not perswaded that he hath vsed those means which are prescribed for vnderstanding of Scripture you will not be able to defend that the first part of the supposition must needs be true to wit that every Protestant is perswaded that his opinions are true For if he be not perswaded that he hath vsed such meanes he cannot pretend to be sure that his opinions are true and then it is cleare that he who professes not to be sure that Protastant Religion is true is no Protestant nor of any Religion if he doubt of all or be not certaine of any And that which Ch Ma collects from those suppositions to be cleerely consequent appeares even by your instances to the contrarie which are retorted thus If you suppose men to follow the Rules and Principles of Logick and Geometry and yet disagree and consequently some of them to be deceyved you must conclude that Logick and Geometry stand vpon no certaine grounds Now our supposition for the present is that Protestants make vse of those meanes which they prescribe for vnderstanding Scripture and yet disagree among themselves and consequently some of them must be deceived Therefore we must conclude that those meanes are not certaine nor that they haue any certaine ground whereon to relie for vnderstanding Scripture which is the Conclusion of Ch Ma In the same manner I answer and retort your other instances That if Christians were supposed to vse aright all the meanes they haue for finding the truth in matters of Faith ād men be supposed to procede according to the true Rules of Reason and men did disagree we might well inferr that neither Christian Religion nor Reason stand vpon certaine grounds and the same retortion may be applied to your other instances But Sr. though you say it is fals that every Protestant is perswaded that he hath vsed those meanes which are prescribed for vnderstanding Scripture yet it might seeme a hard censure in you who pretend so much charity the property whereof you say is to judge the best to judg that of so very many disagreeing Protestants some haue not vsed the meanes which they prescribe to themselves for vnderstanding Scripture and if they haue it being cleare by their disagreeing that some are in an errour it followes that the meanes are in themselves defectiue vncertaine and insufficient 41. And in this occasion I must not omitt to declare the Reason why Almighty God doth not concurre with Heretiques to the converting of Nations to Christian Religion because indeed they might afterward vpon examination discover that the grounds of those by whom they were converted cannot support a certainty in Faith as they expected and so they would judge themselves rather to haue bene deluded or to vse your owne word tantalized than converted and might be tempted to revolt from Christ till they could find some Rock to which God himself hath promised eternall stability Besides seing Protestant Religion cannot be wholy true as consisting of contrary Sects if God did ordinarily cooperate with them in order to so supernaturall a work he might seeme to giue them the credit of true Teachers and to countenance and confirme a falshood which is impossible for him to doe And even from hence we may gather à posteriori that Protestant Religion is not true seing God doth not take them for his instruments to convert Nations or work Miracles 42. All that you say N. 48. hath bene answered heretofore at large To your N. 49. whether he who erres against any one revealed truth looseth all Divine Faith as Ch Ma saied N. 29. Catholique Divines generally reach I answer First That in reason Protestants ought to make greater account of the Authority of Catholique Divines besides whom there were no Orthodox Doctors before Luther and so to depriue them of estimation and authority cannot be donne without prejuduce to the vniversall and Catholique Church and all Christianity than any Catholique or any prudent man can make of learned Protestants who in their opposition to Catholiques are contrary to all Christian Churches before Luther and write to maintayne such their opposition whereas Catholique Divines who wrote before Luther could not haue any purpose to impugne Protestants yea the disagreement of Protestants among themselves and agreement with vs against their pretended Brethren must needs very much diminish their authority and if they remaine with any estimation or authority it makes for vs with whom the chiefest among them agree in many and great points of Faith You say D. Potter alledged not the meere Authority of Pappus and Flacius to proue this disagreement of Catholiques among thēselves but proved it with the formall words of Bellarmine faithfully collected by Pappus But I pray you that this collection was faithfull or to the purpose how doth Dr. Potter proue otherwise than by taking it vpon the credit and Authority of Pappus seing the Doctor doth not alledg so much as any one instance in particular As for the pretended disagreements among Catholiques they can be only in matters disputable or not defined by the Church frō which definition if any should swarue he were no Catholique and for other matters we are content that Pappus muster not only 237. but as many more points as he pleases For by such a multiplication he will onlie make an Addition to his owne manifest Impertinences as your alledging the Example of Brereley is a meere impertinence it being cleare that he alledges the disagreeing of Protestants among themselves not only in by-matters or in the manner or reason of their Assertions but even in the conclusions themselves and not only as disagreeing among thēselves but as directly agreeing with vs against other Protestants in the very conclusions whereof I desire the Reader for his owne good and full satisfaction to peruse Brereley in his Advertisment to him that shall answer his treatise and his preface to the Christian Reader Catholick or Protestant 43. Secondly Though you are pleased to call it weakness in Ch Ma to vrge Protestants with the authority of Catholique Divines yet you can haue no pretence to slight men of their fame and learning when they are considered not as disagreeing from Protestants nor in a Question controverted betwene them and vs but are seconded by the chiefest and learnedst of them Protestants For what doth it import Protestants that Heresie or infidelity destroies all Divine Faith vnless they will tacitely confess or feare that they are guilty of those crimes Let vs heare the verdit of some principall Protestants Luther in Capit 7. Matth. saieth Heretiques are not Christians And Faith must be round that is in all Articles believing howsoever little matters And in tria Symbola Christian Faith must be entire and perfect every waie For albeit it may be weak and faint yet it must needs be entire and true And Epist. ad Albertum He doth not satisfie if in other things he confess Christ and his word For who denieth Christ in one Article or word
answer with Ch. Ma. that the Apostles set downe those Points Fundamentall and not Fundamentall which the Holy Ghost inspired them to deliver as you say they were inspired to set downe Credenda and not Agenda though these be of no lesse importance and necessity then those and you still begg the Question N. 75. that the end which the Apostles proposed was to set downe all necessary points of Faith The reasons which you giue N. 76. why some mysteries were omitted and others set downe can only be congruences of that which is done de facto and not arguments convincing that they could not haue done otherwise thē they did ād if they had set downe others and not these there could not haue wanted reasons for their so doing That the three Sages who came to adore our Saviour were also Kings is no new invention of Ch. Ma. but the judgment of the Ancient as may be seene in Cornelius a Lapide in Matth. Chap. 2. citing by name the Saints Ciprian Basil Chrisostom Hierom Hilary and Tertullian Isidore Beda Idacius The words which you cited out of Gordonius Huntlaeus Contr 2. Cap. 10. N. 10. that the Apostles were not so forgetfull after the receiving of the holy Ghost as to leaue out any prime ād Principall Foundation of Faith make nothing for your purpos seing we dispute not whether any prime or principall foundation of Faith be left out for we acknowledge that the Creed expresses the Creator of all things and Redeemer of mankinde as also the Blessed Trinity Resurrection Catholique Church Remission of sinnes and life everlasting which of themselves are prime and principall foundations of our Faith if they be vnderstood according to the interpretation and tradition of the Church but whether any necessary though not prime and principall be left out and that may well be necessary which is not prime and principall as many parts are necessary to make a house which are not the prime and principall parts therof Yet indeed Gordonius in that 10. Chapter assignes the properties of the foundation of Faith that is of that Authority vpon which our Faith relies which he proves Chap. 11. not to be Scripture alone and C. 12. not to be the private spirit but Chap 13. to be the Church and he saieth the Apostles could not leaue out of their Creed in quo continentur omnia prima fundamenta Fidei this primum praencipuum Fidei fundamentum Where you see he speakes of the First foundations of Faith and more things may be necessary than the First foundations Besides we deny not but all necessary points are contained in the Creed in some of those senses which I haue declared hertofore which being well cōsidered particularly that Article of the Catholick Church will demonstrate that the Creed togeather with those means which are affoarded vs by tradition c for the true vnderstanding therof and vndoubted supplying of what is not contained in it is of no lesse vse and profit then if all points had been exprest which indeed had been to little purpos yea would haue proved noxious by the malice of men without the declaration of the Church for the Orthodox sense and meaning of them 62. You doe not well in saying that Charity Maintayned denyes this consequence of Dr. Potter That as well nay better they might haue given no Article but that of the Church and sent vs to the Church for all the rest For in setting downe others besides that and not all they make vs belieue we haue all when we haue not all and neither gives reason against it nor satisfies his reason for it For Charity Maintayned performes both those things neither of which you say he performes as every one may see who reads his N. 29. to say nothing that in good Logick the defendent is not obliged to giue a reason why he denyes a consequence it being reason sufficiēt that the opponent or disputant proves it not though yet indeed Charity Maintayned doth shew the insufficiency of the Doctors inference by giving the like consequences which confessedly cannot be good and yourselfe endeavour to answer the reasons of Charity Maintayned which he brought against the sayd inference of Potter You say If our doctrine were true this short Creed I belieue the Roman Church to be infallible would haue been better that is more effectuall to keepe the believers of it from heresie and in the true Faith then this Creed which now we haue a proposition so evident that I cannot see how either you or any of your religion or indeed any sensible man can from his hart deny it Yet because you make shew of doing so or else which I rather hope doe not rightly aprehende the force of the Reason I will endeavour briefly to add some light and strength to it by comparing the effects of those sever all supposed Creeds 63. Answer perhaps I shall say in the beginning that which will make your endeavour proue vaine You say If our doctrine were true this short Creed I belieue the Roman Church to be infallible would haue been botter that is more effectuall to keepe the believes of it from heresie and in the true Faith then this Creed which now we haue But this ground of yours is evidently false For the effect or Fruit or Goodnesse or Betternesse so to speake of the Creed is not sufficiently explicated by being more effectuall to keepe men from heresy and in the true Faith but it implies also som particular articles which are to be believed in the beliefe of which that we may not erre the infallibility of the Church directs ād secures vs which office she might and would haue performed although this Article I belieue the Catholick Church directs ād secures vs had not beene exprest in the Creed yea that article ād the whole Creed supposes the infallibility of the Church to haue been proved ād believed antecedēter to thē that so we may be assured all the contēts therof to be infallibly true Now by the precise beliefe of that Creed which you propose taken alone we could not belieue any particular article of Faith because this precise act I belieue the Church to be infallible terminates in that one object of the infallibility of the Church from which I grant the beliefe of other particular objects may be derived when the Church shall propose thē but thē ipso facto we should begin to beleeue other particular objects and so haue an other Creed and not that little one of which you speake and besides which we are obliged to belieue other particular revealed Truths and therfor we must still haue some other Creed or Catechisme or what you would haue it called besides that one article of the Catholick Church as Charity Maintayned observes Pag 144. and consequently though that article of the Church haue that great and necessary effect of keeping vs from heresy and in the true Faith yet it wants that other property of a Creed
