saved though he deny some revealed Truth sufficiently propounded which is the thing I intended to proue 36. Secondly Learned Protestants are very desirous and even ambitious that the world should belieue them to be of the same Church with the Roman and this meerly vpon necessity and for their owne sake least otherwise they should be necessitated to affirme that before Luther there was no true Church vpon earth but that he and his followers created a new Church out of nothing from which Potter vtterly disclaimes Pag 59. saying Protestants never intended to erect a new Church but to purge the old the Reformation did not change the substance of Religion And Pag 63. The most necessary and Fundamentall truths which constitute a Church are on both sides vnquestioned And for that reason learned Protestants yield them the name and substance of a Christian Church though extremely defiled with horrible errorurs and corruptions And adds that The very Anabaptists grant it But how can they be of the same Church for substance with vs who they say are defided with horrible errours and corruptions if every errour in any Point of Faith though not Fundamentall destroyes the substance o Faith and Church and possibility of salvation If then they will speake with consequence to themselves they must affirme that errours in Points not Fundamentall
do not exclude salvation 37. Thirdly Protestants teach that the Church may erre in Points not Fundamentall and yet remaine a Church but cannot erre in Fundamentalls without destruction of herselfe Now if sinfull errours in Points not Fundamentall be damnable Fundamentall and destructiue of salvation they also destroy the essence of the Church and therfore Protestants must either say that the Church cannot erre in any Point though not Fundamentall as she cannot erre in Fundamentalls or else must affirme that sinfull errours not Fundamentall are not damnable or Fundamentall or destructiue of salvation according to their grounds 38. Fourthly Protestants are wont to say and by this seeke to excuse their Schisme that they left not the Church of Rome but her corruptions and that they departed no farther from her than she departed from herselfe But if every errour against a Divine Truth sufficiently proposed be destructiue of the substance of Faith and hope of salvation the Roman Church which you suppose to be guilty of such errours hath ceased to be a Church and is no corrupted Church but no Church at all nor doth exist with corruptions but by such corruptions hath ceased to exist and so you departed not only from her corruptions but from herselfe or rather she ceasing to haue any being your not communicating with her was totall and not only in part or in her corruptions and if you departed from her as farr as she departed from herselfe seing she departed totally from herselfe you also must be sayd to haue departed totally from her which yet you deny and therfore must affirme that sinfull errours not Fundamentall destroy not the Church nor exclude hope of salvation If therfore Protestants will not destroy their owne assertions v.g. That they left not the Church but her corruptions that they departed no farther from her than she departed from herselfe that they left not the Church but her externall Communion that Protestants agree in substance of Faith because they agree in Fundamentall Points that their Church is the same with the Roman that the Church may erre in Points not Fundamentall but not in Fundamentalls if I say Protestants will overthrow these and other like assertions they must grant that sinfull errours in Points not Fundamentall destroy not the substance of Faith nor exclude salvation and consequently that they left the Church for Points not necessary ād so are guilty of Schisme which you grant to happen of when the cause of separation is not necessary as we haue seene out your owne words Pag 272. N. 53. 39. But yet let vs see whether Protestants do not confesse that sinfull errours not fundamentall are compatible with salvation as we haue proved it to follow out of their deeds and principles You say Pag 307. N. 106. That it is lawfull to separate from any Churches communion for errours not appertaining to the substance of Faith is not vniversally true but with this exception vnless that Church require the beliefe and profession of them And Pag 281. N. 67. We say not that the communion of any Church is to be forsaken for errours vnfundamentall vnless it exact withall either a dissimulatiom of them being noxious or a profession of them against the dictate of conscience if they be meere errours And N. 68. Neither for sin nor errours ought a Church to be forsaken if she does not impose and enjoyne them Therfore say I we must immedintly inferr that errours not Fundamentall do not destroy Faith Church salvation For if they did ipso facto the Church which holds them should cease to be a Churche and so she must necessarily leaue all Churches ād all Churches must leaue her shee loosing her owne being as a dead man leaves all and is left by all And here let me put you in mynd that while Pag 307. N. 106. aboue cited you seeme to disclose some great secret or subtilty in saying that it is not lawfull to separate from any Churches communion for errours not appertaining to the substance of Faith is not vniversally true but with this exception vnless that Church requires the beliefe and profession of them you do but contradict yourselfe For if the Church erre in the substance of Faith or but does not impose the belief of them why are you in your grounds more obliged to forsake her than a Church that erres in not Fundamentalls and does not impose the belief of them Especially if we call to mynd your doctrine that one may erre sinfully against some Article of Faith and yet retaine true belief in order to other Points in which why may you not communicate with such a Church Also Pag 209. N. 38. you say You must giue me leaue to esteeme it a high degree of presumption to enioyne men to beleeue that there are or can be any other Fundamentall Articles of the Gospell of Christ than what himselfe commanded his Apostles to teach all men or any damnable Heresyes but such as are plainly repugnant to these prime Verityes Therfore we must inferr that seing errours in Points not Fundamentall are not repugnant to those prime verityes they cannot in your way be esteemed damnable Heresyes and if not damnable Heresyes they cannot be damnable at all since we suppose their malice to consist only in opposition to Divine Revelation which is a damnable sin of Heresy Potter Pag. 39. saith Among wise men each discord in Religion dissolves not the vnity of Faith And P. 40. Vnity in these matters Secondary Points of Religion is very contingent and variable in the Church now greater now lesser never absolute in all particles of truth From whence we must inferr that errours not Fundamentall exclude not salvation nor can yield sufficient cause to forsake a Church or els that men must still be forsaking all Churches because there is never absolute vnity in all particles of truth Whitaker also Controver 2. Quest 5. Cap. 18. saith If an Heretike must be excluded from salvation that is because he overthroweth some foundation For vnlesse he shake or overthrow some foundation he may be saved According to which Doctrine the greatest part of Scripture may be denyed But for my purpose it is sufficient to observe that so learned a Protestant teaches that errours in Points not Fundamentall exclude not from salvation Morton in his imposture Cap 15. saith Neither do Protestants yeild more safty to any of the Members of the Church of Rome in such a case then they doe to whatsoever Heretiks whose beliefe doth not vndermine the fundamentall Doctrine of Faith Therfore he grants some safety even to Heretiks if they oppose not Fundamentall Articles and yet they must be supposed to be in sinfull errour against some revealed truth otherwise they could not be Heretiks Dr. Lawd Pag 355. teaches That to erre in things not absolutly necessary to salvation is no breach vpon the one saving Faith which is necessary And Pag 360. in things not necessary though they be Divine Truths also men
that the chiefest malice in Heresy consists not in being against such or such a materiall Object or Truth great or little Fundamentall or not Fundamentall but in the opposition it carryeth with the Divine testimony which we suppose to be equally represented in both kinds of Points Fundamentall and not Fundamentall And therfore he must either say that Obedience is to be yielded in both which were most absurd or in neither And that it may be securely yielded in both we must acknowledg a Judge endued with infallibility Neither doth A. C. Set vp private Spirits to controll Generall Councells which Catholiks belieue to be infallible but that absurdity flowes out of the doctrine of Protestants affirming them to be fallible even in Fundamentall Points and consequently private men are neither obliged nor can rely on their Authority in matters of Faith for which Morall Certainty is not strongh enough but may Judge as they find cause out of Scripture or reason and may oppose their Decrees nor can ever obey them against their Conscience And if all Councells be fallible what greater certainty can I receaue from the second than from the first if we meerly respect their Authority For if I be mooved with some new reason or Demonstration I am not mooved for the Authority of the Councell but for that Reason which seemes good to mee And is not this to set vp private men and Spirits to controll Generall Councells 46. Sixthly He saith A Generall Councell cannot easily erre manifestly against Fundamentall Verity From whence I inferr that seing Luther opposed the whole Church and so many Generall Councells held before his tyme he is to be presumed to haue opposed them not for any manifest Fundamentall but at most for Errours not Fundamentall to speake as Protestants do For indeed Councells cannot erre in either kind in which Points not Fundamentall he sayth men are to yield Obedience and therfore He and all those who formerly did and now do follow his example are to be judged guilty of Schisme 47. Seaventhly He saith It may seeme very fit and necessary for the Peace of Christendome that a Generall Councell thus erring should stand in force till evidence of Scripture or a Demonstration make the Errour to appeare as that another Councell of equall Authority reverse it In these words he gives vs Catholikes no small advantage against the Capitall principle of Protestants that Scripture alone containes evidently all necessary Points For if evidence of Scripture or a Demonstration may be so inevident or obscure to a whole lawfull Generall Councell that it may fall into Fundamentall Errours which in the grounds of Protestants are opposite only to some Truth evidently contained in Scripture it is evident that he and other Protestants say nothing when they talke of evidence of Scripture but that indeed every one makes and calls that evident which he desires should be so And how is it possible that a true Generall Councell should be so blind as not to see that which is evident And this indeed is to set vp private Spirits to controll Generall Councells I will not vrge what he meanes by a Demonstration when he distinguisheth it from Evidence of Scripture A Demonstration implyes an vndeniable and as I may say an Evident Evidence and if it be an Evidence distinct from the Evidence of Scripture which according to Protestants containes evidently all necessary Points of Faith it must be evidence of naturall Reason which is common to all men And how can a Generall Councell erre against such a kind of Evidēce But as I sayd Evidēce with Protestāts is a voluntary word which they make vse of to their purpose Besides Scripture is no lesse evidēt in innumerable points not fundamētall than it is in some which are Fundamentall and therfore all who belieue Scripture are obliged to belieue those no less than these vnless men will say that it is not damnable to belieue and professe somthing evidently knowne to be against Scripture and therfore in this there can be no distinction between Fundamētall ād not fundamētall Points ād so a Generall Councell may as easily erre against Fundamentall Articles as against Points not Fundamentall clearly delivered in Scripture in which case it is destructiue of salvation to erre against either of those kinds I haue beene somwhat long in pondering his words because I vnderstand the booke is esteemed by some and I hope it appeares by what I haue now said out of it that we may be saved that a Living judg of controversyes is necessary that Luther and all Protestants are guilty of the sin of Schisme Three as mayne and capitall Points in fauour of vs against Protestants as we can desire and they feare 48. Herafter we will ponder Mr. Chillingworths words for our present purpose who speaking of Generall Councells saith Pag 200. N. 18. I willingly confess the judgment of a Councell though not infallible is yet so farr directiue and obliging that without apparent reason to the contrary it may be sin to reject it at least not to affoard it an outward submission for publike peace-sake As also we will consider Potters words Pag 165. speaking thus We say that such Generall Councells as are lawfully called and proceed orderly are great and awfull representations of the Church Catholique that they are the highest externall Tribunall which the Church hath on Earth that their Authority is immediatly derived and delegated from Christ that no Christian is exempted from their censures and jurisdiction that their decrees bind all persons to externall obedience and may not be questioned but vpon evident reason nor reversed but by an equall authority that if they be carefull and diligent in the vse of all good Meanes for finding out the truth it is very probable that the good spirit will so direct them that they shall not erre at least not Fundamentally 49. But let vs proceed in proving that Protestants hold Points not Fundamentall not to be of any great moment and much less to be destructiue of salvation It is cleare that Protestants differ among them selves in many Points which they pretēd to be only not Fundamētall ād say they do not destroy the ubstāce of Faith nor hinder thē from being Brethren and of the same Church And why because such Points are small matter as Whitaker speakes Cont ◠Quest 4. Cap 3. Things in different and tittles as King James saith in his Monitory Epistle Matters of no great moment as Andrewes Respons ad Apolog Bellarmin Cap 14. No great matters Apology of the Church of England Matters of nothing as Calvin calls them Admonit Vlt Pag 132. Matters not to be much respected if you believe Martyr in locis Classe 4. C. 10. § 65. Formes and phrases of speech as Potter speaks Pag 90. a curious nicity Pag 91. 50. Out of all which we must conclude both out of the words deeds and principles of Protestants First that errours against Points not Fundamentall are not