Truth and will be such in despight of Heresie Sophistrie and witt One favour I must acknowledg to receyue from Mr Chillingworth though I owe him no thanks for it that his Contradictions are so frequent as they alone are enough to confute himself Whereof I giue no examples heere in regard they perpetually offer themselves through his whole Book as the Reader will perceyue and if I be not deceived not without wonder that a man so cryed vp by some other should so patently be decryed by himself not vpon any sense of humility but by the fate as I may saie of falshood which cannot be long constant to itself (a) Anastasius Synaita Cap 15. odegou Sunt qui nihil peusi habent etiamsi inconsequenter loquantur aut in praecipitia se ingerant dummodo Adversatijs rectè sentientibus creent molestiam And this must needs appeare credible if we consider that those Books which were first published against him agree in the same judgment of his Contradictions though I am verie certaine they could not borrow their censure from one an other 8. As for the bulk of my Book I must acknowledg that it might haue bene comprised in a lesser compass if I could in wisdom haue measured the conceypts of men by the matter which certainly did oftentimes not require or deserue any Answer But we are debters sapientibus insipientibus to all sorts of persons and many will be apt to Judge and proclaime all that to be vnanswerable which is not actually answered to their hand Nevertheless vpon exact account though Mr Chillingworth answer one Parte only of Charity Maintayned yet you see it is no small volume but is more than three times greater than the Part answered And so one half of Charity Maintayned temaines till this day vnanswered 9. I meddle not with Mr Chillingworths Answer by waie of Preface to a litle Work intituled A Direction to N. N. because presently vpon the publishing of his Book that Preface of his was in such manner confuted by a wittie erudite and solid Book with this Title The judgment of an Vniversity-man concerning Mr William Chillingworth his late Pamphlet in Answer to Charity Maintayned that He was much troubled thereat but yet thought fit to disgest his vexation by silence 10. But the maine Point which I must propose heere and which I confide everie indifferent Reader will finde to be clearely evinced even out of Mr Chillingworths owne words is this That whereas he gives this Title to his Book The Religion of Protestants a safe way to salvation he might and ought in stead thereof either to haue saied The Religion of Protestants not a safe way to salvation Or The Religion of Roman Catholiques a safe way to salvation Or finally Christian Religion not a safe way to salvation For 11. First He confesses that some Protestants must be in errours and proves it because they hold Propositions contradictorie one to an other and besides he teaches that millions of them erre damnably in these words Pag 21. If any Protestant or Papist be betraied into or kept in any Errour by any sinne of his will as it is to be feared many millions are such Errour is as the cause of it sinfull and damnable Yet not exclusiue of all hope of salvation but perdonable if discovered vpon a particular explicite repentance if not discovered vpon a generall and implicite repentance for all sinnes known and vnknowne To which words if we add what he saieth Pag 16. N. 21. The very saying they were pardonable implies they needed pardon and therefore in themselves were damnable The Conclusion will be that the errours of Protestants are damnable in themselves Otherwise they needed no pardon or repentance nor could it be a sinne to he betrayed into or kept in them And Pag 19. and 20. he saieth If they faile to vse such a measure of industry in finding truth as humane prudeÌ„ce and ordinary discretion shall advise them vnto in a matter of such consequence then their errors begin to be malignant and justly imputable as offences aganst God and that loue of his truth which he requires in vs. And he in the same place expresly affirmes that the farre greater parte of Protestants are in this case So that now he sends to Hell the greater parte of Protestants for the errours which they hold and yet makes no scruple to delude them with a verball Mock-Title that the Religion of Protestants is a safe way to salvation But this is not all He saieth Pag 218. N. 49. 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 fearefull that some of their opioions either as they are or as they are apt to be mistaken though not of themselves so damnable but that good and holy men may be saved with them yet are too frequent occasions of our remisnes and slacknesse in running the race of Christian Perfection 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 menâ— Damnation All these be his express words And how can that Religion be a safe way to salvation which not accidentally but even by the Doctrine thereof gives so frequent occasions of meâ—â— Damnation And Pag 387. N. 4. he grants that Charity Maintayned hath Something that has some probability to perswade some Protestants to forsake some of their opinions or other to leaue their Communion From which words it necessarily followes that all Protestants are in state of sinne and damnation either because they themselves hold errours or by reason they leaue not the Communion of those who hold them And P. 280. N. 95. he saith to vs Though Protestants haue some Errors yet they are not so great as yours which last though it were true as it is most false yet it is impertinent yea it makes against Protestants by granting that theyr errors are damnable though not so damnable as ours and consequently that their Religion cannot be a safe way to salvation And it is to be observed that he writes the saied words that Protestants baue some Errors in conformity to what Dr Potter confesses Pag 69. that errors and corruptions are not perfectly taken away among Protestants nor every where alike And what a safe way can that Sect be which by the Professors and Defenders thereof is confessed to be guilty of Errors against Faith and damnable in themselves He speaks also fully to my purpose when he saieth Pag 306. N. 106. For our continuing in their Communion he speaks of Protestants notwithstanding their errors the justification hereof is not so much that their errours are not damnable As that they require not the belief and profession of these errors among the conditions of their Communion Which excuse of his doth not extenuate but aggravate the
vs now come to some other kind of Argument 27. Hitherto Christians haue belieued that true Christian Faith is a Theologicall vertue that is it hath for its Formall object and Motiue God as he is infinitly Wise and True as Hope respects Him as infinitly Powerfull and Charity as infinitly Good But the Faith of these men cannot be a Theologicall vertue Therfore their faith is no true Christian Faith The Minor cannot be denyed in the grounds of this man For although they will pretend to belieue the Articles of Christiā Religion because God hath reuealed them yet the Argumēts of Credibility or humane testimonyes are the only formall object or Motiue of this Assent God hath reuealed the Mysteryes of Christian Religion They are I say Premises from which the sayed Conclusion or act and assent of Faith is deduced and according to which it is to be measured and not only Preparations or Dispositions to it as Catholike Diuines teach so that the infallible Diuine Reuelation comes to be only a materiall object belieued for another fallible Motiue or Formall Object infinitly beneath the Testimony of God which alone is able to constitute a Theologicall vertue Thus he plainly saith Pag 36. N. 8. God desires only that we belieue the Conclusion as much as the Premises deserue that the strength of our faith be equall or proportionable to the credibility of the Motiues to it and most expresly he saith in the same place Our faith is an assent to this Conclusion that the Doctrine of Christianity is true which being deduced from a Thesis which is metaphysically certaine and from an Hypothesis wherof we can haue but a morall certainty we cannot possibly by naturall meanes be more certaine of it then of the weaker of the Premises You see he holds the Assent of Faith to be a Conclusion not proportioned to Diuine Reuelation which is most infallible and strong but measured by the weaker of the Premises grounded vpon humane inducements which cannot giue Species or nature and essence to a Theologicall vertue and so his probable Faith is no more than an humane Opinion For euen as he who concludeth out of Mathematicall Principles knowne only probably hath not knowledg but opinion so he that belieues out of Principles not certaine a Reuelation of its nature certaine hath not certaine knowledg but only opinion And therfor his saying Pag 35. N. 7. that he conveyues Faith to be an assent to Diuine Reuelations vpon the authoty of the Renealer will in no wise free him from the just imputation of turning Diuine Faith into Opinion since his assent to Diuine Reuelation is grounded and measured and receyues its essence from testimonyes and Principles only probable and humane and not from the Diuine Reuelation without which euen Dr. Potter Pag. 143. expressly sayes Faith is but Opinion or perswasion or at the most an acquired humane belief And it is to be obserued that the Doctour speakes expresly of the Authority of the Church which he sayth can beget only an Opinion and yet Chillingworth resolues our belief of the Scripture into the Tradition and teaching of the Church and therfor his belief of the Scripture cannot passe the degree of Opinion or humane belief 28. Children are taught in their Catechismes that Faith Hope and Charity are vertues and all Diuines agree that Faith is a vertue infused and seing it resides in the vnderstanding it must be a Vertue of the vnderstanding which of its nature cannot produce any but true acts because vertue out of S. Austine Lib 2. de Libero arbitrio is a quality which by no man is vsed ill And vertue as Diuines teach togeather with Aristotle disposes the Power to that which is best Wherfor the vertue of the will disposeth it vnto Good which is the wils good and an intellectuall vertue must dispose the vnderstanding to that which is True which is the intellectiue Powers greatest Good Since therfor Faith is of its owne essence an intellectuall vertue it must haue an intrinsecall reference and tye vnto true Acts and an incapacity and repugnance vnto false ones and errours 29. Besides Faith is the first Power of supernaturall Being and ought not to be inferiour to Habitus Principiorum in our naturall Being which Habits cannot incline to any false assent And whence comes it that the Habit of Faith for producing an Act requires Gods speciall helpe which cannot moue vnto falshood but that such a Habit is determinated to Truth Or how is it giuen vs as a fitt sufficient and secure meanes wherby to captiuate our vnderstanding with great considence to the obedience of Faith and of God if it be not determined to truth without all danger of errour Will he deny that it exceeds Gods Power to produce such a Habit or to concurre with our vnderstanding to such an Act as shal be incapable of errrour Or what imaginable reason can there be to deny that Faith is such in which concurre Diuine Reuelation a Pious Affection and command of the will and the speciall Grace of the Holy Ghost What A supernaturall End of eternall Happyness a supernaturall Habit a supernaturall Grace a supernaturall Act an infinite Authority or formall Object and all to end in meere weake Probabilityes Doth water rise as high as the source from which it flowes and shall not all these diuine and supernaturall fountaynes raise vs higher than Opinion Good Christians can correct naturall Reason in poynts which to Philosophers seemed euident truths and Principles as in the Creation against that Axiom Ex nihilo nihil fit of nothing nothing is made In the Resurrection against From priuation there is not admitted a retourning back to the former Being In the incarnation against A substance is that which exists by it selfe and yet our Sauiours sacred Humanity exists in the Eternall Word in the Mystery of the B. Trinity against Those things which are the same with a third are the same amongst themselues and not to alledge more particulars all miracles wrought by our Sauiour aboue the strength of all naturall causes seemed in humane reason to imply a contradiction or impossibility and whatsoeuer is belieued aboue Reason would seeme false and against it if we did not correct Reason by Faith which could not be done vnless we did judge the light of Faith to be more certaine than the light of Reason or the Principles therof And this Chilling must either grant and so yield faith to be infallible or els must be content to acknowledg a plaine contradiction to himselfe This appeares by these words Pag. 376. N. 56. Propose me any thing out of this booke the Bible and require whether I belieue it or no and seeme it neuer so incomprehensible to humane reason I will subscribe it with hand and hart as knowing no demonstration can be stronger then this God hath sayd so therfor it is true And in the Conclusion of his Booke § And wheras he professeth that he will not belieue