according to Protestants there can be no damnable Errour against Faith vnless either it be or be esteemed repugnant to some Truth plainly delivered in Scripture which you say is a necessary point the conclusion must be that Protestants differ in necessary Points and therfore according to your owne assertion are obliged to forsake one another without expecting any Imposing a necessity of professing knowne Errours and that this your Memorandum or condition is both impertinent and false or if as I sayd they are not obliged to parte one from another they could not without Schisme depart from vs. 71. Fiftly to come to the Point and strike at the roote Tell me whether you may be seriously present as members of one community and as I may say parts in the Quire with any sort of people in their Liturgy and publike service or worship of God as long as they do not expressly demand of you a profession of those particular Points wherin you disagree If you may then you may joyne yourselfe with Turks Jewes or even Pagans if they exact not of you such a profession which to any Christian must needs appeare most absurd and impious If you cannot communicate with those of a belief different from yours though they do not exact a profession of their Faith against your owne belief and conscience it still followes clearly that your Memorandum of imposing a necessity of professing knowne Errours is impertinent seing you cannot communicate with those of a different Faith though they impose it not vpon you and also that either Protestants cannot communicate one with another since they differ in Faith or els that they could not forsake vs vpon pretence that we impose vpon you a necessity of professing knowne Errours Seing that Condition of imposing c is impertinent Into how many difficultyes and contradictions do you cast yourself by impugning the Truth But enough of this Memorandum or condition 72. Your last Memorandum was That to leaue the Church and to leaue the externall Communion of a Church is not the same thing That being done by ceasing to be a member of it by ceasing to haue those requisites which constitute a man a member of it as Faith and obedience this by refusing to communicate with any Church in her Liturgyes and publike worship of God 73. Answer I wish you had declared yourself better First Pag 271. N. 51. you say We are not to learne the difference between Schisme and Heresy For Heresy we conceiue an obstinate defense of any Errour against any necessary Article of the Christian Faith And Schisme a causelesse separation of one part of the Church from another I haue not tyme to examine what you meane by a necessary Article of the Christian Faith Is not every Article of Christian Faith necessary to be believed vnder paine of damnation if it be sufficiently proposed as revealed by God And is it not Heresy to deny any such Article If it be so then your necessary Article of the Christian Faith implyes no such Mystery as one would haue expected in those so limited words and besides if it be Heresy to deny any Point though in itselfe never so small of Protestants differing in any Point of Faith some must be Heretiks and in state of damnation and they must be obliged to separate from one another as from formall Heretiks If it be not an Heresy nor damnable to deny any Truth sufficiently propounded as revealed by God Errours in Points not Fundamentall are not damnable Neither could you for such Errours divide yourselves from the Communion of all Visible Churches If you will needs say that no Errour is Heresy vnless it contradict some Article of itselfe Fundamentall What in particular is Heresy or who is an Heretik you cānot knowe seing you professe that it cannot be determined in particular what Points be Fundamentall and therfore you must retract your former words we are not to learne the difference between Schisme and Heresy For if you cannot possibly tell what Heresy is you will for ever be to learne the difference between Schisme ād Heresy to say nothing for the present that Potter Pag 212. acknowledges that whatsoeuer is revealed in Scripture or propounded by the Church out of Scripture is in some sense Fundamentall that is such as may not be denyed or contradicted without Infidelity therfore it is Heresy at least to deny Points sufficiently proposed as revealed by God though they be not Fundamentall in themselves And Pag 250. he declares expressly every Errour against any Point revealed to be Heresy in these words Where the revealed will or word of God is sufficiently propounded there he that opposeth is an Heretike and heresy is a worke of the flesh which excludeth from Heaven Gal 5 20.21 therfore if you will not contradict Potter and yourself in severall places you must confess that Heresy may be committed by Errour not Fundamentall in itselfe But to our purpose you say Schisme is a causeless separation of one part of the Church from an other and Pag 264. N. 30. you teach that a causeless separation from the externall Communion of any Church is the sin of Schisme Put these togeather Schisme is a separation of one part of the Church from an other And Schisme is a separation from the externall communion of any Church the Consequence will be this A separation from the externall communion of any part of the Church is a separation from the part itselfe and then proportionally a separation from externall communion of the whole Church or of all Churches must be a separation from the whole Church it selfe or from all Churches and so your distinction that to leaue the Church and to leaue the externall communion of a Church is not the same thing is confuted by your owne doctrine And though it make little to our present purpose whether Schisme be defined A separation of one part of the Church from an other as you speake for as I sayed if a separation from the Externall Communion of one parte be a separation from the parte it selfe a separation from the externall communion of the whole church must be a separation from the whole Church itselfe which is the thing I intended to prove against your Memorandum yet you must giue me leaue to say that your definition overthrowes itselfe For the Nature and Essence of Schisme being to separate one from the Church necessarily it is cause that the party so divided is no more a member or part of that Church nor a part of any Church and so Schisme is not a separation of one part from another but the Church which remaynes after such a sparation made in externall Communion is one whole Church and Totum est cujus nihil est extra and so he who is cut off from the Church as Schismatiks are is no part of it but a non ens or nothing for as much as belongs to the Denomination of being a part of the Church in which
Fundamentalls I cannot in wisdome forsake her in any Point or parte from her Communion If you thinke it impossible not to sorsake her Communion in case she fall into Errours not fundamentall and yet belieue that you must not forsake her which is a plain Contradiction there remaines only this true and solid remedy against such an inextricable perplexity that you belieue her to be infallible in all Points be they Fundamentall or not FundameÌ„tall which is a certaine Truth and followes from the very Principles of Protestants that the Church cannot erre in Fundamentalls if they vnderstand themselves though you be loath to grant this so necessary a Truth Yea my inference that you must belieue the Church to be infallible in all Points even not Fundamentall if you belieue her to be infallible in Fundamentalls is your owne Assertion P. 148. N. 36. Where you expressly grant that vnless the Church were infallible in all things we could not rationally belieue her for her owne sake and vpon her owne word and Authority in any thing For an Authority subject to errour can be no firme or stable foundation of my beliefe in any thing And if it were in any thing then this Authority being one and the same in all proposalls I should haue the same reason to belieue all that I haue to belieue one and therfore must either do vnreasonably in believing any one thing vpon the sole warrant of this Authority or vnreasonably in not believing all things equally warranted 127. You say the Church of Rome was only a Part of the Church vnerring in Fundamentalls before Luther arose But I would know what other Church could be such an vnerring Church except the Roman and such as agreed with her against the Noveltyes which Luther began to preach Certainly there was none such and therfore since Protestants profess that the vniversall Church is infallible we must say it was the Roman togeather with such as were vnited in her Communion This Ground being layd and your maine Objection being retorted against your selfe let vs now examine in particular your other Objections 128. You aske Pag 164. N. 56. Had it not been a damnable sin to â—rofess errours though the errours in themselves were not dâ—mnable Then N. 57. You goe about to proue that it is impossible to adhere to the Roman Church in all things haâ—â—ng no other ground for it but because she is infallible in some things that is in Fundamentalls because in reason no Conclusion can be larger than the Principles on which it is be founded And therfore if I consider what I do and be perswaded that your infallibility is but limited and particular and partiall my adherence vpon this ground cannot possibly be Absolute and vniversall and totall This you confirme with a Dialogue which adds nothing to the reason which now I haue cited in your owne words saue only that it proves at large that which we chiefly desired to be granted That if the Church be believed to be infallible in Fundamentall Articles as Protestants say she is we must belieue her to be infallible in all Points In the end of this Dialogue you say It may be very great imprudence to erre with the Church if the Question be whether we should erre with the present Church or hold true with God Almighty 128. In the N. 60. You say Particular Councells haue bene liberall of their Anathemas which yet were never conceaved infallible And N. 61. For the visible Churches holding it a Point necessary to salvation that we belieue she cannot erre you know no such tenet And N. 62. God in Scripture can better informe vs what are the Limits of the Churches Power then the Church herselfe And N. 63. That some forsaking the Church of Rome haue forsake Fundamentall Truths was not because they forsooke the Church of Rome for els all that haue forsaken that Church should haue done so which we Protestants say they haue not but because they went too far from her It is true say you in the name of Protestants if we sayd there were no danger in being of the Roman Church and there were danger in leaving it it were madness to leaue it But we protest and proclaime the contrary And N. 64. You say It was no errour in the Donatists that they held it possible that the Church from a larger extent might be contracted to a lesser nor that they held it possible to be reduced to Africa But their errour was that they held de factâ— this was done when they had no just ground or reason to do so and so vpon a vaine pretence separated themselves from the Communion of all other parts of the Church And that they required it as a necessary condition to make a man a member of the Church that he should be of their Communion and divide himselfe from all other Communions from which they were divided Which was a condition both vnnecessary and vnlawfull to be required and directly opposite to the Churcheâ— Catholicisme You add morover that Charity Maintayned neither had named those Protestants who held the Church to haue perished for many Ages neither hath proved but only affirmed it to be a Fundamentall errour to hold that the Church militant may possibly be driven out of the world and abolished for a tyme from the face of the earth And N. 65. You say To accuse the Church of some errour in Faith is not to say she lost all Faith but he which is an Heretike in one Article may haue true Faith of other Articles These be your objections which being diverse and of different natures the Reader may not wonder if I be somwhat long in answering them Therefore I 129. Answer In this Question whether it be not wisdome and necessary not to forsake the Church in any one Point if she be supposed infallible in Fundamentall Points we may either speake First of things as they are in themselves or secondly according to the grounds of Protestants or ad hominem or thirdly what we may or ought to inferr vpon some false and impossible supposition as this is that the Church may erre in Points not fundamentall differently from an inference proceeding from a suppofition of a truth or fourthly what may or ought to be chosen at least as minus malum when there intervenes a joynt and inevitable pressure of two or more evills This Advertisment premised 130. I answer to your demand whether it had not been a damnable sin to profess errours though in themselves not damnable that a parte rei and per se loquendo it is damnable to profess any least knowne errour against Faith and for that very cause it is impossible the Church should fall into any errour at all But that I haue proved already that according to the Groundes and words of Protestants it is not damnable to do so if the errour be nor opposite to some Fundamentall Truth and consequently that they ought in all Reason to adhere to the