not such a feeling of Scripture and the Gospell of Christ they are no Christians nor ought we to forbeare the declaring how necessary infallible Faith is for any panicall feare of this Pharisaicall scandall Rather we are obliged to declare the truth least we become accessary to their perdition which none can avoyd who deny the certainty of Christian Faith and Religion and rest in the false confidence of fallible probable faith of the same kind with the belief which they give to the truth of other storyer I know you rely much vpon that Axiom that the Conclusion followes the weaker Premise but I did not imagine as I touched hertofore you would so farr betray yourselfe as to hold that If one have probable Motives to believe that some Man did testify a truth and have equall Motives that God reveales or witnesserh the same thing his assent to that truth as it is witnessed by God is not greater than his belief therof as it is witnessed by man if the Reasons for which I believe it is witnessed by God and by Man be of equall strength and yet you must say so if with your considering men you believe the Scripture and Gospell of Christ with the same kind of belief which they give to the truth of other storyes Wherin I confess you would doe as all Heretiques are wont pass from ill to worse For Pag 141. N. 27. you say For the incorruption of Scripture I know no other rationall assurance we can have of it then such as we have of the incorruption of other ancient Bookes that is the consent of ancient Copyes such I meane for the kind though it be farr greater for the degree of it And Pag 62. N. 24. speaking also of the incorruption of Scripture you say I know no other meanes to be assured herof than I have that any other Book is incorrupted For though I have a greater degree of rationall and humane Assurance of that than this in regard of divers considerations which make it more credible That the Scripture hath bene preserved from any materiall alteration yet my assurance of both is of the same kind and condition both Morall assurances and neither Physicall or Mathematicall But now you are very carefull that the faith of considering men be not crackt by too much straining but be left to believe the Gospell of Christ with such a kind of assent as they yeald to other matters of tradition and is vndiscernable from the belief they give to the truth of other storyes Vnhappy men who relying on their considering and discoursing forget that Christian Faith is a Gift infused by the Holy Ghost and not to be measured by meere humane Motives or Rules of logick I will not loose tyme in telling you that a thing may be crack't by too much strayning not only by excess as you vnjustly accuse vs but also by way of Defect such as your weake faith is in order to the true saving Faith of Christians which being reduced to probability looseth its very Essence and Kind 102. Object 8. Against these words of Charity Maintayned Chap 6. N. 2. Allmighty God having ordained man to a supernaturall End of Beatitude by supernaturall meanes it was requisite that his vnderstanding should be enabled to apprehend that End and meanes by a supernaturall knowledg And because if such a knowledge were no more than probable it could not be able sufficiently to over-beare our will and encounter with humane probabilityes being backed with the strength of flesh and bloud it was further necessary that this supernaturall knowledg should be most certaine and infallible and that Faith should believe nothing more certainly then that it selfe is a most certain Belief and so be able to beare downe all gay probabilityes of humane Opinyon You argue thus Pag 327. N. 5. Who sees not that many millions in the world forgoe many tymes their present ease and pleasure vndergoe great and toyisome labours encounter great difficultyes adventure vpon great dangers and all this not vpon any certaine expectation but vpon a probable hope of some future gaine and commodity and that not infinite and eternall but finite and temporall Who sees not that many men abstaine from many things they exceedingly desire not vpon any certaine assurance but a probable feare of danger that may come after What man ever was there so madly in love with a present penny but that he would willingly spend it vpon a little hope that by doing so be might gaine a hundred thousand pound and I would faine know what gay probabilityes you could devise to disswade him from this Rosolution And if you can devise none what reason then or sence is there but that a probable hope of infinite and eternall happyness provided for all those that obey Christ Iesus and much more a firme faith though not so certain in some fort as sense or science may be able to sway our will to obedience and encounter with all those temptations which Flesh and Bloud can suggest to avert vs from it Men may therfor talke their pleasure of an absolute and most infallible certainty but did they generally belieue that obedience to Christ were the only way to present and eternall felicity but as firmely and vndoubtedly as that there is such a Citty as Constaninople nay but as much as Caesars Commentaryes or the History of Salust I belieue the life of most men both Papists and Protestants would be better than they are Thus therfor out of your owne words I argue against you He that requires to true faith an absolute and infallible certainty for this only Reason because any less degree could not be able to overbeare our will c imports that if a less degree of faith were able to doe this then a less degree of faith may be true and divine and saving faith But experience shews and Reason confirmes that a firme faith though not so certaine as sense or science may be able to encounter and overcome our will and affections And therfor it followes from your owne reason that faith which is not a most certaine and infallible knowledg may be true and divine and saving faith 103. Answer First when Charity Maintayned wrote against D. Potter who with other Protestants and Catholiques maintaynes the infallibility of Christian Faith he never dreamed of any necessity to proue such an infallibility and therfor he touched that point incidently and not of purpose as a thing presupposed not to be proved And therfor what you object against vs is to be answered by those whom you call Brethren 104. Secondly I might speedily and easily answer in one word That your Objection doth not so much as touch the Argument of Char Maintayned which was that vnless Faith were infallible it would not be able to beare downe all probabilityes of humane Opinyon offering themselves against it that is it could not be constant and permanent and therfor must either be infallible or end in none at
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
amongst themselves nor vvith vs Catholikes Socinians goe further and deny Baptisme to be a Sacrament and teach that all are not obliged to receaue it but that some may be enrolled amongst the number of Christians without it That the church may either leaue it of or at least can compell none to receyue it and in a vvord that it is a thing adiaphorous or indifferent (b) Volkel Lib. 6. Cap. 14. The Eucharist also they hold not to be a SacrameÌ„t (c) Volkel Lib. 4. C 22. that it may be administred by lay persons (d) Ibidem and receyved by such as are not baptized (e) Lib. 7. Cap. 14. Other Protestants do not agree about the necessity of Baptisme 40. As for the Matter and Forme of those tvvo Sacraments vvhich they admit Divers of them expressly teach that vvater is not absolutely necessary in Baptisme but that some other liquid thing may serue and yet the scripture sayth Joan 3. V. 5. Vnless a man be borne againe of vvater and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter the Kingdome of God And Ephes 5.25.26 Christ loved the church and delivered himself for it that he might sanctify it cleansing it by the laver in the vvord of life And for the Forme there vvant not that teach those vvords In the name of the Father c. not to be necessary About the Forme of the Eucharist they agree not some requiring no vvords at all other requiring vvords but in a farr different manner and meaning one from another as may be seene in Bellarm. Lib. 4. de Sacrament Eucharistiae Cap. 12. And for the Matter some Protestants as Beza Tilenus Bucanus Hommius teach that neither bread nor vvine is necessary for the Eucharist though it be evident in scripture that our Sauiour consecrated in bread and vvine As also Beza Lib Quest Respons Vol 3. Theol Pag 364. saith that it is naevus in Ecclesijs c. A blemish in those Churches which vse vnleavened bread rather than leavened and savours of Iudaâ—sme and yet he affirmes that Christ first blessed vnleavened bread and instituted this supper at that tyme when it was not lawfull for the Iewes to vse any but vnleavened bread And Sadeel ad Artic 56. abjurat Pag 511. saith Christ indeed vsed vnleavened bread Did Christ that vvhich savours of Judaisme Christ did institute the Sacraments at supper By what authority then do they alter these things if we must stand to scriprure alone without the churches tradition and authority What evident Text can they bring for these and the like alterations as not first washing feete c. And Volkel Lib 4. C. 22. affirmes that if one cannot drinke wine he may vse water without changing the substance of the Lord's supper as he speakes Montague the pretended Bishop first of Chichester then of Norwich in the articles of visitation Ann 1631. Tit. Articles concerning Divine service and administration of the Sacraments N. 9. sayth thus Is the wine as it should be representing bloud not sacke whyte wine water or some other liquor but yet for the further satisfaction of the Reader I think sitt to transcribe the words of Brereley who Tract 2. Cap. 2. Sect. 10. subdivis 7. doth to this purpose cite punctually the opinions of divers learned Protestants in these words Concerning the forme of words requisite to a Sacrament Luther (a) To 2 Wittenberg Lib de Captivit Babilon Cap de Baptis Fol 75. affirmes Baptisme to be good with whatsoever words it be ministred so the same be not in the name of man but of God Yea he sayth I doubt not but if one receyue Baptisme in the name of God although the wicked Minister giue it not in the name of God he is truly baptised in the name of God Also Brentius (b) In Catheches Cap de Bap and Zwinglius (c) To 2. Lib de vera falsa Religione Cap de Baptism sub finem Fol. 202. And see Zuinglius more plainly To 2. Lib. de Baptis Fol 66 affirme that no prescript forme of words is necessary in Baptisme to omitt that Bullinger (d) in his Decads Decad. 5. Ser 6. Pag. 969. paulo post med and 975. and 976. and 974. doth discourse at large against the necessity of any forme of words to be pronounced And that Bucer in Matth. C. 26 teacheth recitall of Christ's words in the Sacrament of the Eucharist not to be necessary one of their owne martyrs Iohn Lassells in his letter Apologeticall recorded for the supposed worth therof by M. Fox in his Acts and monâ— Pag 678.679 affirmes ehat S. Paul durst not take vpon him to say Hoc est Corpus meum This is my body but omitted those words affirming yet further that The Lord Iesus sayd it once for all Whervpon he maketh the necessity to consist not in any words pronounced but in the breaking and giving of bread Wherevnto might be added the agreeable doctrine of Muscolus (e) in Lo comm C. de Caen Dom Pag 336. circa med post medium and the like answerable practise of the reformed Church in Scotland f As appeares in the booke of the vsage of the kirk of Scotland printed at Rochell 1596. Pag. 189.190.191.192.193 41. The same I may say of the Forme Matter and Manner to be vsed in the Ordination of Bishops Priests and others Degrees in the church All which poynts being of great importance in Gods church which cannot consist without true Governours and Sacraments and yet not being determinable by scripture alone as is manifest both by the thing it self and by the different and contrary Opinions of learned Protestants concerning them we must infer that all things necessary are not evidently contayned in scripture 42. Which is so manifest a truth that Dr. Field one of the greatest Clerks amongst English Protestants L. 4. C. 20. summeth togeather divers traditions not contayned in scripture saying we admit first the Bookes of Canonicall Scriptue as delivered by tradition what more fundameÌ„tall article than this to Protestants who profess to haue no Faith but by scripture which this man acknowledges to be receyved and believed by traditions Secondly the chief heads of Christian Doctrine and distinct explication of many things somwhat obscurely contayned in Scripture Mark that a poynt contayned obscurely in scripture may become evident by explication of the church as I sayd in the beginning of this chapter and mark that he specifyes the chief heads of christian Doctrine Fourthly the continued practise of such things as are not expressed in scripture Fiftly such observations as are not particularly commanded in scripture Amongst which and the former he numbreth the Fast of Lent the Baptisme of infants of which he sayes it is not expressly delivered in scripture that the Apostles did baptize Infants nor any express precept there found that they should do so and observation of our Lords day and afterward he confesseth that many other things there are which
and to helpe once self with interpreters c. Is this to make the scripture easy and evident Or is it not to make it evidently true that it is evident few can possibly obserue those Rules without which these men confess that scripture cannot be vnderstood 44. And now to proue that I also spoake truth in saying it is evident that these Ruls though they were observed are not sufficient to make scripture cleare and evident it were abundantly sufficient to reflect on the great and irreconciliable disagreements amongst Protestants themselves which argues that either scripture is not evident or that they are extreamly blind or malitious or dissemble and speaâ—â— against the belief of their owne hart Doth not Chill say Preface N. 30. that there is no more certaine signe that a poynt is not evident than that honest and vnderstanding and indifferent men and such as giue themselues liberty of judgment after a mature consideration of the matter differ about it But yet I will proue it out of a Protestant who in generall brings vnaswerable arguments against the pretented evidence of scripture and proves in particular that the Meanes of Rules assigned by Protestants to vnderstand the scripture are not sufficient to convince or make evident the the sense therof I meane Dr. Jeremy Taylor in a Discourse of the liberty of Prophecying printed An 1647. He sect 3. endeavours to proue in generall the difficulty and vncertainty of arguments from scripture First by consideration of scripture it self in regard of different copies translations c. By the many senses of scripture when the Grammaticall sense iâ— found out for there is in very many scriptures a deuble sense a litterall and a spirituall and both these senses are subdivided For the litterall sense is either naturall or Figuratiue and the spirituall is somtymes Allegoricall somtymes Anagogicall nay somtymes there are divers litterall senses in the same sentence This I say first he proves in generall and then Sect 4. directly to my purpose he proves that the meanes which are wont to be assigned for interpreting scripture are but vncertaine Thus he discourses First somtyme the sense is drawne forth by the context and connexion of parts It is well when it can be so But when there is two or three antecedents and subjects spoken of what man or what Rule shall asâ—ertaine me that I make my reference true by drawing the relation to such an antecedent to which I haue a mynd to apply it another hath not c Secondly An other great pretense is the conference of places which he sayes is of so indefinite capacity that if there be ambiguity of words variety of sense alteration of circumstances or difference of style amongst Divine Writers then there is nothing which may be more abused by wilfull people or may more easily deceive the vnwary or that may amuse the most intelligent Observer This he proves by some examples and sayes that it is a fallacy a posse ad esse affirmativè from a possibility of being to an affirmatiue heing that is because a word is somtymes vsed in such a sense therfor it must alwayes be taken in that sense and concludes that this is the great way of answering all the Arguments that can be brought against any thing that any man hath a mynd to defend and any man that reades any controversyes of any side shall fynd as many instances of this vanity almost as he fynds Arguments from Scripture This fault was of old noted by S. Austin De Doctrina Christiana Lib. 3. for then they had got this trick and he is angry at it Neque enim putare debemus esse praescriptum vt quod in aliquo loco res aliqua per similitudinem significaverit hoc etiam semper significare credamus Thus the Doctor 45. And I say in one word This conferring of divers places can produce no certainty vnless you can first giue a certaine and evident Rule why and when this word is to be explicated by that rather than that by this the first by the second rather than the second by the first But who will dreame that any such certaine Rule can be given 46. Thirdly Tailor procedes Oftentymes Scriptures are pretended to be expounded by a proportion and Analogy of reason This he impugnes at large and saith it is with reason as with mens tastes When a man doth speake reason it is but reason he should be heard but though he may have the good fortune or the great abilityes to doe it yet he hath not a certainty no regular infallible assistance no inspiration of Arguments and deductions and if he had yet because it must be reason that must judge of reason vnless other mens vnderstandings were of the same ayre the same constitution and ability they cannot be prescribed vnto by an other mans reason especially because such reasonings as vsually are in explication of particular places of Scripture depend vpon minute circumstances and particularityes in which it is so easy to be deceyved and so hard to speake reason regularly and alwayes that it is the greater wonder if we be not deceyved I may say that Faith being aboue Reason Reason must submit to Faith and not Faith be subject to Reason For as S. Bernard excellently saies Ep 190. What is more against Reason than that one should striue to go beyond Reason by force of Reason 47. Fourthly Others pretend to expound Scripture by the analogy of Faith This he sayth is but a chimera a thing in nubibus which varyes like the right hand and left hand of a pillar For if by the analogy of Faith be vnderstood the Rule of Faith that is the Creed were it not a fine devise to go to expound all the Scripture by the Creed there being in it so many thousand places which haue no more relation to any Article in Creed than they haue to Tityre tu patulae But if you extend the analogy of Faith further than that which is proper to the rule or Symbol of Faith then every man expounds Scripture according to the analogy of Faith but what His own Faith which Faith if it be questioned I am no more bound to expound according to the analogy of another mans Faith then he is to expound according to the analogy of myne And this is it that is complained on of all sides â—â—at over-value their owne opinions Scripture seemes so clearly to speake what they beheue that they wonder all the world does not see as cleare as they do c In this he speaks what we find by daily experience and the Reason is because evident or obscure probable or improbable being but extrinsecall Denominations in respect of the Objects which are in themselves either so or not so Est or Non taken from the Acts of our vnderstanding which haue great dependance on severall complexions affections education and other prejudices no wonder if one man judg that to be true and evident which another
only in generall that some commands oblige only vnder a veniall sinne your saying is impertinent to a matter in which the least sin committed by disbelieving any Poynt sufficiently proposed as a divine Revelation is deadly as I haue declared and you often and purposely grant Yea further how can it be sayd that some of the least commandements of which our Saviour speakes are concerning veniall sins seing our Saviour affirmes that whosoever shall break one of his least commandements and shall so teach men shal be called the leastin the kingdome of Heaven if those words signify an exclusion from Heaven Or if this exposition please you not but that you will haue them vnderstood of veniall sins then you must explicate how our Saviour could say he that shall break one of his Commandements obliging only vnder a veniall sin shal be least in the kingdome of Heaven seing all men break such commands by committing veniall sins and so there shal be no comparison or contradistinction of least or great but all must be reckoned amongst the least Besides you must reflect that our Saviour speakes of him that shall break one of his least commandements and shall so teach men Now though it be but a veniall sin to breake a commandement which obliges only to abstaine from a veniall sin yet to teach that it is lawfull to breake any commandement even concerning veniall sins is a great and deadly sin as being an errour against Faith As for example to lye or wittingly to vtter an vntruth ossiciocè or jocose without prejudice vnto any is but a veniall sin yet to belieue and much more to profess and teach that it is no sin to lye were a grievous deadly sin of Heresy To what purpose then do you tell vs of our pretending that some least commandements are only concerning veniall sins But the truth is I conceyue it will be hard to name any writer who doth so oftē cast himself into labyrinths and perplexityes as you doe In the meane tyme it appeares more and more how necessary it is that there be some living judg for determining Controversyes of Religion not only in Articles vniversally and absolutely and in all cases necessary but also for other Poynts which by occasion of emergent Heresyes or for avoyding contentions and danger of Schismes or other causes may necessarily require to be determined And that things profitable taken as it were in generall are necessary to be believed in Gods Church as I haue declared aboue 75. Which truth is yet strongly proved by other words of yours in the same Pag. 9. N. 7. where about holding errours not necessary or not fundamentall you say It imports very much though not for the possibility that you may be saved yet for the probality that you will be so because the holding of these errours though it did not merit might yet occasion damnation As the doctrine of Indulgences may take away the feare of Purgatory and the doctrine of Purgatory the feare of Hell as you well know it does too frequently So that though a godly man might be saved with these errours yet by meanes of them many are made vicious and so damned By them I say though not for them No godly Layman who is verily perswaded that there is neither impiety nor superstition in the vse of your Latine service shall be damned I hope for being present at it yet the want of that devotion which the frequent hearing the Offices vnderstood might happily beget in them the want of that instruction and edification which is might afford them may very probably hinder the salvation of many which otherwise might haue bene saved Besides though the matter of an Errour may be only something profitable not necessary yet the neglect of it may be a damnable sinne As not to regard veniall sinnes is in the doctrine of your Schooles mortall Lastly as veniall sinnes you say dispose men to mortall so the erring from some profitable though lesser truth may dispose a man to errours in greater matters As for example The belief of the Popes infallibility is I hope not vnpardonably damnable to every one that holds it yet if it be a falshood as most certainly it is it puts a man into a very congruous disposition to belieue Antichrist if he should chance to get into that See These be your words to which I may add what you haue Pag. 388. N. 6. where you say to your adversary Wheras you say it is directly against Charity to our selves to adventure the omitting of any meanes necessary to salvation this is true but so this also that it is directly against the same Charity to adventure the omitting any thing that may any way helpe or conduce to my salvation that may make the way to it more secure or less dangerous And therfor if the errours of the Roman Church do but hinder me in this way or any way endanger it I am in Charity to my self bound to forsake them though they be not destructiue of it And Pag. 278. N. 61. you say If I did not find in my self a loue and desire of all profitable truth If I did not put away idlenesse and prejudice and worldly affections and so examine to the bottome all my opinions of divine matters being prepared in mynd to follow God and God only which way soever he shall lead me if I did not hope that I either doe or endevour to doe these things certainly I should haue litle hope of obtaining salvation What could haue bene sayd more effectually to proue the necessity of some infallible Meanes to decide controversyes evē in things only somthing profitable as you speake For out of these your own words it will be demanded whether it be no matter that such poynts be declared since they may import very much though not for the possibility that men may be saved yet for the probability that it will be so because the holding of errours in those matters though it did not merit might yet occasion damnation and by the meanes of them many are made vicious and so damned and because the want of that devotion which the truths contrary to those errours might happily beget and the want of that instruction and edification which they might afford may very probably hinder the salvation of many which otherwise might haue bene saved since also though the matter of such errours may be only somthing profitable not necessary yet the neglect of them may be a damnable sinne And I pray you what greater neglect then to hold and write as you doe that if controversyes concerning them be continued and increased it is no matter since also erring from some profitable though lesser truth heer is no mention of necessary or very profitable truth may dispose a man to errour in greater matters since finally it is against the vertue of charity to ourselves not only to adventure the omitting of any meanes necessary to salvation but also the omitting any thing
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
you wholy but by word of mouth and that thervpon Paul also sayd we speake wisdome amongst the perfect But the word wholy in your parenthesis is wholy your owne false glosse to make those Heretikes seeme like to vs Catholiques wheras it is plaine as we haue heard out of your owne confession that those Heretiks held scripture vnfitt to proue any truth at all and not only vnfitt to proue all necssary truths because they held it not to be the infallible word of God but to contayne falshoods and contradictions and your conscience cannot but beare witness that we do not deny the sufficiency of scripture alone and necessity of tradition vpon any such Atheistical perswasion as that was 164. This also appeares by S. Irenaeus in the first Chapter of the same Book which you cited where he sayth against those Heretiks Neither is it lawfull to say that they preached before they had receyved perfect knowledge as some presume to say boasting that they are correctours of the Apostles And this horrible Heresy he confutes because the Apostles did not preach till first they had receyved the Holy Ghost Where I beseech you remember with feare and trembling your owne doctrine that the Apostles did erre about preaching the Gospell to Gentils and in some things did not deliver divine truths but the dictates of humane reason and all this after they had receyved the Holy Ghost and then consider whether you or wee disagree from S. Irenaeus and detract from the sufficiency of scripture which if these your doctrines were true would be of no greater authority than those absurd Heritiks wickedly affirmed it to be with whom therfore you do in this perfectly agree This also appeares by the words of S. Irenaeus Lib 1. Cap 29 where he sayth of Marcion the Heretike he perswaded his disciples that his word was more to be believed than the Apostles who delivered the Gospell 165. You could not also but speak against your conscience while you liken the Tradition which Catholiks belieue to those of the sayd wicked Heretiques who indeed agreed with you in the point of denying the Traditions which we defend as is fully witnessed by S. Irenaeus in that very Chapter and Book which you alledg and therfor you are inexcusable in laying to our charge the traditions of those men For S. Irenaeus in the same Lib 3. Cap 2. having sayd that when those Heretiks are pressed with scripture they fly to tradition he adds But when we provoke them to that Tradition which comes from the Apostles and which is kept in the Churches by the Successions of Priests they oppose themselves against Tradition saying that they themselves being wiser not only than Priests but also than the Apostles haue found out the sincere truth And so it comes to passe that they assent neither to scripture nor Tradition Which is agreeable to the Title of that Chapter Quod neque scripturis c. as I sayd aboue Wherby it appeares that they rejected Catholike Traditions derived from the Apostles by succession