vpon prudent reasons and extrinsecall considerations which not to be wanting in our case appeares by reflecting That for the points controverted we haue the judgment and Authority of the Churches existent when Luther appeared that is of the vniversall Catholique Church if God had any Church on Earth as you grant he alwayes had And even yourselfe speaking of Councells say Pag 200. N. 18. I willingly confess the judgment of a Councell though not infallible is yet so farr directiue and obliging that without apparent reason to the contrary it may be sin to reject it at least not to affoard it an outward submission for publike peace-sake Potter also Pag 165. Speaks fully in these words We say that such Generall Councells as are lawfully called and proceed orderly are great and awfull representations of the Church Catholique that they are the highest externall Tribunall which the Church hath on earth that their Authority is immediatly derived and delegated from Christ that no Christian is exempted from their censures and jurisdiction that their decrees bind all persons to externall Obedience and may not be questioned but vpon evident reason nor reversed but by an equall Authority that if they be carefull and diligent in the vse of all good meanes for finding out the truth it is very probable the good Spirit will so direct them that they shall not erre at least not Fundamentally Behold Councells are not only directiue but obliging they cannot be rejected Their Decrees bind to externall Obedience and may not so much as be questioned but vpon apparent and evident reason nor reversed but by an equall Authority if they be carefull and deligent in the vse of all good meanes for finding the truth it is very probable the good Spirit will so direct them that they shall not erre at least Fundamentally that their Authority is immediatly derived and delegated from Christ 161. Here it is reason I make a pause and obserue some points out of our very Adversaryes First The vniversall Church according to Potter and other chiefe Protestants is infallible in fundamentall points and even according to â—hillingworth is infallible as long as she exists which he saith hath been from the beginning and shall last to the worlds end and so de facto she is infallible that is he is as sure that she shall not erre in any fundamentall point as he is sure that Christ shall alwaies haue a Church on earth which ought to be a great inducement not to reject her Authority without evident reason Yea seing he holds Councells to be fallible in fundamentall points aÌ„d yet that they oblige men to an outward submission much more he should say so of the Church which is confessed to be infallible in all Fundamentalls 162. Secondly seing Potter Chilling and Dr. Lawd whom I cited aboue teach that we are bound vnder sin to affoard outward obedience to Generall Councells and that we cannot do this in matters of Faith vnless we belieue as we professe we must belieue them to be infallible in all things least either we sin against Obedience due to them or against our Conscience professe what we do not belieue 163. Thirdly seing their Authority is immediatly derived and delegated from Christ their right to be obeyed is de jure Divino of which they were in possession when Luther arose and therfore it is a grievous sin not to obey them vnless it can be demonstrated with evidence that they teach or command somthing clearly repugnant to the law or word of Christ 164. Fourthly seing their Decrees cannot be questioned but vpon evident reason it followes that the reasons are not first purposely to be sought and then found because people prepossessed by passion haue a mind to breake with the Church as it happens in all Schismatiks and Heretikes but their Arguments must be so pressing and irresistible by ceason of their evidence that the vnderstanding cannot by any meanes of contrary reason or command of the will forbeare to assent which to any judicious man must needs appeare to be a strange and no better than an imaginaty kind of evidence and indeed impossible in objects of Faith which are obscure and exceed the naturall light of all humane reason 165. Fiftly Since they cannot be reversed but by an equall Authority and Dr. Lawd delivers the same Doctrine as we haue seene aboue we are assured that the Decrees of Councells before Luther could not be reversed by Luther or any other private person nor by all Protestants Who never could pretend to haue a Generall Councell and in those Colloquiums or Conferences or particular Synods which they held could never establish any vniversall Vnion among themselves but only declared to the world that they had no possible meanes of Vnion and Concord And indeed who should call such a Generall Councell Or who should preside therin Or if they would haue recourse to secular Princes it would make little to their purpose seing absolute Princes are no more subject one to another than different Sects of Protestants will confesse any mutuall subordination 166. Sixtly Seing if they be carefull in the vse of all good meanes for finding the Truth it is very probable the good spirit will direct them that they shall not erre at least fundamentally they could not be opposed except by reason more than probable but men were to presume that they did not erre Neither should you say if they be carefull c. it is very probable the good spirit will direct them that they shall not erre which may be said of any two or three gathered togeather in Christs name if they be carefull in the vse of all good meanes for finding the truth yea the same may be sayd of every particular person but contrarily seing you confesse them to be derived from Christ and that they are the highest externall Tribunall which the Church hath on Earth and that all are obliged to obey them which none could be in errours against Faith you should say because they cannot erre God will not faile to affoard his effectuall Grace that they be carefull in the vse of all good meanes for finding the truth For accordingly as God hath decreed to bring vs to an End He will not faile to moue vs effectually to apply all those Meanes which on our behalf are necessary for such an End And it were but a most rash vncharitable foolish and false imagination to thinke that Generall Councells before Luther replenished with men of learning sanctity and zeale of the Truth were not carefull in the vâ—â— of all good meanes for finding the Truth and therfore they could not but be assisted by God to find it nor Luther excused from Schisme and Heresy by opposing them and it 167. These things considered it cannot but appeare to any judicious vnpartiall man how impossible it is that any such evidence should offer itselfe against the Faith and decrees of the Church or Generall Councells as can force the
sins past with a firme Resolution to amend for tyme to come is a sufficient disposition for remission of sinnes whether it be perfect Contrition without Sacramentall absolution or attrition with it though it be also true that perfect Contrition must involue a purpose to receaue absolution in due tyme. 17. Your third Errour is delivered in many places of your Booke and consists in this That one who lives in a sinfull errour against faith may be saved by a generall Repentance of all his sins knowne and vnknowne though he do not forsake that culpable errour but liue and dy in it In your Answer to the preface of Charity Maintayned Pag 7. N. 3. you approue the saying of Potter that both sides by the confession of both sides agree in more Points than are simply and indispensably necessary to salvation and differ only in such as are not precisely necessary That it is very possible a man may dy in errour and yet dy with repentance as for all his sins of Ignorance so in that number for the errours in which he dyes with a repentance though not explicite and particular which is not simply required yet implicite and generall which is sufficient So that he cannot but hope considering the Goodness of God that the Truths retained on both sides especially those of the necessity of Repentance from dead workes and Faith in Iesus Christ if they be put in practise may be an andidote against the errours held on either side to such he meanes and sayes as beâ—ng diligent in seeking Truth and desirous to find it yet misse of it through humane frailty and dy in errour 18. About which words it is to be observed First that as I noted aboue you and Potter confess that Catholiks hold more Points of Faith than are necessary to salvation so that the Points in which we differ from Protestants which you call errours are not necessary and accordingly you teach Pag 9. N. 7. that men may be saved though they hold the doctrines of IndulgeÌ„ces Purgatory and the vse of Latine Service And therfore I may turne against you your owne words Pag 220. N. 52. May it please you therfore now at last to take notice that by Fundamentall we meane all and only that which is necessary and then I hope you will grant that we may safely expect salvation in a Church which hath all things Fundamentall to salvation Vnless you will say that more is necessary than that which is necessary These words I say proue that we may even safely for that is your word expect salvation in a Church which by confession of all sides believes more Points than are necessary vnless you will say that more is necessary than that which is necessary or that we belieue not as many Points as are necessary though we belieue more than are necessary Secondly That as I noted before you contradict yourselves in saying That by the goodness of God the Truths retained on both sides may be an antidote against the errours of such as being diligent in seeking Truth and desirous to find it yet misse of it by humane frailty and dy in errour For the errours of men so qualifyed as you describe them must needs be invincible if invincible no sins if no sins how can any truth be an antidote against them Or how can the doctrine of necessity of Repentance from dead works concerne works which are not dead that is no sinnes nor can be the Object of Repentance or capable of pardon I beseech you remember your owne express words Pag 16. N. 21. The very saying they were pardonable implies they needed pardon and therfore in themselves were damnable How then do you say that inculpable errours may be pardoned by a generall Repentance Or how do you in particular agree either with Catholiks or Protestants about the necessity of Repentance of dead workes seing you disagree from both of them in declaring what Repentance is necessary Thirdly Pag 8. N. 3. you say the Doctour gives them only hope of pardon of errours who are desirous and according to the proportion of their opportunityes and abilityes industrious to find the Truth or at least truly repentant that they haue not bene so In which words you distinguish those who are desirous and industrious to find the truth froÌ„ those who are repentant that they haue not been so The former sort of which men are not capable of Repentance because they committed no sin And if the second be truly repentant as you suppose they are that they haue not been desirous and industrious to find the Truth you suppose they know that they haue not been so To whom then shall belong that Repentance which you call generall and implicite of all errours knowne and vnknowne Fourthly Howsoever you endeavour to answer these contradictions it seemes you are constant that a sinfull errour may be pardoned though one liue and dy in it And then Fiftly The difficulty which I spoke of aboue comes to vrge you How such a man can attaine your kind of Repentance at the houre of his death when it is impossible But let vs goe forward 19. Pag 21. you say If any Protestant or Papist be betrayed into or kept in any errour by any sin of his will as it is to be feard many millious are such Errour is as the cause of it sinfull and damnable yet not exclusiue of all hope of salvation but pardonable if discovered vpon a particular explicite Repentance if not discovered vpon a generall and implicite Repentance for all sins knowne and vnknowne in which number all sinfull Errours must of necessity be contayned Pag 168. N. 52. speaking of errour proceeding from some Voluntary and avoidable fault and in its owne nature damnable You say If the party so erring dy with Contrition for all his sins knowne and vnknowne as his Errour can be no impediment but he may his Errour though in itselfe damnable to him according to your Doctrine Charity Maintayned disclaimes from any such false and implicatory Doctrine as this it will not proue so As the most malignant poyson will not poyson him that receives with it a more powerfull Antidote In these and other passages of your Booke you teach that a sinfull and damnable Errour for of such we must speake when we speake of Repentance to object wherof his sin may be forgiven while one remaines in such an Errour or without relinquishing it which is a most pernicious errour and destructiue of itselfe For if his errour be sinfull it is not because he sees it to be an errour and yet persists in it which is impossible seing that to judge a particular errour to be an errour is to forsake it and embrace the contrary truth because an errour discovered is destroyed neither is it an errour but a true judgment to judge that an Errour is an Errour according to the saying of S. Austine Lib. 15. de Trinit Cap 10. Nemo falsa novit nisi cum falsa
consisted of the Apostles who determined not only what others but what themselves were to belieue if they had not believed it already as de facto they did belieue it before the Councell and so the Apostles had determined what the Apostles were to belieue The same may be applyed to Generall Councells who determine even what they themselves are to belieue and vniversally if we do conceiue any congregation to be infallibly assisted by God they may declare what themselves and others are to belieue though that congregation be nothing but an aggregation of such Believers Yourselfe confess that the Governers of the Church may determine Rites Ceremonies c for the whole Congregation and so for themselves according to your inference yea if you vnderstand the matter as you should in determining Rites c they determine what every one is not only to practise but to belieue also as I sayd aboue and so all believers may determine in this sense what they are to belieue But the truth is you erre even in Philosophy not considering that when a thing is determined by a Community endued with sufficient Authority to command and define the obligation falls not vpon the whole collectiuè compared with the whole that is adaequate with it selfe but as the whole respects a particular member or part from which it is truly distinguished as includens ab incluso and the whole a singulis partibns in the manner that a mans soule is distinguished from a man Besides the precept of Faith or Believing is not a pure Ecclesiasticall precept but a Divine command obliging All and Every one to belieue whatsoever the Church propounds as revealed by God which therby becomes an Object of Faith And I hope you will not deny but that although it were granted that a man cannot oblige himself nor a community it self by their owne Authority or command yet God may and doth oblige all and every one to belieue whatsoever is propounded as a Divine truth by such an infallible Propounder as the Church is which in that sense may truly be sayed to determine what all are to belieue We may also add that by the Church are vnderstood the Pastours and Prelates therof who are not the whole Church collectiuè but may command and define for the whole Church Lastly what doth this your answer belong to the Point of which Charity Maintayned spoke That there is a greater necessity of some infallible authority in the Church of Christ than in the Synagogue of the Jewes because the Lawes Rites c were more particularly and as I may say minutely determined in the Old then in the New Law which therfore stands in need of