of Pastours and therfor when they appeale to Tradition it was to certaine secret traditions of their owne men which even yourself Pag. 344. N. 28. affirme out of S. Irenaeus where you say that Catholikes alledged Tradition much more credible than that secret tradition to which those heretikes pretended against whom he S. Irenaeus wrote And Pag. 345. N. 29. You speake most clearly and effectually to your owne confutation For there you make a paraphrase of some words of S. Irenaeus and make him speake in this manner You heretiks decline a tryall of your doctrine by scripture as being corrupted and imperfect and not fit to determine Controversyes with out recourse to Tradition and insteed thereof you fly for refuge to a secret tradition which you pretend that you receaved from your Antecessours Do not these words declare both that those heretiks held scripture to be corrupted and that they relyed vpon certaine hidden and vaine traditions of their owne As contrarily it is evident out of S. Irenaeus that the Fathers were wont to convince heretiks by Tradition coming from the Apostles and which is conserved in the Churches by succession of Priests which demonstrates that there was no necessity that all necessary points should be written and you wrong S. Irenaeus alledging him to the contrary wheras it is most certaine and evident that this holy Father writes most effectually in favour of Traditions descending to vs by a continued succession of Bishops and Pastours ād particularly of the Bishops of Rome whose succession and names he setteth downe to his tyme as may be seene Lib. 3. Chap 3. and then concludes by this order and succession that tradition which is in the Church derived from the Apostles and preaching of the truth came to vs. And this is a most full demonstration that it is one and the same life-giving Faith which from the Apostles to this tyme hath bene in the Church conserved and delivered in truth I beseech the Reader for the good of his owne soule to read what this holy Father writes of traditions Lib. 3. C. 4.25.40 and Lib. 4. C. 43. where he hath these remarkeable words wherfore we ought to obey those Priests which are in the Church and haue succession from the Apostles who with Episcopall succession haue receyved the certaine gift of truth according to the pleasure of the Father But others who depart from the principall succession and haue their conventicles in what place soever we ought to hold for suspected either as Heretikes and of ill doctrine or as schismatikes and provd and pleasing themselves or els as hypocrites doing these things for lucre and vainglory And yet further L. 4. C. 45. he hath these words Paul teaching vs where we may find such he meanes Faithfull persons whom our Lord hath placed ouer his family of whom he spoke in the end of the precedent 44. Chapter saith he placed in his Church first Apostles secondly Prophets thirdly Doctours where therfor the gifts of our Lord are placed there we ought to learne the truth with whom there is a succession of the Church from the Apostles and that is constantly kept which is wholsome vnblemished for conversation and not spurious but incorruptible in doctrine that is both for manners and Faith affirming that in neither of those the Church can erre For those men do keepe our Faith which is in one God who made all things and expound to vs the scriptures without danger And the same he sayth L. 4 C. 63. yea even vvhitaker Controu 1. 9. Q. C. 9. saith We confess with Irenaeus the Authority of the Church to be firme and a compendious demonstration of Canonicall doctrine a posteriori Where vve see Whitaker speakes of doctrine and not only of conserving and consigning scripture to vs. And S. Epiphanius is so cleare for traditions Heresi 61. we must vse traditions for the scripture hath not all things and therfor the Apostles delivered
which I am bound to belieue the belief of both is necessary the one for it selfe the other for that other which is supposed to be necessary of it self as you say the belief of scripture is only for the belief of the contents Secondly if the reason for which I belieue a thing be not only true but also by the nature therof necessarily obliges me to belieue that thing which it proves in that event whersoever I find that reason I shall remaine obliged to belieue that Object which it proves This is our case For no Christian yea no man indued with reason can deny but that if I belieue an Object as testifyed by God I am obliged to belieue all other Truths so testifyed Now I pray you tell vs the reason for which at this tyme you hold yourself obliged to belieue the contents of scripture You must answer because they are revealed by God testifying the truth of them by many and great miracles Then I aske for what reason do you belieue Scripture to be the word of God If you answer because God hath testifyed it to be such by those Miracles which the Apostles wrought to proue their words and writings to be infallible and inspired by the Holy Ghost then I inferr that as you are bound to belieue the contents of Scripture so you are also obliged to belieue Scripture it self seing you haue the same reason to belieue that God hath testifyed both the Scripture and the contents therof If you belieue Scripture to be the word of God not for the Divine Testimony for which you belieue the contents but for some other Reason then your saying There is not alwayes an equall necessity for the belief of those things for the belief wherof there is an equall Reason was impertinent because for the belief of Scripture there is not the same reason for which you belieue the verityes therin contained and your other saying Pag. 218. N. 49 must be false that no man at this tyme can haue reason to belieue in Christ but he must haue the same to belieue the Scripture if it be true that you belieue not scripture for the same reason for which you belieue Christ and other mysteryes contained in it But let vs know indeed for what reasoÌ„ you belieue Scripture to be the word of God It seemes one may answer for you out of your Answer to your Third Motiue where you teach that the Bible hath bene confirmed with those supernaturall and Divine Miracles which were wrought by our Saviour Christ and the Apostles And Pag. 379. N. 69. you say following the Scripture I shall belieue that which vniversall never-failing Tradition assures me that it was by the admirable supernaturall worke of God confirmed to be the word of God If this be true how are not men obliged to belieue that which hath bene so confirmed Or for what other reason do you belieue the Truths contayned in Scripture as our Saviour His Incarnation Life Death Resurrection and other Mysteryes of Christian Faith but because they were confirmed by the admirable supernaturall workes of God wherby you expressly grant Scripture to haue bene confirmed to be the word of God You must therfor either grant that there is a necessity to belieue Scripture to be the word of God or deny that there is a necessity to belieue the contents therof And then further for our present Question you must either grant that Scripture is a materiall Object of Faith or deny that the verityes therin contayned are such an Object vnless you will confess yourself to be a very strang and vnreasonable man to belieue the matter of the bookes of Scripture and not the Authority of the bookes and therfor since you profess not to be obliged to belieue these may not one haue reason to vse your owne words to feare that you do not thinke yourself obliged to belieue that Nay is it not apparent still I vse your owne words that you at this tyme cannot without hypocrisy pretend an obligation to belieue in Christ but of necessity you must acknowledg an obligation to belieue the Bookes of scripture seing you can haue no reason to thinke you are obliged to belieue in Christ but must haue the same to belieue the scripture and if your belief of the contents of scripture or of obligation to belieue them be vnreasonable it cannot proceed from the particular motion of the Holy Ghost nor be an Act of divine Faith And I beseech you reflect that here there is not only the same reason for the truth of things in themselves but also for our obligation to belieue them namely the divine Testimony which Point if you obserue you cannot but see how impertinent your example was about believing there was such a man as King Henry which you say one is not bound to belieue and that Iesus Christ suffered vnder Pontius Pilate which is a Truth set downe in a writing confirmed by Miracles to be the word of God and consequently to deny the Mysteryes contained in that booke were to reject a thing confessed to be witnessed by God And is not a man obliged to belieue whatsoever he knowes to be witnessed by God I sayd your example is impertinent but I must add that it is also false vnchristian and blasphemous to say as you doe We haue I belieue as great reason to belieue there was such a man as Henry the eight King of England as that Iesus Christ suffered vnder Pontius Pilate Haue you as great reason to belieue the Chronicles of England and the Testimony of men as to belieue the word of God 10. Morover though it import nothing to our present Question whether or no you speake true in saying there is not alwayes an equall necessity for the belief of those things for the belief wherof there is an equall reason yet perhaps you will not easily make it good if there be perfectly and entirely the same reason and of the same kind for both of them For if I conceaue the same reason for both if I belieue the one I may belieue the other nay I haue a necessity to belieue it so far as I cannot belieue the contrary as it is impossible from the same premises belieued to be the same to inferr contrary or contradictory conclusions If perhaps you answer that when one believes a thing for a reason which he sees to be the self same for another he cannot dissent from that other yet he may suspend his vnderstanding from any positiue assent to it which he cannot doe when there is a command to belieue it This answer will not serue your turne but first it is against your self who Pag. 195. N. 11. say to Cha Ma your distinction between Points necessary to be believed and necessary not to be disbelieved is a distinction without a difference there being no point to any man at any tyme in any circumstances necessary not to be dâ—sbelieved but it is to the same man at
excuse vs. If then you will stand to your owne doctrine you cannot deny but at one tyme that may consist with salvation which at another tyme is not compatible therwith The Church of God hath defined what Bookes be Canonicall and this Definition all are obliged vnder payne of damnation to belieue and obey And even by this we may learne the necessity of acknowledging a Living Judg. All Books which are truly Canonicall were proposed and receyved by Crihstians After ward the knovvledg of some Bookes and some truths began to be obscured or doubted of or denyed by some and perhaps not by a few and those of great authority if we respect either learning or other endowments qualityes and abilityes vnder the degree of infallibility as we see there wanted not in the Apostles tyme some who were zealous for the observation of the Mosaicall Law and as these could not haue bene confuted convinced and quieted but by the infallibility of the first Councell held in Jerusalem so after some Bookes of scripture come once to be Questioned it is impossible to bring men backe to an vnanimous or any well grounded reception and certainty of them except by some authority acknowledged to be infallible which if we deny those Books which are receyved by many or most may as I sayd be doubted of even by those many and they which were receyved by few may in tyme gaine number and authority and so all things concerning scripture must be still ebbing and flowing and sloating in irremediable and endless vncertainty of admitting and rejecting the Canonicall Books And what connection or tye or threed can we haue to find out the Antiquity and truth of scripture except by such a Guide 51. And here I may answer an Objection which you make against some words of Cha Ma Part 1. Chap 3. N. 12. which you relate Pag 141.142 N. 28.29 Some Bookes which were not alwayes knowen to be Canonicall haue bâ—ne afterward receyved for such but never any one Booke or syllable defined for Canonicall was afterward Questioned or rejected for Apocryphall A signe that Gods Church is infallibâ—y assisted by the Holy Ghost never to propose as Dâ—vine Truths any thing not revealed by God! These words that you may with more ease impugne you thinke fit to cite imperfectly For where Cha Ma sayd never any one Booke or syllable desined by the Church was afterward Questioned or rejected for Apocryphall you leaue out by the Church which words yield a plaine Answer to your Objection or any that can be made Thus then you say Toneâ—ing the first sâ—rt if they were not commended to the Church by the Apoâ—â—â—es as Canonicall seeing after the Apostles the Church pretends to no new Revelation how can it be â—n Article of Faith to belicue them Canonicall And how can you pretend that your Church which makes this an Article of Faith is so assisted as not to propose any thing as a Divine Truth which is not revealed by God If they were commended to the Church by the Apostles as Canonicall low then is the Church an infallible keeper of the Canon of Scripture which hath suffered some Books of Canonicall Scripture to be lost And others to loose for a long tyme their being Canonicall at least the necessity of being so esteemed and afterward as it were by the Law of Postliminium hath restored their Authority and Canonicalbiess vnto them If this was delivered by the Apostles to the Church the Poynt was sufficiently discussed and therfore your Churches omission to teach it for some ages as an Article of Faith nay degrading it from the Number of Articles of Faith and putting it among disputable problems was surely not very laudable 52. Answer All Canonicall Bookes were commeÌ„ded to the Church by the Apostles for such though not necessarily to all Churches at the same