some Living Judge to determine for all the many varietyes and different occasions that may present themselves 48. Your N. 143. is answered in three words that when S. Paul 1. Cor. 16.11 sayd All these thinges chanced to them in figure Every body sees that he meant not of the temporall but of the Ecclesiasticall or spirituall state of the Jewes and so if they had one high Priest who was endued with infallibility much more ought we to belieue that there is such an infallibility in Gods Church And the Reader by comparing the words of Charity Maintayned with your Objection will of himselfe see that you labour to seeke but can find no solide matter against him Neither did he ever say that the Ecclesiasticall Government of the Jewes was a Patterne for the Ecclesiasticall Government to Christians as you would make him speake but expressly that the Synagogue was a type and figure of the Church of Christ for those are his words Now to be only a type and figure argues imperfection To be a Patterne expresses perfection as being a Rule modell and an idea of that in respect wherof it is a Patterne 49. You needed not in your N. 144. pretend to doubt what discourse Ch. Ma. meant when in the beginning of his N. 24. he sayd This discourse is excellently proved by ancient S. Irenaeus For it was easy to see that he spoke of that discourse which he held in his immediatly precedent N. 23. His discourse was that the Church of the Old and New Law did exist respectiuè before any Scripture was written as there he shewes at large and consequently that Tradition and not scripturedid then beget faith which is also clearly confirmed by the place which Ch. Ma. cited N. 24. out of S. Irenaeus whose meaning you do pervert against himselfe and even against yourselfe The words of the Saint Lib 3. Cap 4. are What if the Apostles had not left Scriptures ought we not to haue followed the order of Tradition which they delivered to those to whom they committed the Churches To which order many Nations yield assent who belieue in Christ having salvation written in their harts by the spirit of God without letters or inke and diligently keeping ancient Tradition It is easy to receaue the truth from Gods Church seing the Apostles haue most fully deposited in her as in a rich storehouse all things belonging to truth For what If there should arise any contention of some small question ought we not to haue recourse to the most ancient Churches and from them to receiue what is certaine and cleare concerning the present question These be the words of S. Irenaeus cited by Charity Maintayned which declare that Tradition is sufficient and powerfull to produce Faith even with facility as S. Irenaeus expresses himselfe though no Scripture had beene written And this he affirmes not by way of conjecture or discourse what God would haue done if there had beene no Scriptures but that de facto there was existent such a powerfull Tradition as to it not one nor some nor few but many nations did yield assent without letters or inke that is without Scripture And in this Chapter N. 159. you say Irenaeus tells vs of some barbarous Nations that believed the doctrine of Christ and yet believed not the Scripture to be the word of God for they never heard of it and Faith comes by hearing From whence you inferr That a man may be saved though he should not know or not belieue Scripture to be the word of God if he belieue Christian Religiō wholly and entirely and liue according to it If this be true doth it not follow that Scripture alone is not the only nor a necessary Rule of Faith seing by tradition alone men may be saved though they should not know or not belieue Scripture to be the word of God And that by this concession you directly blott out the very title of this Chapter which is Scripture the only Rule wherby to judge of controversyes 50. Now let vs heare what you can Object against Charity Maintayned in this matter You say N. 144. In saying what if the Apostles had not left Scripture ought we not to haue fellowed the order of Tradition And in saying that to this order many Nations yield assent who
ignorance or Nescience I deny That he is ignorant by a positiue errour or ignorance prauae dispositionis I grant and so when you assume He who knowes not the truth is ignorant of it you must distinguish according to the double sense of ignorance which hath beene declared and not speake with such confusion This same distinction I find in Dr. Potter Pag 243. where speaking of some Fundamentall Articles of Faith he hath these words These are so absolutly necessary to all Christians for attaining the end of our Faith that is the salvation of our soules that a Christian may loose himselfe not only by a positiue erring in them or denying of them but by a pure ignorance or nescience or not knowing of them Where you see he distinguishes between error and not knowing and therfore one may be ignorant of what another believes and yet not erre against it or disbelieue it As it is one thing not to be hot and another to be hold Now Charity Maintayned expressly distinguishes between pure ignorance and errour and therfore you do very ill first to confound them and then vpon that affected mistake frame your Objections The same equivocation you haue Pag 25. where you make a shewe of great subtility but indeed the Reader will finde nothing but vanity as I shewed in that place 14. You say to Charity Maintayned If your meaning were they were not ignorant that each other held these opinions or of the sense of the opinions which they held c I answer that this saying of yours is nothing to the purpose For though de facto Protestants are not ignorant what opinion other Protestants hold and therfore their disagreement is more patent and not only against the opinions by whomsoever they might chance to be held but also against opinions knowne to be defended by them whom they will needs call Brethren Yet indeed it is meerly accidentall and in no wise necessary to our present purpose that one Protestant should be conscious or know that he differs in opinion from another For if it were revealed to some in the Indyes that Christ is God and Saviour of the world and he did assent to that truth while another in Europe did dissent from the like Revelation sufficiently proposed this second doth truly disbelieue what the former believes no lesse than if he had knowne that the other believes it And therfore Charity Maintayned said Protestants disbelieue and wittixgly and willingly oppose what others do belieué to be testifyed by the word of God without saying vnnecessarily that they disbelieue what they know others belieue because as I sayd this knowledge is not necessary for our present purpose concerning the disagreement of Protestants in matters of Faith Much lesse to the purpose yea directly against syncerity is your saying That if their vnderstandings be not convinced they are excusable if they do not belieue Seing Charity Maintayned did speake of objects sufficiently proposed as revealed by God which are his expresse words in this very number which you impugne 15. In your N. 19.20.21.23 nothing occurrs of difficulty which hath not beene answered elswhere And you falsify Ch. Ma. when N. 20. you say he concludes that there is nodifference betweene errours in Points Fundamentall and not Fundamentall wheras he expressly saith in his N. 3. which here you answer and N. 4. that they do not differ in this that both of them are against Gods Revelation and damnable which yourselfe often grant yet you know that in other respects he puts a maine difference betweene them even in the number next precedent and declares the matter at large Surely this is no good dealing 16. In your N. 22. you still voluntarily mistake the state of the Question though Charity Maintayned had stated it very clearly N. 3. as we haue seene i. e. that when we treate whether errour excludes salvation we speake of Points sufficiently proposed as revealed by God and not in case of invincible ignorance want of instruction or the like This being presupposed Charity Maintayned N. 4. saith thus Dr Potter forgetting to what purpose Protestants make vse of their distinction doth sinally overthrow it and yields as much as we can desire Speakinge Pag 211. of that measure and quantity of Faith without which none can be saved he saith It is enough to belieue some things by a virtuall Faith or by a generall and as it were a negatiue Faith wherby they are not denyed or contradicted Now our question is in case that divine truth although not Fundamentall be denyed and contradicted and therfore even according to Him all such denyall excludes salvation Thus Charity Maintayned whose words you cite very imperfectly in this manner It is enough by Dr Potters confession to belieue some things negatively i.e. not to deny them therfore all denyall of any divine Truth excludes salvation Thus say you omitting these very next words of Charity Maintayned now our question is in case that divine Truths although not Fundamentall be denyed and contradicted And therfore even according to Him all such denyall excludes salvation And that Dr Potter alwayes supposes a sufficient Proposition before one can be obliged not to deny or contradict those Points of which he speakes is evident because one could not be obliged vnder sin not to contradict them if they be not sufficiently proposed Which Proposition he requires Universally in matters of Faith And in this very place he saith There is a certaine measure and quantity of Faith without which none can be saved but every thing revealed belongs not to this measure And then he adds the a foresayd words It is enough to belieue some things by a virtuall Faith or by a negatiue Faith wherby they are not denyed Where it appeares that as no man is obliged to belieue those Fundamentall Points without the beliefe wherof none can be saved vnless they be sufficiently proposed so none can be obliged not to contradict Points not Fundamentall if they want sufficient Proposall And this is yet further demonstrated by Charity Maintayned who immediatly after the words of which you take notice and cite as His though imperfectly saith thus After He Dr Potter speakes more plainly in the very next Pag 212. It is true whatsoever is revealed in Scripture or propounded 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 denyed or contradicted without infidelity such as every Christian is bound with humility and reverence to belieue whensoever the knowledge therof is offered to him marke whensoever the knowledg therof is offered to him And further Pag 250. he saith where the revealed will or word of God is sufficiently propounded obserue sufficiently propounded there he that opposeth is convinced of errour and he who is thus conuinced is an Heretike and Heresy is a worke of the flesh which excludeth from heauen Galat 5.20.21
be infallible only in Fundamentall Points if she erre not in such Points she performes as much as our Saviour exacts at her hands seing he exacts no more than that which may bring her to salvation and it is not necessary that God assist her for more than salvation Or if he absolutely exact more than is necessary men are bound to doe more than is necessary and so more shall be necessary than is necessary because it is necessary to doe what we are bound to doe 30. You say to Ch. Ma The ground of your errour here is your not distinguishing betweene Actuall certainty and Absolute infallibility But in this you speake either against your owne conscience or against manifest truth For if you say the meaning of Cha. ma. to be that whosoever is actually certaine of one thing must haue an absolute infallibility in all other matters your Conscience cannot but tell you that He could haue no such meaning as if because I am actually certaine what I am doing at this instant I must therfore be infallible and know certainly what every one is doing in the Indyes But if you meane that it is an errour in Ch Ma to say that if one haue actuall certainty of a thing he must be infallible both in that ād all other for which he hath the same or like grounds to make him certaine then you erre against manifest truth it being evident that if I clearly see my selfe to haue an vndoubted Ground to belieue a thing it is impossible that I should erre in any other for which I also evidētly see that I haue the same certaine ground This is our case If I be actually certaine by evidence of Scripture of the truth of one thing I am certaine that I cannot erre in any other Point for which I haue the like evidence of Scripture as he who actually assents to a demonstration knowne to be such can neither erre in it nor in any other knowne to haue the like certainty This being supposed your examples proue against yourselfe as I shewed in an other like occasion 31. I haue already particularly and at large answered your N. 27.28.29 In your N. 30 33.34 you impugne Ch Ma. whose words I wish you had set downe as you found them in Him and not as you collect and offer them to the Reader whom therfore I must intreate to peruse the Author himselfe Ch. Ma. N. 13. saith That to limite the generall promises of our Saviour for his Church to Points Fundamentall as namely that the gates of Hell shall not prevaile against Her and that the Holy Ghost shall lead them into all truth c. is to destroy all Faith For by this manner of interpreting and limiting words whatsoever is delivered in Scripture concerning the infallibility of the Apostles or of Scripture it selfe may be restrained to infallibility in Fundamentall Points And in this Ch. Ma. hath reason For seing you haue no certaine Rule of Faith but Scripture whatsoever you cannot proue by evident Scripture cannot be to you certaine or a Point of Faith Let vs then take these words Matth. 16.18 The gates of Hell shall not prevaile c. Which our B. Saviour pronounced of the Church and those other Jo 16. V. 13.14.16 The spirit shall lead you into all truth and shall abide with you for ever which promise Potter saith Pag 153. was made directly and primarily to the Apostles who had the spirits guidance in a more high and absolute manner than any since them yet it was made to them for the behoofe of the Church and is verifyed in the Church vniversall The first words The gates of Hell shall not prevaile against Her Potter Pag. 153. limites they shall not prevaile so far as to sever it from the foundation that is that She shall not erre in Fundamentall Points Now I beseech you produce some evident Text of Scripture declaring that those words are not to be vnderstood as they sound that the Church shall be secure from all errours against Faith even in Points not Fundamentall which errours are gates that leade to hell seing they are as you often confesse damnable in themselves and so lead to hell and damnation but with this limitation that she shall be secured for Points Fundamentall Produce I say some such evident Text of Scripture and not topicall discourses of your owne In the meane tyme while you are busy about that impossible taske of producing some such Text 32. I will ponder the second place The spirit shall lead you into all truth and shall abide with you for ever which Potter saith is vnderstood of the Apostles and of the vniversall Church but so as being referred to the Apostles it signifyes all truths Fundamentall and not Fundamentall Points which is a harder explanation than that of the former words out of S. Matthew The gates of hell c. because you are engaged to alledge some evident Text of Scripture to proue that the very selfsame as I may saie indivisible Text which is acknowledged to speake both of the Apostles and of the Church must be forced and as it were racked to speake one thing of the Apostles and another of the Church All truth for the Apostles not all but only Fundamentall truth for the Church Bring I say some such evident Text of Scripture But it seemes you did easily perceiue that no such place could be pretended and therfore in stead of Scripture or the Word of God you offer only your owne conceits discourses and seeming congruences which are far beneath that certainty which is required for an act of divine Faith There is not say you N. 30. the same reason for the Churches absolute Infallibility as for the Apostles and Scriptures For if the Church fall into errour it may be reformed by comparing it with the Rule of the Apostles doctrine and Scripture But if the Apostles erred in delivering the Doctrine of Christianity to whom shall we haue recourse for the discovering and correcting their errour 33. Answer I haue often sayd that in matters knowne by revelation only and depending on the free will or decree of Almighty God we are not to proue by humane reason what he hath decreed Protestants grant that both the Apostles and the Church are infallible for Fundamentall Points If then one should make vse of your reason and say There is not the same reason for the Churches infallibility in Fundamentall Points as for the Apostles For if the Church fall into such errours it may be reformed by comparing it with the Rule of the Apostles doctrine and Scripture But if the Apostles haue erred in delivering the doctrine of Christianity to whom shall we haue recourse for the discovering and correcting their errour What would you answer Would you grant that the Church is not infallible in Fundamentall Articles because there is not the same reason for Her infallibility in Fundamentall Points as there is for the Apostles That were to deny the
the Apostles and our B. Saviour were not absolutely infallible because they were built vpon another higher infallibility And I returne your owne words against you if but wise men or even men in their wits haue the ordering of the building they will make it as sure a thing that the building shall not fall from the Foundation as that the Foundation shall not faile the building if it be in their power to doe both these things with as much certainty and facility as to doe one of them And no wonder seing the stability of the Foundation is but a Meanes to the End that the Edifice which is builded vpon it be stable and every wise man hath greater regard to the End then to the Meanes in respect of which the End may be called the Foundation vpon which depends the Election of the Meanes and in vaine it is that the Foundation cannot faile the building if the building may fall from the Foundation And if for example to build high were a meanes to make the building not fall from the Foundation as digging deepe makes the Foundation not faile the building men would be as carefull to build high as now they make sure to digg low for better setling the Foundation and every one would ayme at a tower of Babel Now the Apostles received of the Holy Ghost infallibility not for themselves alone but for the good of the Church and it is no less easy for God to bestowe absolute infallibility vpon the Church than vpon the Apostles vpon the Edifice than vppon the Foundation and therfore no wonder if the Church partake of the same stability and infallibility with Her Foundation for the substance not for the manner that is as the Apostles were so the Church is free from all errour but so as the Church received Her Doctrine from the Apostles and not the Apostles from the Church You find fault with Charity Maintayned who making right vse of this metaphore argues that as a Foundation alone is not a house so to belieue Fundamentalls or the Foundation alone is not sufficient to constitute a Church or house of God without the beliefe of all Points sufficiently propounded as revealed by God and now yourselfe ground a matter of greatest moment the infallibility of the Church vpon the same metaphore very ill applyed towards any other purpose except to proue the contradictory of that for which you alledge it and to confute yourselfe as even now I haue demonstrated And besides all this seing in your Doctrine we belieue the Scriptures and the Doctrine of the Apostles or that there were any such men as the Apostles for the Authority of the Church or vniversall Tradition the Church to you is the Foundation of your beliefe that the Apostles were infallible and consequently if your deduction be good the infallibility of the Church must be greater than that of the Apostles because the Foundation must be stronger than the Edifice and so your owne argument directly overthrowes that which you would proue by it 36. By what I haue now sayd your other reason in the same place is answered That a dependent infallibility especially if the dependance be voluntary cannot be so certaine as that on which it depends But the infallibility of the Church depends vpon the infallibility of Apostles as the streightnesse of the thing regulated vpon the streightnesse of the Rule and besides this dependance is voluntary for it is in the power of the Church to deviate from this Rule being nothing els but an agregation of men of which every one has freewill and is subject to passions and errour Therfore the Churches infallibility is not so certaine as that of the Apostles 37. Answer How many flawes appeare in these not many words And to omit that of Dependance this Reason is not distinct from the former taken from the metaphor of a Foundation to which must be applied the Reason for which we assent to a thing and which therfore is the foundation on which our assent depends I say First Your conclusion is not contrary to the Assertion of your adversary A foule fault in Logicke which teaches that alwayes the conclusion of the disputant ought to be directly contradictory to that which the Defendant affirmes and not consistent with it Otherwise the Opponent would be discovered to fight with no-body You conclude Therfore the Churches infallibility is not so certaine as that of the Apostles Which is nothing against Charity Maintayned who proved only that the Church is so certaine and infallible in Her Definitions that they cannot be false forbearing to dispute whether one certainty may be greater then another and therfore secondly you mistake or wittingly alter the question passng from intension or degrees of certainty in order to the same Points to extension of infallibility to different kinds of objects as if though it were granted that the Apostles were more infallible than the Church intensiuè or in respect of the same Points in which both she and the Apostles are infallible because she depends on the Apostles it must follow that the Church cannot be extensiuè as infallible as they were that is cannot be infallible in Points both Fundamentall and not Fundamentall which is a very inconsequent consequence it being sufficient that the A postles be more infallible than the Church quoad modum seing she depends on them and they not on her as the Apostles were not so infallible intensiuè as our Saviour and yet you will not inferr that their infallibility also must be so limited extensivè as not to reach to vnfundamentall Points and as the Church for Fundamentall Points is builded and depends vpon the Apostles and so quoad modum not so infallible as they were yet Protestants grant that she is absolutly infallible in fuch Points though for them she depend on the Apostles and your reason is against this infallibility as well as against her infallibility in Points not Fundamentall and therfore proves in neither Thirdly according to this your discourse no naturall truth can be inferred with certainty from the most common and knowne Principles of naturall reason as Nothing can be and not be at the same tyme. Every whole is greater than any one part included therin and the like because whatsoever is inferred from such knowne Axiomes must depend on them and therfore not be certaine nor infallible If then your meaning be that the Church is not absolutely infallible because she depends on the infallibility of the Apostles your Reason is manifestly false If you meane that she may be absolutly infallible though not so infallible as the Apostles quoad modum you speake not to the purpose but grant as much as we desire 38. You say It is in the power of the Church to deviate from this Rule that is from the Doctrine and infallibility of the Apostles being nothing els out an aggregation of men of which every one has freewill and is subject to passions and errour And
were not the Apostles an aggregation of men of which every one had freewill and was subject to passions and errour if they had beene left to themselves And therfore by your Divinity it was in their power to deviate from the infallibility which the Holy Ghost did offer to them I wonder you durst publish such Groundes of Atheisme But is the Church indeed nothing else but an aggregation of men subject to paâ—sions and errour Hath she not a promise of divine assistance even according to Protestants against all Fundamentall errours which surely is more than to be nothing else than an aggregation of men subject to passions and errours even Fundamentall And as for freewill I aske whether that be taken away by the Churches infallibility in Fundamentall Points or no. If not then freewill may well consist with infallibility If it be taken away then what absurdity is it to say that it is takeÌ„ away by infallibility in Points not FudameÌ„tall In aword whatsoever you answer about infallibility and freewill in the Apostles for all Points and in the Church for Fundamentall articles the same will serue to confute your owne Objection and shew that you contradict your owne doctrine and the Doctrine of Protestants yea of all Christians who belieue the Apostles to be infallible But of this I haue spoken hertofore more than once and will now passe to the examination of your answer to the argument of Charity Maintayned that by Potters manner of interpreting those texts of Scripture which speake of the stability and infallibility of the Church and limiting it to Points Fundamentall he may affirme that the Apostles and other Writers of Canonicall Scripture were endued with infallibility only in setting downe Points Fundamentall For if it be vrged that all Scripture is divinely inspired Potter hath affoarded you a ready answer that Scripture is inspired only in those parts or parcells wherin it delivereth Fundamentall Points Of these words of Charity Maintayned you take no notice but only say that the Scripture saith All Scripture is divinely inspired Shew but as much for the Church shew where it is written that all the decrees of the Church are divinely inspired and the Controversy will be at an end But all this is not to the purpose to shew by what Law Rule Priviledge or evident Text of Scripture you take vpon you to restraine generall Promises made for the Church to Points Fundamentall and not limite those words All Scripture is divinely inspired to the same Fundamentall Points For this you neither doe nor are able to answer but dissemble that Charity Maintayned did expressly prevent your alledging this very Text All Scripture is divinely inspired Nay beside this you do not shew by what authority you do not only restraine the Praedicatum divinitus inspirata but also the subjectum togeather with the signe all All Scripture which not only may but in your doctrine must be limited in a strange manner seing you teach that some Part of Scripture is infallible neither in Fundamentall nor vnfundamentall Points For here N. 32. you endeavour to proue that S. Paul hath delivered some things as the dictates of humane Reason and prudence and not as Divine Revelation And so it will not be vniversally true for any kind of Points that All Scripture is divinely inspired How then will you proue by these words that Scripture is infallible in all Points if yourselfe limite the Subjectum of that Proposition which is Scripture to certaine Parts of Scripture and that indeed the Praedicatum divinely inspired may be limited to Fundamentall Points vpon as good ground as you limite the generall promises ef God and words of Scripture which concerne the infallibility of the Church 39. But N. 33. you will proue that Dr. Potter limits not the Apostles infallibility to truths absolutely necessary to salvation because he ascribes to the Apostles the Spirits guidance and consequently infallibility in a more high and absolute manner than to any since them and to proue this sequele you offer vs a needlesse Syllogisme But I haue shewd that the Apostles may haue infallibility in a more high absolute and independent manner than the Church although the Churches infallibility reach to Points not Fundamentall as Protestants will not deny that the Apostles had infallibility in Fundamentall Points in a more high manner than the Church hath though yet she be absolutely Infallible in all Fundamentall articles Yea if you will haue the Doctour speake properly to say the Apostles had the guidance of the Spirit in a more high manner than the Church must suppose that the Church hath that guidance and consequently as you inferr infallibility though not in so high a manner as the Apostles I intreate the Reader to peruse Charity Maintayned N. 13. and judge whether he speakes not with all reason and proves what he saith in this behalfe and if Potter declare himselfe otherwise and teach notwithstanding his owne confession that what was promised to the Apostles is verifyed also in the vniversall Church that the Church may erre in Points not Fundamentall I can only favour him and you so far as to tell you he contradicts himselfe 40. Whatsoever you say to the contrary Charity Maintayned N. 13. spoke truth in affirming that Potter Speakes very dangerously towards this purpose of limitting the Apostles infallibility to Fundamentall Points For though the Doctor name the Church when he saieth Pag 152. that there are many millions of truths in Nature and History whereof the Church is ignorant and that many truths lie vnrevealed in the infinite treasurie of Gods wisdome where with the Church is not acquainted yet his reasons either proue nothing or els must comprise the Apostles no less than the Church as Charity Maintayned expressly observes Pag 93. though I grant that some of the Doctors words agree only to the Church which is nothing against Charity Maintayned that other of Potters words and reasons agree also to the Apostles and therefore I assure you he had no designe in the c at which you carp But let the Doctour say and meane what he best pleases sure I am that neither he nor you will ever be able to proue by any evident Text of Scripture that the foresayd or other generall promises of infallibility extend to all sorts of Points for the Apostles and to Fundamentall Articles only for the Church And this is the maine businesse in hand Though in the meane tyme I must not omit to say that your Syllogisme is very captious and deceitfull which is He that grants the Church infallible in Fundamentalls and ascribes to the Apostles the infallible guidance of the Spirit in a more high and absolute manner than to any since them limits not the Apostles infallibility to Fundamentalls But Dr Potter grants to the Church such a limited infallibility and ascribes to the Apostles the Spirits infallible guidance in a more high and absolute manner Therfore he limits not the Apostles