instant and we pretend to no new Revelations And for your demand how then is the Church an infallible keeper of Scripture if some Bookes haue bene lost and others lost for a long tyme their being Canonicall or at least the necessity of being so esteemed I answer Your Argument is of no force against vs Catholiques who belieue an alwayes Living Guide the Church of God by which we shall infallibly be directed in all Points belonging to Faith and Religion to the worldes end as occasion shall require yea we bring this for a Demonstration that the Church must be infallible and Judg of Controversyes There was no scripture for about two thousand yeares from Adam to Moyses And againe for about two thousand yeares more from Moyses to Christ our Lord holy scripture was only among the people of IsraeÌ„l and yet there were Gentils in those dayes indued with Divine Faith as appeareth in Job and his friends The Church also of our Saviour Christ was before the scriptures of the New Testament which were not written instantly nor all at one tyme but successively and vpon severall occasions and some after the decease of most of the Apostles and after they were written they were not presently knowne to all Churches and as men could be saved in those tymes without scripture so afterward also vpon condition that we haue a Living Guide and be ready to receiue scripture when it shall be proposed to vs by that Guide But your Objection vrges most against your brethren and yourself who acknowledg no other Rule of Faith but scripture alone and yet teach that the duty of the Church is to keepe scripture which being now your only Rule and necessary for Faith and salvation how doth she discharge her duty if she hath suffered some Bookes to be lost And others to loose for a long tyme their being Canonicall at least the necessity of being so esteemed Especially seing you teach against other Protestants that we receyue scripture from the Authority of the Church alone and therfor if she may faile either by proposing false scriptures or in conserving the true ones Protestants want all meanes of salvation Neither can you answer that it belongs to Gods Providence not to permit scripture to be wholly lost since it is necessary to salvation For you must remeber your owne Doctrinem that God may permit true Miracles to be wrought to delude men in punishment of their sins and then why may he not permit either true scriptures to be lost or false ones to be obtruded for true in punishment of sin and particularly of the excessiue pride of those who preferr their judgment before the Decrees of Gods church deny her Authority allow no Rule but scripture interpreted by themselves alone that so their pride against the Church and the abuse of true scripture may be justly punished by subtraction of true or obtrusion of false Bookes Beside God in his holy Providence works by second causes or Meanes If then he permit some scriptures to be lost and yet his Will be that there remaine a way open to Heaven he will not faile to do
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
this Objection or invention no certainty can be had what the Apostles or other Preachers teach or teach not with infallibility Nor will there remaine any meanes to convert men to Christianity For every one may say that not the Poynt which he apprehends to be false was confirmed by Miracles but those other Articles which he conceaves to be true And so no Heretike can be convinced by Scripture which he will say is not the word of God except for his opinions and so nothing will be proved out of Scripture even for those things which are contayned in it Neither will anie thing remayne certaine except a generall vnprofitable impracticable Notion that the Apostles taught and the Scripture contaynes some things revealed by God without knowing what they are in particular which would be nothing to the purpose and therfore as good as nothing 8. But yet dato non concesso That the Apostles and the Church are to be believed only in such particular Points as are proved by Miracles c we say that innumerable Miracles haue bene wrought in consirmation of those particular Points wherin we disagree from Protestants as may be seene in Brierly Tract 2. Chap 3 Sect 7. subdiv 1. For example of Prayer to Saints out of S. Austine Civit L. 22. C. 8. Worship of Reliques out of S. Gregory Nazian S. Austine S. Hierom S. Basil Greg Turonen Theodoret the Image of Christ Reall presence Sacrifice of Christs Body Purgatory Prayer for the Dead The great vertue of the signe of the Crosse Holy water Lights in the Church Reservation of the Sacrament Holy Chrisme Adoration of the crosse Confession of sins to a Priest and extreme Vnction which miracles Brierly proves by irrefragable Testimonyes of most creditable Authors and Holy Fathers wherof if any Protestant doubt he can do no lesse for the salvation of his soule than examine the matter either by the 〈◊〉 of this Authour or of other Catholique Writers and not only by 〈…〉 clamours and calumnyes of Protestant Preachers in their Ser 〈…〉 Writers in their Bookes And let him take with him for his 〈…〉 thefe considerations 1. That these Miracles were wrought and testifyed before any Protestant appeared in the world And therfore could not be fayned or recorded vpon any particular designe against them and their Heresyes 2. That even Protestants acknowledg the Truths of such Miracles Whitaker cont Duraeum Lib 10. sayth I do not thinke those Miracles vaine which are reported to haue bene done at the monuments of Saints as also Fox and Godwin acknowledg Miracles wrought by S. Austine the Monke sent by S. Gregory Pope to convert England through Gods hand as may be seene in Brierly Tract 1. Sect 5. and yet it is confessed by Protestants and is evident of itself that he converted vs to the Roman Faith But not to be long I referr the Reader to Brierly in the Index of whose Booke in the word Miracles he will find full satisfaction if he examine his allegations that in every Age since our Saviour Christ there haue bene wrought many ad great Miracles both by the Professors of the Roman Faith and expressly in confirmation of it This I say and avouch for a certaine truth that whatsoever Heretikes can object against Miracles wrought by Professors of our Religion and in proofe if it may be in the same manner objected against the Miracles of our B. Saviour and his Apostles and that they cannot impugne vs but joyntly they must vndermine all Christianity 9. To these two considerations let this Third be added that it is evidently delivered in Scripture Miracles to be certaine Proofes of the true Faith and Religion as being appointed by God for that end Exod 4.1 when Moyses sayd They will not belieue me nor heare my voice God gaue him the Gift of Miracles that they might belieue God had spoken to him 3. Reg 17. Vers 24. That woman whose sonne Elias had raised to life sayd Now in this I haue knowen that thou art a man of God and the word of our Lord in thy mouth is true Christ Matt 11. V. 3.4.5 being asked whether he was the Messias proved himself to be such by the Miracle which he wrought The blind see the lame walke the lepers are made cleane the deafe heare the dead rise againe Which words signify that Miracles are not only effectuall but necessary to proue the truth of a Doctrine contrary to what was receyved before Yea Joan 5.36 Miracles are called a greater testimony thē John Marc vlt they preached every where our Lord working withall and consirming the Word with signes that followed 2. Cor 12. V. 12. The signes of my Apostleship haue beene done vpon you in all patience and wonders and mighty deeds Hebr. 2.4 God withall testifying by signes and wonders and divers Miracles But why do I vrge this Point You clearly confess it Pag 144. N. 31. in these words If you be so infallible as the Apostles were shew it as the Apostles did They went forth saith S. Marke and preached every where the Lord working with them and confirming their words with signes following It is impossible that God should lye and that the Eternall Truth should set his hand and seale to the confirmation of a falshood or of such doctrine as is partly true and partly false The Aposiles doctrine was thus confirmed therfore it was intirely true and in no part either false or vncertaine 10. Now put these Truths togeather Many and great Miracles haue bene wrought by professours of the Roman Religion and particularly in confirmation of it Miracles are vndoubted Proofes of the true Church Faith and Religion What will follow but that the Roman Faith and Religion is entirely true and in no part either false or vncertaine Wherfore men desirous of their Eternall salvation may say confidently with B. S. Austine Lib de Vtilit credendi Cap 17. Dubitabimus nos ejus Ecclesiae c. Shall we doubt to rest in the bosome of that Church which with the acknowledgment of mankind hath obtained the height of Authority from the Apostolique Sea by Succession of Bishops Heretikes in vaine barking about her and being condemned partly by the judgment of the people partly by the gravity of Councells partly by the Majesty of Miracles To which not to giue the first place is indeed either most great impiety or precipitous arrogancie 11. Behold the Notes of the true Church Miracles Succession of Bishops Which perpetuall Succession of Bishops is the Ground and Foundation of the Amplitude Propagation Splendor and Glory of the Church promised by God ād foretold by the Prophets as may be seene Isaiae Chap 60. Vers 22. Chap 2. Vers 2. Chap 49. Vers 23. Chap. 54. Vers 2.3 Psalm 2.8 Dan 2.44 Which Promises some learned Protestants finding evidently not to be fulfilled in the Protestant Church which before Luther was none and being resolved not to embrace the Catholique Church wherin alone those Promises are clearly fulfilled fell
Protestants haue no certaine Rule for interpreting Scripture Your supposition therfore in the consult of Physitians that in the receypt of which they spoke though perhaps there might be some ingredients superfluoous yet not hurtfull cannot be applyed against vs but retorted vpon yourselfe that as in case the whole receypt did containe some things hurtfull no man could in conscience take it so 〈◊〉 being in danger of falling into damnable errours by occasion of interpreting Scripture without dependance or relation to an infallible Guide cannot without manifest danger of their soules hope to find all necessary Points of Faith in Scripture alone and therfore must resolue to seeke a Living Guide the true Church of God which they shall be sure to find if they seeke with great instance constancy and humility 59. Out of what hath beene sayd in this Chapter these Corollaryes are evidently doduced That there are certaine Fundamentall Articles of Faith which vnless a man belieue actually and explicitly he cannot haue the substance of Faith nor can any Congregation be a true Church nor can there be any hope of salvation as all both Catholikes and Protestants affirme That vnless there be some Meanes to be assured what those Fundamentall Articles are none can be certaine that they haue the substance of Faith or be members of the true Church or oanâ—â—pect salvation That hitherto Protestants notwithstanding their â—â—most endeavour could never declare what those Points are That the meanes which Mr. Chillingworth hath invented for being sure not to misse of them is neither sufficient nor possible That indeed it is not possible for Protestants to assigne any such Catalogue That Catholikes 〈◊〉 a most certaine and infallible way to know such Points and all other Truths as occasion shall require by submitting to a Living Judg of Controversyes And therfore That none can be sure that he hath true Faith is a member of the true Church or is in possibility to be saved vnless he belieue profess and obey such an Infallible Judg the One alwayes existent Visible Church of God From which Truth this other evidently followes That whosoever devide themselves from the Communion of that true Church are guilty of the grievous sinne of Schisme And that Protestants haue done so shall be demonstrated in the next Chapter CHAP VII PROTESTANTS ARE GVILTY OF THE SINNE OF SCHISME 1. THE Title of this Chapter having bene made good at large by Charity Maintayned Part 1. Chap 5. against all that Dr. Potter could invent in Defense of Protestants If now I can confute whatsoever you alledg in Defence of the Doctour the Arguments and Reasons of Charity Maintayned must in all right be adjudged to keepe their first possession and this Truth remayne constant That Protestants and all others who separate themselves from the Roman Church must needs be found guilty of the grievous sin of formall Schisme 2. In the beginning Charity Maintayned Part 1. Chapt 5. N. 4. layes this ground That the Catholique Church signifyes One Congregation of Faithfull people and therfore implyes not only Faith to make them Faithfull Believers but also Communion or common vnion to make them One in Charity which excludes Separation and Division or Schisme This is a very evident and certaine Truth and therfore Tertulian de Praescrip Cap. 41. observes it as a property of heretiks that they communicate with all Pacem quoque passim cum omnibus miscent Nihil enim interest illis licèt diversa tractantibus dum ad vnius veritatis expugnationem conspirent Thus we see Protestants will needs call all Brethren who are not Papists Yea many will not haue Papists make a Church distinct from them S. Austine was of an other mynd from Protestants who de Uera Relig Cap 5. condemnes Philosophers because teaching different things of God yet they frequented the same sacrifices and adds So it is believed and taught that it is the principall point of mans salvation that there is not an other Philosophy that is study of wisdome and an other Religion when they whose Doctrine we approue not communicate not in Sacraments with vs. Which Truth S. Austine judges to be of so great valve and necessity and the contrarie so pernicious as he avoucheth Si hoc vnum tantum vitium Christianâ disciplinâ sanatum videremus ineffabili laude praedicandam esse neminem negare oporteret And Lib 19. cont Faust Cap 11 he sayth Men cannot be joyned into any name of Religion true or false vnless they be linked with some signe or fellowship of visible Sacraments Therfore Communion in Sacraments is essentially necessary to vnite the members of One Church and distinguish it from all other In this manner Act 2. 42. it is sayd of those first Christians They were presevering in the Doctrine of the Apostles and Communication of breaking bread and prayer Behold a Communication not only in Faith or Doctrine but also in Sacraments and Prayers Neither do Protestants deny this Truth Molins Lib 1. cont Perron Cap 2. saith The ancient Doctours are wont to vnderstand by the Church which oftentymes they call Catholike the whole Society of Christian Churches Orthodox and sound in Faith vnited togeather in Communion and they oppose this Church to the Societyes of Schismatikes and Heretiks which we will not reject By which words it appeares That the Holy Fathers and even Protestants make vnity in Communion against Schisme no less essentiall to the Church then in Faith against Heresy Field Lib 1. Cap 15. The Communion of the Church consisteth in Prayers and dispensation of Sacraments And Lib 2. Cap 2. Communion in Sacraments is essentiall to the Church 3. The reason of this Truth is very cleare For without Communion in Sacraments Liturgie and publike worship of God the true Church cannot be distinguished essentially from any Schismaticall congregation Because seing Schismatiks as they are distinguished from Heretiks cannot be distinguished by a different Faith wherin they are supposed to agree with Catholiks they can be distinguished only by externall Communion which therfore must be essentiall to the Church as being the thing which alone formally and essentially excludes Schisme S. Austine speakes excellently to this purpose Epist 48. You are with vs in Baptisme in the Creed in the rest of Gods Sacraments in the spirit of vnity in bond of peace finally in the very Catholique Church you are not with vs. Which words declare that the spirit of vnity and bond of peace are necessary and essentiall to constitute men members of One Church All agree that to be one Church there must be vnity in Faith and seing Faith is ordaynd to the salvation of soules 1. Pet 1.9 by the true worship of God vnity in this worship is no less necessary than vnity in Faith The Militant true Church of Christ is a visible congregation and therfore doth essentially require visible signes to distinguish it from all other companyes by Sacraments externall worship of God and a publike Liturgie which if
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
opinions which still makes it more and more evident that with Sectaryes evidence affects rather their will or fancy than their vnderstanding And here you ought in all reason to apply to the Ancient Fathers and learned Protestants agreeing with vs against their Brethren what you say Pag 40. and 41. N. 13. in favour of Protestants in generall to proue that there is no necessity of damning all those that are of contrary beliefe in these words The contrary belief may be about the sense of some place of Scripture which is ambiguous and with probability capable of diuerse senses and in such cases it is no mervaile and sure no sin if seuerall men go seuerall wayes Also the contrary beliefe may be concerning Points wherin Scripture may with so great probability be alledged on both sides which is a sure note of a Point not necessary that men of honest and vpright hearts true louers of God and of truth such as desire aboue all things to know Gods will and to do it may without any fault at all some goe one way and some another and some and those as good men as either of the former suspend their judgments Now whatsoever you judge of vs yet I hope you will not deny the Ancient Fathers and your owne Protestant Brethren to be so qualifyed as you describe men of honest and vpright hearts true lovers of God and the truth c And therfore seing they vnderstood the word of God as we doe you ought to absolue them yea and vs and conceiue that Luther had no necessary cause to forsake the whole Church for Points maintayned by men of so great quality in all kinds whose authority you cannot deny to be sufficient for making a doctrine probable and for devesting the contrary of certainty and therfore according to Hookers rule they ought to haue suspended their perswasion and they offended against God by troubling the whole Church 57. Neither can you object against the Fathers what you say against vs Pag 280. N. 66. that what may be enough for men in ignorance may be to knowing men not enough c For besides that it is I know not whether more ridiculous or impious to say the Fathers were men in ignorance and the whole Church in errour at least you will not deny but those Protestants who agree with vs are knowing men and haue all the meanes of knowing the truth which other Protestants haue and they being supposed by you I hope to be men of honest and vpright hearts may without any fault at all dissent from their Brethren according to your owne rule And since you must excuse them it were manifest injustice to condemne vs who defend the same doctrine with them 58. Fifthly It is a principle of nature that no private person much lesse a Community and least of all the whole Christian world should be deprived of that good name of which they were once in peaoeable and certaine possession without very cleare and convincing evidence Seing then even Protestants grant that for divers Ages the Church and the Roman Church in particular enjoyed the good Name and Thing of being Orthodox and Pure she cannot be deprived of them without evidence neither can probability or vncertainty be sufficient to forsake her Communion as noxious O of how different a mynd are our Novelists from the Ancient Doctours of Gods Church who against all Heretiks opposed the Tradition and Succession of the Bishops of Rome as Tertuilian the SS Irenaeus Epiphanius Optatus and Austine as Calvin confesses L. 4. Instit C. 3. and thinkes to saue himselfe with this Answer Sect. 3. Cum exrra contoversiam esset c. Seing it was vndoubtedly true that nothing was altered in doctrine from the beginning till that Age they did alledg that which was sufficient to overthrow all new errours namely that they were repugnant to the Doctrine which by vnanimous consent was constantly kept from the very tyme of the Apostles themselves But this Answer can serue only to shew that the Argument of the Fathers against Heretiks was plainly of no force at all For if the Tradition and succession of Bishops in the Church of Rome were not assured of the particular assistāce of the holy Ghost no argument could be taken to proue any doctrine true because it had been taught in that Sea in regard that without such assistance Errour might haue crept in and tradition might haue delivered a falshood Therfore the Fathers alledging the Doctrine of the Roman Church for a Rule to all other must suppose such an assistance without which their adversaryes might haue rejected the Tradition of that Sea with as much facility as the Tradition and Authority of any other And to say the Fathers grounded their Argument meerly vpon matter of fact that de facto the Church of Rome had delivered otherwise than those Heretiks held and thence had inferred the falshood of their Heresyes would haue beene directly petitio principij as if they had sayd The Church of Rome de facto without any certaine assistance of the Holy Ghost holds the contrary of that which you Heretiks teach but that which she holds is true therfore your Doctrine is false For this Minor that which she holds is true had been a meere begging of the Question without any proofe at all and had been no more in effect then if the Fathers had sayd The Doctrine of the Roman Church and our Doctrine which is the same with Hers is true because we suppose it to be true and therfore yours is false Wherfore we must giue glory to God and acknowledg that the Fathers believed that the Roman Church was assisted by the Holy Ghost above other Churches not to fall into errour in matters of Faith and Religion Howsoever let vs take what Calvin grants that at least the Church of Rome conserved the Truth and purity of Faith till the tyme of S. Austine that is between the fourth and fift Age after our Saviour Christ and Heretiks commonly grant that the Church of Rome was pure for the first fiue hundred yeares Now let any man of judgment consider whether it was probable or possible that immediatly after so great purity and Sanctity so huge a deluge of superstitions Idolatryes Heresyes and corruptions could haue flowed into the Church of Rome within the space of one hundred yeares that is till the tyme of S. Gregory the Great without being noted or spoken of or contradicted by any one Especially if we consider that other doctrines which both Protestants and Catholiks profess to be Heresyes were instantly observed impugned and condemned and to say that those only of which they hold vs guilty did passe without observation of any can be judged no better than a voluntary affected foolish fancy I beseech the Protestant Reader for the Eternall good of his owne soule to pause here a little and well ponder this Point Besides S. Gregory himselfe was a most holy learned and Zealous Pastour
though he set himselfe to sleepe and leaue things to their owne nature to shew the precise essence of things and what will follow in good consequence vpon such an hypothesis of an impossible thing as in our present case if the true Church were supposed to erre in points not Fundamentall still retaining infallibility in all fundamentalls it followes that it were more safe and less evill and therfore necessary vpon supposition of two vnavoidable evills to remaine in the Church rather than so forsake her for the reasons alledged hertofore wheras that supposition That the Church erres being taken away as indeed de facto it is alwayes taken away that is it is alwayes false and impossible the cleare consequence is that it is not only less evill but absolutely good and absolutely necessary to remaine in her Communion as by reason of the contrary not voluntary and speculatiue but practicall and reall and necessary supposition of errours acknowledged defacto in the Protestants Church without any pretence that she is in fallible in Fundamentalls as the vniversall Church is confessed to be even by our Adversaryes and in reall truth is infallible in all points both Fundamentall and not Fundamentall the Question cannot remaine whether it be less evill to remaine in the Communion of the Protestant Church but it must be believed as a thing certainly true that it is absolutely evill and the greatest evill seing that by aduering to the Catholique Church I am secure from all errours and by aduering to the Protestants I am sure to communicate with a Church stayned with errours by their owne Confession 157. Secondly I take an answer from what you saied aboue Pag. 290. N. 88. That errours not Fundamentall are repugnant to Gods command and so in their owne nature damnable though to those which out of invincible ignorance practise them not vnpardonable From these words I say I will take an answer if first I haue told you you should haue sayd they are no sins and being no sins you should not haue sayd they are not vnpardonable but the contradictory they are vnpardonable that is they cannot be pardoned or are not capable of pardon because God cannot be sayd to pardon that with which he was never offended and pardon supposes an offense This very thing is taught by yourselfe Pag 19. where speaking of men who doe their best endeavours to know Gods will and doe it and to free themselves from all errours you say So well I am perswaded of the goodnes of God that if in me alone should meet a confluence of all such errours of all the Protestants in the world that were thus qualifyed I should not be so much afrayd of them all as I should be to aske pardon for them For to aske pardon of simple and purely involuntary errours is tacitly to imply that God is angry with vs for them and that were to impute to him the strange tyranny of requiring bricke when he gives no straw of expecting to gather where he strewed not to reape where he sowed not Of being offended with vs for not doing what he knowes we cannot doe Therfore say I and you must inferr the same such errours are not capable of being pardoned yea you account it a kind of sacriledge to aske pardon for them But yet to shew how you are possessed with a perpetuall spirit vertiginis and contradiction to yourselfe I offer to your consideration what Pag 308. N. 108. you say of our pretended errours We hold your errours as damnable in themselves as you do ours only by accident through invincible ignorance we hope they are not vnpardonable And Pag 290. N. 86. Having spoken of the erring of the Roman Church you add Which though we hope it was pardonable in them who had not meanes to know their errour yet of its owne nature and to them who did or might haue knowne their errours was certainly damnable Pag 263. N. 26 You cite and approue the saying of Dr. Potter that though our errrours were in themselves damnable and full of great impiety yet he hopes that those amongst you who were invincibly ignorant of the truth might by Gods great mercy haue their errours pardoned and their soules saved What Mr. Dr. and Mr. Chillingworth Is it great mercy in God to pardon that which cannot possibly be any sin Is not this to vse your owne words Tacitly to imply that he is angry with vs for them and to impute to him the strange tyranny of requiring bricke when he giues no straw c of being offended with vs for not doing what he knowes we cannot doe A great mercy not to doe that which were tyranny to doe to forgiue that which is no offense But as I am forced often to say it is no newes in you to contradict yourselfe 158. Now I will performe what I promised and shew that seing invincible ignorance in the opinion of all Philosophers and Divines excuses from sin if we can proue that every judicious man having vsed all diligence◠will find that whosoever joyning himselfe with our Church shall be sure either not to erre or at least not vincibly or culpably the consequence will be cleare that such errours will not be damnable to any such man but that he will be assured of salvation for as much as belongs to matter of Faith from whence it will also follow that none can separate themselves from the Church without damnation 19. First then I obserue That seing the Church according to Protestants cannot erre in Fundamentall Articles for other points not Fundamentall whosoever remaine in her communion are not obliged vnder paine of damnation to chuse the more secure part as they are bound to doe in matters absolutely necessary to salvation necessitate medij as Ch Ma proves Part 1. Chap 7. N. 3. but it is sufficient for them ad vitandum peccatum for avoyding sin if they follow a judgment truly probable and prudent in embracing all the particular objects which the Church proposes to be believed Because they are sure by this meanes not to erre in points absolutely necessary to salvation in which the Church which they follow cannot erre nor to sin in believing all other points which she propoundes supposing they proceede prudently especially considering as I sayd that in not believing Her in all they run hazard to disbelieue her in some Fundamentall and necessary Article which sequele we haue shewed even in your owne opinion to be rationall 160. This being observed I now proue that whosoever embraceth what the Church proposes and particularly for points controverted in these tymes proceeds very prudently and safely For the objects of Faith surpassing the reach of humane reason and for that cause being apprehended obscurely by our vnderstanding do not bring with them evidēce of demonstration to which we haue heard Hooker saying The mynd cannot chuse but inwardly assent but yet the vnderstanding may be forcibly drawne by the will to embrace rather one part than another