be sure that they attaine the true sense of Scripture vnless they first know what points in particular be Fundamentall because in other they may erte as they say the Church may Besides it hath bene shewed that in the Principles of Protestants it cannot be convinced that Scripture is infallible except only in fundamentall Points and so men cannot rely on Scripture vnless first they be sure what points be Fundamentall Neither is there the same reason for vnderstanding not the bare words but the sense of Scripture intended by the Holy Ghost as there is for vnderstanding som plain place in Aristotle or conceyving some evident naturall truths which are connaturall to humane reason and are not capable of different senses as the words of Scripture are Which may be proved even by the Examples which you bring as evident as I haue shewed hertofore that they are not so Neither can any Protestants learne them from Scripture alone with such certainty as is necessary to an Act of Faith which according to all good Christians must be infallible and therfore you say only Protestants may be certain enough of the Truth and certainty of one of the places which you alledg as evident but your enough is not enough for the absolute certainty of Divine Faith And therfore Charity Maintayned did you no wrong at all and much less a palpable injury as you speak in saying you cannot with certainty learne of Scripture fundamentall Points of Faith which is manifest by the examples which you say are Truths Fundamentall because they are necessary parts of the Gospell and yet it is evident that Protestents cannot agree about their meaning as I haue demonstrated about these sentences God is and is a rewarder of them that seek him that there is no salvation but by Faith in Christ That by Repentance and Faith in Christ Remission of sinnes may be obtained That there shall be a Resurrection of the Body Which are the Instances which here you giue as Truths both Fundamentall and evident 63. Your N. 51. hath bene answered in severall occasions And all that you say N. 52. is directly nothing to the purpose but passes from objects considered in themselves wherof Protestants confess some to be Fundamentall others not to accidentall circumstances as if Protestants did differ not in Fundamentall points or in assigning a particular Catalogue of them but only in accidentall circumstances of ignorance repentance and the like But of this I haue spoken hertofore as also I haue confuted your similitude about a medicine of twenty ingredients c which therfore I think needless to repeete 64. Your N. 53. I haue answered in diverse places Your N. 54. is nothing but a long digression to which the particular Answer would require a whole Booke or volume directly against the scope of this Work which is only to treate in generall of the Church and Scripture and you know very well that Catholik Writers haue fully answered all your Demands as also you know how many doubts might be proposed to Protestants abovt Scripture which to them is the only rule of Faith if I had a mynd to digrees Your N. 55.56.57.58.59.60.61.62.63.64.65 haue bene answered at large 95. I desire the Reader to peruse the N. 21. of Charity Maintayned and he will finde that you make an argument as his which is nothing like his discourse He saieth not as you N. 66. cited him in these words We may not depart from the Church absolutely and in all things Therfore we may not depart fram it in any thing which you call an Argument à dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid The Argument of Ch. Ma. is Dr. Potter teacheth Pag 75. That there neither was nor can be any just cause to depart from the Church of Christ no more than from Christ himself But if the Church could erre in any points of Faith they may and must forsake her in those and if such errours should fall out to be concerning the Churches Lyturgie Sacraments c. they must leaue her externall Communion which being essentiall to the Church they must divide themselves from her in that which isessentiall to make one a member of the same Church which I hope is more than to argue ad dictum secundum quid For what greater separation can there be from the Church than in that which is essentiall to make one be vnited to her Your saying that a man may leaue the vice of his friend or brother and yet not leaue his friend or brother is impertinent seing vices are not essentiall to men as externall Communion is to make one a member of the Church 66. You object what Dr. Potter saieth of the Catholique Church P. 75. he extends presently after to euery true though never so corrupted part of it And why do you not conclude from hence that no particular Church according to his judgement can fall into any ertour and call this a demonstration too 67. Answer If the Doctour will not contradict himself according to his judgment the Catholique Church cannot fall into errour against any Truth necessary to salvation as a particular Church may and therefore this may but that can never be forsaken or if he will affirme that no particular Church can be forsaken he must say that no such Church can erre in any point necessary to salvation For if she did so erre her Communion must be forsaken and I haue shewed externall Communion to be essentiall to the members of the Church Whereby is answered your N. 67. where you grant that we may not cease to be of the Church nor forsake it absolutely and totally no more than Christ himselfe Since therefore they absolutely forsake the Church who disagree from Her in profession of Faith and divide themselves from her externall Communion you must grant that they can no more doe so than they can divide themselves from Christ I know not to what purpose or vpon what occasion you say to Ch Ma In other places you confes his doctrine to be that even the Catholique Church may erre in Points not fundamentall which you do not pretend that he ever imputed to Christ himself 68. Your manner of alledging the words of Charity Maintayned in your N. 68. gives me still occasion to wish you had alledged them as you found them You make Charity Maintayned speak thus Dr. Potter either contradicts himself or els must grant the Church infallible because he saies if we did not differ from the Roman we could not agree with the Catholique which saying supposes the Catholique Church cannot erre And then you say with your vsuall modesty This Argument to giue it the right name is an obscure and intriate nothing I confess that reading the words which you impute to Charity Maintayned I found difficulty to penetrate the force of his Argument But the words of Charity Main are these If saith Dr. Potter we did not dissent in some opinions from the present Roman Church we could
Chapter Moreover how do these things agree with your saying heere N. 78. If we grant that the Apostle calls the Catholique Church the pillar and ground of Truth and that not only because it should but because it alwayes shall and will be so yet after all this you haue done nothing vnless you can shew that by Truth heere is certainly ment not only all necessary to salvation but all that is profitable absolutely and simply All. How I say doth this agree with your saying now cited out of your Pag 105. N. 139. To make any Church an infallible guide in Fundamentalls would be to make it Infallible in all things which she proposes and requires to be believed seing you say also that although it were granted that S. Paule affirmed that the Church shall and will be the Pillar of all necessary truth yet it doth not follow that she is so in all Truth And now how many clustars as I may say of Contradictions may be gathered from your owne words related by me in this small compass 76. First The Church is an infallible Teacher in Fundamentalls and yet is not an infallible guide or if you grant her to be an infallible Guide then Secondly you say to make any Church an infallible Guide in Fundamentalls would be to make it infallible in all things which she proposes and requires to be believed and yet you say the Church is an infallible Teacher or guide in all Fundamentalls and deny her to be infallible in all things which she proposes and requires to be believed Thirdly How can you make a distinction between the Churches being infallible in Fundamentalls and an infallible Guide in Fundamentalls seing you teach that she is both infallible in Fundamentalls and a Teacher of them Fourthly How doe you say That to be a Teacher of all necessary truth is the Essence of the Church and that any company of men were no more a Church without it then any thing can be a man and not be reasonable And yet in this Chapter N. 39. to proue that there is a wide difference betweene being infallible in Fundamentalls and an infallible Guide in Fundamentalls you say A man that were destitute of all meanes of communicating his thoughts to others might yet in himself be infallible but he could not be a Guide to others A man or a Church that were invisible so that none could know how to repaire to it for direction could not be an infallible Guide and yet he might be in himself infallible For these examples if they be to any purpose declare that to be a Guide or Teacher is accidentall and not the Essence of the Church and for that purpose you bring them and yet I never imagined that the Essence of any thing is separable from it as you say it is impossible a thing can be a man and not be reasonable Fiftly If it be essentiall to the Church to be an infallible Teacher or Guide in Funmentalls which you say she cannot be without an vniversall infallibility in all Points seing every errour destroyes that vniversall infallibility which is essentiall to such a Teacher as the Church how can you say that every errour doth not destroy the Church but that she may erre and yet the gates of hell not prevaile against her To what purpose then do you talk of eyes and hands which are not essentiall or necessary parts of a man or of biles and botches which are accidentall to his body and not necessaryly destructiue thereof as you must suppose wheras infallibility is essentiall to the Church of Christ and is destroyed by errour which cannot possibly consist with infallibility that is with certainty never to erre Into how may inextricable difficulties and contradictions do you cast yourself vpon a resolution not to acknowledg the infallibility of Gods Church the only meanes to cleare all these perplexityes And how inconsequently and perniciously and you compare botches and biles to errour against Faith which you confess to be damnable sinnes and without repentance absolutely inconsistent with salvation 77. But to returne to the maine point If the Church were not vniversally infallible Christian Faith could not be infallible as I proved hertofore and so the gates of Hell should prevaile against Christianity which by that meanes should come to want a thing absolutely necessary to salvation necessitate medij to witt divine infallible Faith Your Parity betweene a particular man or congregation and the vniversall Church hath bene answered hertofore and is confuted by what we haue saied heere that infallibility is essentiall to the vniversall Church and nothing can exist without that which is essentiall to it but no such Priviledge of infallibility is necessary or is promised to particular men or Churches Finally seing that according to Potter and other Protestants the Promise of our Saviour that the gates of Hell shall not prevaile against the Church must be vnderstood of the whole Church as well Primitiue as of consequent Ages by what evident Text of Scripture can you proue that the same words must haue different significations in order to the Primitiue Church which was infallible in all Points of Faith and the vniversall Church of following Ages As in a like occasion I saied hertofore Yourself N. 72. speak to Charity Maintayned thus vnless you will say which is most ridiculous that when our Saviour saied He will teach you c and he will shew you c He meant one you in the former clause and an other you in the latter If it be most ridiculous that one word should be referred to different Persons I may say ad hominem why ought it not to seeme most ridiculous that in the same sentence the same words the gates of Hell shall not privaile must signify two differēt kinds of not prevailing one against fundamētall ād an other against vnfundamentall errours in order to one and the same word Church 78. In your N. 71. you pretend to answer the Text which Ch Ma saieth may be alledged for the infallibility of the Church out S. Jo 14. V. 16.17 I will ask the Father and he will give you another Paraclete that he may abide with you for ever the spirit of truth And Jo 16.13 but when he the Spirit of truth commeth he shall teach you all truth You answer first that one may fall into error if this all truth be not simply all but all of some kind Secondly that one may fall into some error even contrary to the truth which is taught him if it be taught him only sufficiently and not irresistibly so that be may learne it if he will not so that he must and shall whether be will or no. Now who can assertaine 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 Thirdly you say N. 72. that these promises were made to the Apostles only 79. Answer These places were alledged by Dr.
with them if they kept their station vnto the very end of their lives Behold an if a condition If they kept their station which if it be in their free will not to doe as your if supposes it to be then according to your Divinity they might faile and all Promise made to them proue ineffectuall neither can we be certaine that de facto they haue not failed and fallen into errour in their preaching and writing Scripture Nay do you not teach and labour to proue that the Apostles even after the receiving of the Holy Spirit which you confess was promised to abide with them for ever that is say you for their whole life and that they should never want the spirits assistance vnto the very end of their lives did erre in a command clearely revealed to them about preaching the Gospell to Gentills How then was that Promise performed if it were absolute And if only conditionall you grant no more to them than to any other neither can we be certaine that they haue not erred in other things as you say they erred in that Your alledging some Texts to proue that the word ever may be taken for the whole time of a mans life is not to any purpose vnless you had also proved that it is so vnderstood in the place of which we speak Joan 14.16 And seing even by this example the same words are capable of different senses and that Protestants cannot possibly giue any Rule which Text is to be interpreted by what others we must conclude that Scripture alone cannot be a perfect Rule of Faith 84. But now in your N. 75. we find threates that you will work wonders and that we may not be so much overseene as to pass them without due reflection you say to Charity Maintayned This will seeme strang newes to you at first hearing and not farre from a prodigy But it is not strang that heere you doe that which you doe in divers other occasions that is impeach the infallibility of the Apostles and consequently depriue their preaching and writing and all Christian Religion of all certainty though I grant it to be very strang and a prodigy that notwithstanding this you will pretend to be a Christian and that your Book is approved by and published among Christians For besides what I noted even now about your conditionall promise made to the Apostles If they kept theyr station heere you declare clearely and at large that the Promise of which S. John speakes was appropriated to the Apostles as you speak and that it is not absolute but as you expressly say most clearly and expressly conditionall being both in the words before restrained to those only that loue God and keepe 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 Antithesis giues vs plainly to vnderstand to all wicked and wordly men Behold the place entire as it is set downe in your owne Bible If you loue me keepe my commandements and I will ask my Father and he shall giue you an other Paracleâ—e that he may abide with your for ever even the Spirit of Truth whom the world cannot receiue And then speaking of the Pope you say We can haue no certainty that the Spirit of Truth is promised to him but vpon supposall that he performes the condition where vnto the promise of the Spirit of Truth is expressly limited viz. That he loue God and keep his commandements and of this not knowing the Popes heart we can haue no certainty at all Doth not this interpretation and discourse clearly declare that we can haue no certainty of the Apostles infallibility because not knowing their hearts we can haue no certainty at all that when they preached and wrote they did loue God and keepe his commandements Besides in the doctrine of Protestants we cannot be certaine by certainty of Faith that the Apostles kept the commandemeÌ„ts except first we belieue Scripture and yet we caÌ„not belieue Scripture itself except first we belieue the Apostles to be infallible and to haue kept that condition of keeping the commandements Therfore we must belieue Scripture before we belieue the Apostles to keepe the commandements and be infallible and we must belieue the Apostles to be infallible and to keepe the commandements before we belieue Scripture which is an inextricable Circle and a contradiction implying finally that we belieue Scripture for it self which you confess no wise man will affirme and that the belief of Scripture should be cause of the belief of Scripture and the same thing be necessary to the first production of it self Wherefore you must either renounce this Interpretation of a conditionall Promise made yea as you expresly affirme Appropriated to the Apostles or els bid Scripture and all Christianity fare well And so you cannot haue certainty of this particular that God requires the saied condition of loue and Obedience 85. But to answer directly I say you miscite the words of S. John while you distinguish only by a comma If you loue me keepe my commandements from the following words And I will ask my Father and he shall giue you an other Paraclete whereas both in our and in the Protestants English Bible they are distinct Sections or Verses thus N. 15 If you loue me keep my commandements And then N. 16. And I will aâ—k the Father and he will giue you an other Paraelete Where it appeares that the condition is not If you loue me I will ask the Father and he will giue you c. as you set it downe and there vpon affirme that the Promise is restrayned to those only that loue God and keep his commandements but the condition or rather Assirmation or Consequence is this If you loue me keep my commandements And so the sense is very plain and perfect and the condition is terminated in the same N. 15. And that these words If you loue me keep my commandements render a perfect sense is manifest of it self and by the like Texts of Scripture as in the same Evangelist Cap. 15. N. 14. You are my friends if you doe the things that I command you and V. 10. If you keep my precepts you shall abide in my Loue. As contrarily the holy Ghost is promised absolutely in this C 14. V. 26. The Paraclete the Holy Ghost shall teach you all things And in the argument prefixed before this Chapter in the Protestants English Bible printed Ann 1622. it is sayed Christ N. 15. requireth loue and Obedience 16. Promiseth the Holy Ghost the comforter without expressing any dependance of the saied Promise V. 15. vpon loue and obedience V. 16. As also Joan 16.13 which Text is alledged both by Charity Maintayned and Dr. Potter it is saied without any condition when he the Spirit of Truth commeth he shall teach you all Truth And Matth 16.18 these words The gates of Hell shall not prevaile against her which both
fault it was in yielding too much For indeed Protestants doe not agree even in that fundamentall point that Christ is our Saviour or in Faith in Iesus Christ the Sonne of God and Saviour of the world Seing I haue shewed in divers occasions that they differ toto genere in their explication and beliefe of those Articles and accordingly Morton teaches that the Churches of Arians who denied our Saviour Christ to be God are to be accounted the Church of God because they doe hold the foundation of the Ghospell which is Faith in Iesus Christ the Sone of God and Saviour of the world as may be seene in Ch Ma Part. 1. Chap. 3. Pag. 103. and since the beliefe of those Articles is required to the consticuting of the very essence of a Church in the Lowest degree and they doe not agree in them it followes that they doe not agree in the very essence of a Church in the lowest degree As for Divine Precepts and Divine Promises which you say are clearly delivered in Scripture they belong to Agenda and not to Credenda according to your distinction and so men may agree in them and disagree in points of simple belief 38. Lastly If you had a minde to defend Protestants you should not alledg their agreement in such Points as they haue received from vs but in those wherin Luther and his fellowes forsooke the Faith of our Church with which all true Christian Churches did clearly agee and in those Protestants are so farre from agreement among themselves that in the chiefest matters divers of the most learned of them stand for vs against their pretended Brethren and vniversally it is most true that their agreement is only actuall and meerely accidentall in regard that they acknowledg no living infallible Judge of Controversyes to make them agree in case they should chance to doubt of those points wherin they casually agree and so still in actu primo they are in a disposition to disagree whereas Catholiques believing an infallible Judge are in a continuall disposition or a virtuall and potentiall agreement even in those things wherin particular persons may happen not to agree yea those many millions of Truths which you say are contayned in Scripture could not for ought Protestants know be so much as one if your doctrine were true that Scripture is not a materiall object of Faith which men are obliged to belieue And yet such is your inconstancy and spirit of contradicting yourself you say heere is it not manifest to all the world that Christians of all Professions do agree with one consent in the belief of all those Bookes of Scripture which were not doubted in the ancient Church without danger of damnation Nay is it not apparent that no man at this time can without hypocrisy pretend to belieue in Christ but of necessity he must do so Seeing he can haue no reason to belieue in Christ but he must haue the same to believe the Scripture Sr. If all Christians consent in the belief of Scripture how is not Scripture believed And if it be believed how is it not a materiall object of our belief or the thing which we belieue Nay you say no man at this tyme can pretend to belieue in Christ but of necessity he must belieue the Bookes of Scripture and so you declare that if Christ be a materiall object of our Faith the Scripture must also be such 39. But there remaines yet an other contradiction no less manifest and more strange than this which I now mentioned Heere you say expresly no man can pretend to belieue in Christ but of necessity he must belieue Scripture and you proue this your Assertion because he can haue no reason to belieue in Christ but he must haue the same to belieue the Scripture which proof to be of any force must suppose that there is alwaies an equall necessity for the belief of those things for the belief whereof there is an equall Reason Otherwise one might haue the same reason to belieue in Scripture which he hath to belieue in Christ and yet be obliged to belieue in Christ and not be obliged nor haue an equall necessity to belieue the Scripture vnder danger of damnation Is not all this cleare Now I beseech you remember what you write Pag. 116. N. 159. where you treate of this very matter that is of the belief of Scripture and of the belief of the contents thereof that is among other Points of our belief in Christ and you endeavour to proue that God requires of vs vnder pain of damnation only to belieue the verities therein contained and not the Divine Authority of the Bookes wherein they are contained Behold your Assertion contrary to that which we haue heard you say that the vndoubted Bookes of Scripture were not doubted of without danger of damnation But let vs see whether as you contradict yourself in your Assertions you doe not the same in the reason you giue for them You goe forward in the saied Pag. 116. N. 159. and say Not but that it were now very strang and vnreasonable if a man should belieue the matters of these Bookes and not the Authority of the Bookes and therefore if a man should professe the not believing of these I should haue reason to feare he did not belieue that But there is not alwaies an equall necessity for the belief whereof there is an equall reason No Is there not alwaies an equall necessity for the beliefe of c. How then did you proue that men cannot without danger of damnation doubt of the Bookes of Scripture as he cannot doubt of Christ because he can haue no reason to belieue in Christ but of necessity he must do so that is belieue the Scripture 40. Yet this is not all that heere offers itself about your Contradictions You say we haue the same reason to belieue the vndoubted Bookes of Scripture which we haue for our belief in Christ I suppose you meane vniversall Tradition for which you profess to receiue the Scripture How then were you obliged to belieue in Christ and teach that Christ is a materiall object of our Faith and yet that Scripture is not such an object If vniversall Tradition be sufficient to declare an Object to be revealed by God and the same vniversall Tr. dition deliver to vs Christ and Scripture it is a Contradiction to say the one is revealed and consequently is a materiall object of our Faith and not the other Or if one be revealed and not the other than you contradict your owne saying that there is the same reason for believing them both seing the one hath the Formall reason or Motiue of Faith namely divine Revelation which the other must want if you will needs deny it to be a Materiall Object of Faith And I hope to be revealed and not revealed are very different and not the same things or Reasons 41. In your N. 50. you fall Heavy vpon Cha. Ma. for saying
Maintayned sayd not so much as he might haue sayd of Potters assertion and therfor was far enough from doing him any wrong 48. Thirdly Seing that one must not at first be referred to Scripture as we haue proved nor to Generall Councells which Dr. Potter says may erre weakely and so be deceaved and wilfully and so deceaue nor that he can consult with the whole Church collectiuè or all togeather as you grant the Doctour sayes what remaines but that he must deale a parte with every particular member of the Church Which being also impossible as is clear of it selfe and when you seeke to proue it you labour for your Adversary who sayeth the very same thing it remaines that all the wayes which Potter can propose to a man desirous to saue his soule are not only ineffectuall but impossible also and only chalke out a way to desperation and that He and other Protestants must haue patience to be told this truth that they must not wonder if contradictories be deduced from their Assertions which they must often vary even against their wills Ch Ma never intended to make or not make a difference betweene the vniversall Church and the whole Church militant but only Pag. 137. cites the Doctours words as he findes them and proves that they cannot serue for the effect of quieting an afflicted soule not regarding whether those different words which he vseth signifie any different thing or noe 49. Fourthly Seing in pursuit of some good and infallible ground wheron to settle Divine Faith Potter can admit none but the Scripture or the vniversall Church and that Scripture cannot instruct vs with certainty independently of the Church as we haue demonstrated nor that the whole Church can be consulted it remaines only that he must wish one to finde out some who believes all fundameÌ„tall points and follow him and that then the first question to passe betweene them should be to know whether he knows all such points and if this cannot be knowne it is cleare the Doctour can giue no satisfaction to any considering man desirous to know the truth It is pretty that you tell vs the Doctour in all his Booke gives no such Answer as this procure to know whether he belieue all fundamentall points of Faith as if Ch Ma had pretended to relate a history and not only to tell the Reader what Potter must be forced to answer according to his grounds Though I grant he will by doing so be necessitated to contradict both Truth and Himselfe And you will never be able to shew but that Potter must make such answers as Ch ma exprest if the Doctor will be faithfull to his owne grounds Your discourse about probabilities and even wagers is impertinent both because we deny that indeed Dr. Potters opinion about the Creed hath any probability at all and because Ch Ma speakes only of probabilities and even wagers which is a good comparison seing a thing very probable doth not hinder but that the contradictory may be very probable and so be eaven or equall one to an other aÌ„d your talking of probability in the highest degree is your owne addition or fiction and not the Doctors Assertion as may be seene in his Pag. 241. and yourself expresly confess N. 4. and 5. Pag. 194. that he affirmed it only to be very probable that the Creed containes all necessary points of those which you call Credenda What you write so often about the vncertainty that one is a Pope hath been answered at large 50. Fiftly Who can deny but that whosoever desires to be saved and knowes that to obtaine salvation it is necessary to belieue explicitly all fundamentall points will instantly judge it necessary to know what those points be as de facto Ch. Mist vrged to haue a Catalogue of them Now if to satisfy this demand Dr. Potter gives vs no other answer but only some Definitions and Descriptions or Explications of the name Fundamentall without specifying what they are in particular and so not satisfy at all the desire of any wise man what can I helpe that Or who can blame Ch Ma for having sayd as much as Dr. Potters Booke could enable him to say Neither hath he patched vp any thing out of the Doctours Booke which he the Doctor is not obliged to grant according to his owne grounds as I haue sayd 51. Sixthly Seing every article contained in the Creed is not Fundamentall it would be demanded with Ch. Ma. How shall one know which in particular be and which be not fundamentall You say Dr. Potter would haue answered it is a vaine question belieue all and you shall be sure to belieue all that is Fundamentall But by your leaue this businesse cannot be dispatched to soone For by occasion of your Answer I must make some demands whether every one is obliged to belieue or know explicitly those points of the Creed which are not fundâ—mentall To say every one is bound were to make them properly Fundamentall For we haue heard Potter saying Fundamentall properly is that which Christians are obliged to belieue by an expresse and actuall Faith If one be not obliged to belieue explicitely those points of the Creed which are not fundamentall then I am not bound to know the Creed that I may know them Perhaps some may say I am obliged to know the Creed because it containes fundamentall points which I am bound to know expresly and so I shall at least per accidens and by consequence be obliged to know all points contained in the Creed as well not Fundamentall as Fundamentall This Answer must suppose that I am obliged vnder damnation to know that Symbol which we call the Creed of the Apostles and seing Protestants professe that all things necessary to Salvation are contained in Scripture alone they must shew out of some expresse evident text of Scripture such a command which you know is impossible to be done since Scripture never mentions any such thing as the Apostles Creed and therfor one cannot be obliged to know points not Fundamentall in vertue of a precept to know the Creed seing Protestants cannot belieue any command obliging men to know the Creed c. Besides All the Arguments which proue that the Creed was composed by the Apostles or that it containes all fundamentall points must be grounded vpon the Authority of the Church which according to Potter and other Protestants may erre in points not fundamentall and none of them affirmes that it is a fundamentall point which all vnder damnation are bound explicitely to belieue that the Apostles composed the Creed or that it containes all fundamentall points and then men cannot be sure that all points contained in it are true and much lesse can they be obliged to belieue explicitly by an act of Faith every Article therof according to the grounds of Protestants Moreover suppose one were perswaded that all the Articles contained in the Creed were true yet the arguments which Potter brings
And thē further it followes that you must recall your Doctrine and say that if the Church may fall into errour not damnable to her it must be in case it be invincible and yet it cannot be invincible if she haue sufficient Assistance to lead her into all not only necessary but profitable truth and therfore you must deny that she hath such an assistance and we must conclude that by not erring in any fundamentall point she performes her duty to God and so can not be forsakē without Schisme For you doe not deny the proposition of Ch Ma N. 20. that the externall Communion of the Church cannot be forsaken as long as she performes the duty which she oweth to God Besides how doe you not contradict yourselfe in saying Who is ther that can put her in sufficient caution that these errours about profitable matters may not bring forth others of higher quality such as are pernicious and pestilent and vndermine by secret consequences the very Foundations of Religion and piety For if the errours be such as you describe they come to be concerning things not only profitable but necessary as vndermining the very foundations of Religion and therfor to say she erres culpably in them is to say that she erres damnably and fundamentally and you must say she erres culpably if she haue assistance sufficient to avoid them By this discourse and other points handled heretofore is answered your N. 62.63 as also your N. 64.65.66.67.68.69.70.71.72.73 only it is to be observed that N. 64. you paralell the security of private men from errour in fundamentalls to that of the vniversall Church And N. 68. you will not see the reason of a consequence deduced by Ch. Ma. which had been very cleare if you had set downe his words which are these N. 22. P. 185. Since it is not lawfull to leaue the communion of the Church for abuses in life and manners because such miseries cannot be avoyded in this world of temptation and since according to your Assertion no Church may hope to triumph over all sinne and errour and I add what the Doctour sayth Pag 39. that it is a great vanity to hope or expect that all learned men in this life should absolutely consent in all the pieces of Divine truth you must grant that as she ought not to be left by reason of sinne so neither by reason of errours not fundamētall because both sinne and errour are according to you impossible to be avoided till she be in heaven and that it is a great vanity to hope or expect the contrary in this life And is not this a cleare consequence The Church cannot be forsaken for sinnes because they cannot be avoided in this life therfor seing errours at least in not fundamentalls cannot be avoyded in this life the Church cannot be forsaken for them 20. To your N. 72. it is sufficient to say that although we must not doe evill to avoide evill yet when a position is such as evill cannot but follow of it ex natura rei it is a clear argument that such a Position includes falshood and errour Now as Ch. Ma. proves N. 24. your grounds doe of their owne nature giue scope to perpetuall Schismes and divisions And then the consequence is cleare that they are false and erroneous His words which you by abbreviating make ineffectuall are they who separate themselves will answet as you doe prompt that your Church may be forsaken if she fall into errours though they be not Fundamentall and further that no Church must hope to be free from such errours which two grounds being once layd it will not be hard to inferr the consequence that she may be forsaken 21. All that N. 74.75.76.77 you vtter with too much heate is answered by putting you in minde that Ch. Ma. never affirmes that Protestants say the cause of their separation and their motiue to it was absolutely and independently of any separation precisely because they did not cut her of from hope of salvation as you impose vpon him for which foolish reason even Catholiks might be sayd to be Schismatiks from their owne Church because they are sure she is not cut of from hope of salvation but that supposing their separation from vs vpon other causes for example pretended corruptions they pretend to be excused from Schisme and say they did well to forsake her because they doe not hold that she is cut of from hope of salvation Which to be true he C Ma shewes out of Potters words And yourselfe P. 284 N 75. say to C Ma can you not perceaue a difference betweene justifying his separation from Schisme by this reason and making this the reason of his separation And whosoever reads Ch Ma N. 27. will finde that which I say to be true For he expresly sayth that both they who doe and doe not cut of the Church of Rome from hope of salvation agree in the effect of separation Only this effect of separation being supposed without which ther could be no imaginable Schisme they doe alleadge for their excuse that they did it in a different manner because the one part of which we speake conceaved that though they did separate yet they should be excused from Schisme because they did not cut of from hope of salvation the Roman Church ād so this was the motiue or reason for which they judged they might separate from her without the sinne of Schisme and consequently they would not haue done it if they had not had this reason or motiue and consideration wherby to excuse themselves Thus your examples of one saying to his Brother I doe well to leaue you because you are my Brother or of a subject saying to his Soveraigne Lord I doe well to disobey you because I acknowledge you to be my lawfull Soveraigne are meere perversions of Ch. Ma. his words who sayth truly against Potter that if one should part from his Brother vpon some cause and excuse such his departure from fault because he still acknowledges him to be his Brother or if a subject should disobey his Soveraigne vpon some motiue and then should thinke to justify his fact by saying he still acknowledges him to be his lawfull Soveraigne C Ma I say affirmes that such an excuse may justly seeme very strange and rather fit to aggravate then to extenuate or excuse the departure of the one from his Brother and disobedience of the other to his Souveraigne And yet this is our case For both the violent and moderate Protestants agree in the same effect of separation from the Roman Church and disobedience to her Pastours with this only difference that the one sorte sayth that she is cut of from the hope of Salvation and the other sayes she is not and pretend to be excused from Schisme because they say so though they separate themselves from her no lesse then the other doe 22. To your N. 78.79 I answer that when the Fathers and Divines teach that
she proposes you would not haue wanted evasions by saying we should belieue her as far as she agreed with Scripture or in Fundamentall points only as now Protestants say of the vniversall Church 16. Ch Ma Pag 251. N. 18. sayth The Holy Scriptures and ancient Fathers assigne separation from the visible Church as a marke of Heresy which he proves by some textes of Scripture as 1. Joan 2.19 They went out from vs And Actor 15.24 Some went out from vs and Actor 20.30 Out of you shall arise men speaking perverse things This say you is certainly a strange and vnheard of straine of Logick vnless we will say that euery text whe in it is sayd that some body goes out from some body affoards an argument for this purpos and yet you confesse that Hereticks doe alwayes separate from the visible Church but that they who doe soe are not alwayes Heretiks Now if all Heretiks separate from the visible Church ād yet doe not separate from every some body for they doe not separate from themselves and their owne Associates it is a signe that their is great difference betwixt some some body and orhers some body betweene separating from the Church or the Congregation of the Faithfull and frō every other some body But if I proue these propositions every Heretik separates from the Church and every one that separates from the Church is an Heretik to be convertible you will yeald such a separation to be a Mark of Heresy This is easily done by taking your owne grant That Heretiks do always separate from the Church For Heresy being an error against some revealed truth if the Church also may erre against any such truth there is no necessity that an Heretik should separate from the Church but may very well agree with her in such error and so the first part of your assertion that Heretiques do alwayes separate from the Church would be false or if the Church cannot erre every one who separates from her in matters of Faith must be guilty of an errour against Faith and so be an Heretik if therfore the first part of your assertion be true you must grant that the second is false and that as every Heretik separates from the Church so conversivè every one who separates from the Church in matters of beliefe is an Heretik and then it is no wonder if Scripture and Fathers assigne a separation or going out of the Church as a mark of Heresy Which may be further declared in this manner If all Heretiks separate from the Church the reason must be because there is in the Church something incompatible with their Heresy which can be nothing but the true Doctrine and Beliefe which she holds and is opposite to the error which makes thē Heretiks and which whosoever hold are Heretiks and consequently whosoever leaves the Church by occasion of such errors are Heretiks and if they had not held such errors they had remained in the Church Therefore for the same reason for which all Heretiks forsake the Church we must necessarily inferr that whosoever forsake the Churches doctrine are Heretiks that is for the errors which they hold against the truth which the Church is supposed to belieue and if she be supposed to belieue an error an heretique may belieue the same and so goe out of her no more than she goes out of herself For this cause our Saviour saied Matth. 24.26 If therefore they shall say vnto you behold he is in the desert goe you not forth Of which words Henoch Clapham in his souveraigne remedy against Schisme Pag 23. sayth that therby our Saviour forbids going out vnto such desert and corner Ghospells which declares that going out of the Church is Heresy or Schisme and not only that all Heretiks or Schismaticks goe out And now I hope you being convinced by Reason will be better disposed to receiue authority and the true exposition of the text alleadged aboue by Ch Ma of which you say For the first place there is no certainty that it speakes of Heretiks but no Christians and Antichrists of such as denyed Iesus to be the Christ Answer That S. John speakes of Heretiks will appeare by reading Cornelius a Lapide vpon this psace who cites holy Fathers to the same purpos See also the annotation of the Rhemes Testament vpon this Chapter of S. John Uers 18. shewing out of S. Cypriā that all who separate themselves from the Church are called without exception Antichrists Pantaleon in Epist nuncupator Chrongraph saith Tertium locum assignabimus Haereticis qui exierunt de electo Dei populo at non erant ex illo And in Osiander Epitom Histor Ecclesias cent 1. lib 3. cap 1. saith Nota Haereticiex Ecclesia progrediuntur 17. The second place say you It is certaine you must not say it speakes of Heretiks for it speakes only of some who believed and taught an error when it was yet a question and not evident and therfor according to your Doctrine no formall Heresy Answer I see no such certainty as you pretend that the text Act 15.24 Some went out from vs must not speake of Heretiks that is of persons who held an errour against a revealed truth of which some might haue been sufficiently informed before the Councell and Definition or Declaration of the Apostles and that some did proceed in a turbulent and as a man may say Hereticall manner appeares by reading the same Chapter in the Acts. And for our present purpose it is sufficient that separation from the Church is a signe at least of a materiall Heresie or Heretique since the being a formall Heretique depends vpon individuall personall and accidentall circumstances of which to judg in particular is the part of prudence not of Faith though if once the partie know that his opinyon is contrary to the Doctrine of the Church and will yet persist therin and rather leaue the Church than forsake it he cannot be excused from pride singularity and Heresie 18. You say The third sayes indeed that of the Professours of Christianity some shall arise that shall teach Heresy But not one of them all that sayes or intimates that whosoever separates from the visible Church in what state soever is certainly an Heretique Answer we haue shewed that as you say all that are Heretiques goe out of the Church so you must grant that whosoever separates for matter of Doctrine from the visible Church is an Heretique And holy Scripture mentioning so particularly and frequently going out or separation doth clearly put a particular emphasis and force therin as a mark of fals believers and seducers And this to be the sense of the Holy Fathers Ch Ma. hath proved and now we will make good his Proofes by confuting your evasions to the contrary And I must intreate the Reader to consider the words of the Fathers as they are cited in Charity Maintayned with the Inferences which he deduces from them and not as they are interpreted by you 19.