vnderstanding to an assent in despite of any pious affection of the will and reverence due to Gods Church and Councells and the many and great reasons which make for Her which is vnanswerably confirmed by considering that Protestants disagree amongst themselves and many of them in many things agree with vs which I must often repeate which could not happen if the reasons against vs were demonstratiue or evident and in this occasion your Rule that the property of Charity is to judge the best will haue place at least for as much as concernes those your owne Brethren who agree with vs As also your other saying Pag 41. N. 13. That men honest and vpright hearts true lovers of God and truth may without any fault at all some goe one way some another which shewes that there can be no evidence against the Doctrine of the Church with which even so many Protestants agree but that Catholikes haue at least very probable and prudent reasons not to depart from the Church in any one point and that although we should falsely suppose Her to erre in points not fundamentall the errour could not be culpable nor sinfull but most prudent and laudable And in this our condition is far different and manifestly better than that of Protestants who disagreeing not only both from the Church but amongst themselves also must be certaine that they are in errour which for ought they know may be fundamentall seing they cannot tell what Points in particular are fundamentall wheras we adhering to the Church are sure not to erre against any necessary or fundamentall truth And yourselfe say Pag 376. N. 57. He that believes all necessary Truth if his life be answerable to his Faith how is it possible he should faile of salvation 168. And then further vpon this same ground is deduced another great difference with great advantage on our side that Protestants are obliged vnder paine of damnation to make choyse of the more certaine and secure part and must not be content with a meere probability if they can by any industry care study prayer fasting almes-deeds or any other meanes attaine to a greater degree of certainty For if indeed they erre in any one Article of Faith necessary necessitate medij they cannot be saved even though their errour were supposed to be invincible as hertofore we haue shewed out of Protestants Wheras we being assured that adhering to the Church we cannot erre in any point of it selfe necessary to salvation for the rest we are sure to be saved if we proceed prudently and probably because the truth contrary to our supposed errours cannot be necessary necessitate medij as not being fundamentall Yea since indeed Protestants can haue no other true and solid meanes of assurance that they erre not Fundamentally except the same which we embrace of believing the Church in all her definitions they are obliged vnder deadly sin to belieue all that she proposes for feare of erring in some Fundamentall Article What I haue sayd that we proceede prudently though our Doctrines were supposed to be errours may be confirmed by an Adversary Dr. Jer Taylor who in his Liberty of prophesying § 20. N. 2. saieth that our grounds that truth is more ancient then falshood that God would not for so many Ages forsake his Church and leaue her in errour that whatsoever is new is not only suspitions but false are suppositions pious and plausible enough And then having reckoned many advantages of our Church he concludes These things and divers others may very easily perswade persons of much reason and more piety to retain that which they know to haue been the Religion of their fore-Fathers which had actuall possession and seizure of mens vnderstandings before the opposite professions had a name before Luther appeared And in express tearmes he confesses that these things are instruments of our excuse by making our errours to be invinc1ible which is the thing I would proue But here I must declare that when I say It is sufficient for vs to proceed probably and prudently It is still vpon a false supposition that the Church may erre in some Point not Fundamentall though in reall truth there be no such distinction For we are obliged vnder payne of damnation to belieue the Church equally in all points and vse all not only probable but possible meanes to find the true Church and belieue her with absolute certainty in all matters belonging to Faith and in particular That she cannot erre in any point Fundamentall or not Fundamentall without the beliefe of which truth Christian Faith cannot be certaine and infallible as hath been shewed at large 169. Thirdly I answer to your Objection That we absolutely deny the Catholique Church to be subject to errour either in Fundamentall or not Fundamentall Points or that she can erre either Fundamentally or damnably in what sense soever And therfore wheras you say Pag 280. N. 95. The errours of Protestants are not so great as ours we vtterly deny that our Church can belieue or propose any errour at all And though those Catholique Verityes which we belieue were errours yet they could not be greater than those of Protestants speaking in generall seing in all the chiefest controverted points we haue diverse chiefe learned men on our side who think themselves as good Protestants as those other from whom they disagree Besides in our Question respect must be had to the kind and not to the degree of errours that is nor whether the points be FundameÌ„tall or not FundameÌ„tall nor whether they which be Fundamentall be greater or less in their owne nature nor whether one not Fundamentall be worse than another not Fundamentall because if one errour not Fundamentall yield not sufficient cause to forsake the Communion of the Church another cannot otherwise you will not be able to assigne any Rule when the Church may be forsaken and when she cannor and it is damnable to professe against ones conscience any errour in Faith be it never so small which is the ground for which you say the Communion of the Church may be forsaken And lastly it is more wisdome to hold a greater vnfundamentall errour with the Church which I know by the confession of our Adversaryes cannot erre fundamentally than by holding a less vnfundamentall errour expose my selfe to danger of falling into fundamentall errours as I proved hertofore As it is less evill to commit a veniall sinne that is which abstracting from the case of perplexity would be certainly a veniall sinne than to expose ones selfe to true danger of falling into a mortall offence of God 170. Fourthly I answer that as I haue often noted according to you and Dr. Potter it is Fundamentall to the Faith of a Christian not to deny any point though otherwise of its nature not Fundamentall being proposed and belieued to be revealed by God and so your distinction between Fundamentall and damnable Points as if the eâ—â—ours of Catholiks and Protestants were damnable
vniversall Why might not the Church of that tyme haue held some vniversall errour and yet haue beene still the Church You must answer your owne Argument which is easy for vs Catholikes to doe by saying 5. First No particular man or Church may hold any sinfull and damnable errour and yet be a member of the Church vniversall Which is a truth to be believed by all Protestants if they vnderstand themselves and as I haue often sayd Potter confesseth that it is Fundamentall to the Faith of a Christian not to disbelieue any point sufficiently knowne to be revealed by God and that he who does so is an heretike and that heresy being a worke of the flesh excludes from the kingdome of Heaven And what a Church would you haue that to be which consists of Heretikes 6. Secondly To put a parity between particular men or Churches and the Church vniversall may very well beseeme some Socinian who makes small esteeme of the Authority of the Church but resolves faith into every mans private judgment and reason and therfore no wonder if such a Church be subject to corruptions no lesse than private men whose naturall witts and reason must integrate as I may say the whole Authority of and certainty in such a Church and therfore if particular persons may fall into errours the Church cannot be free from them yea she must containe in her bosome or rather bowells such corruptions and errours and so many poysons contradictory one to another and yet not breake A noble latitude of hart and a vast kind of hellishlike Charity But for vs your Argument hath no force at all For we belieue the Church to be the Meanes wherby Divine Revelations are conveyed to our vnderstanding and to be the Judge of Controversyes as hath beene proved hertofore at large and this being supposed we must make vse of your owne words Pag 35. N. 7. That the meanes to decide Controversyes in faith and Religion must be endued with an vniversall Infallibility in whatsoever it propoundeth for a Divine Truth From whence it followes that every errour in Faith is destructiue of that infallibility which is required in the meanes to decide Controversyes in Faith and Religion Which is further confirmed by those words of yours Pag 9. N. 6. No consequence can be more palpable then this The Church of Rome doth erre in this or that therfore it is not infallible Therfore say I to affirme that the Church can erre is to say she is not infallible nor can be judge of Controversyes nor the meanes to convey Divine Revelations to our vnderstanding nor could she be a Guide even in matters Fundamentall as we haue proved els where and yourselfe grant this last sequele to be good And in a word she would cease to be that Church which we are sure she is 7. Thus you say that Scripture which alone you hold to be the Rule of Faith and decider of Controversyes must be vniversally infallible and that any the least errour were enough to blast the whole Authority therof As also if the Apostles who were appointed to teach Divine Truths could by word or writting haue taught any falshood we could not haue relyed on their Authority in any point of faith great or little 8. You say Pag 143. N. 30. There is not the same reason for the Churches absolute infalliblity as for the Apostles and Scriptures For if the Church fall into errour it may be reformed by comparing it with the Rule of the Apostles Doctrine and Scripture But if the Apostles haue erred in delivering the Doctrine of Christianity to whom shall we haue recourse for the discovering and correcting their errour These your words prompt vs a ready Answer and disparity between the Church and private persons who if they fall into errour the errour may be reformed by comparing it with the Decrees Traditions and Definitions of Gods Church But if the Church erre to whom shall we haue recourse for the discovering and correcting her errour Nay I do take a forcible Argument by inverting and retorting your owne words For supposing your Doctrine that we belieue Scripture to be true and the word of God for the Authority of the Church and another saying of yours that a proofe must be more knowne to vs than the thing proved otherwise say you it is no proofe I argue thus There is not the same reason for our beliefe of the absolute infallibility of the Apostles and Scripture as for the Church For if false Scripture be obtruded it may be discovered by comparing it with the Tradition and consent of the Church from which we receiue the Scripture as the word of God and consequently all the certainty we haue of the contents therof But if the Church may erre to whom shall we haue recourse for discovering and correcting her errours seing as I sayd to compare it with the Rule of the Apostles doctrine will be to no purpose because that very Rule cā be of no force with vs but for the Authority of the Church which therfore must be as great or greater with vs then Scripture it selfe according to your owne saying The proofe must be more knowne than the thing proved Our B. Saviour sayd Matt 5. Uos est is sal terrae you are the salt of the earth But if the salt leese his vertue wherwith shall it be salted Vpon which words S. Austine L. 1. de serm Domini in monte C. 6. saith Si vos c. If you by whom others are to be as it were seasoned forfeite the kingdome of heaven vpon feare of temporall persecution what other persons shall be found to free you from errour seing God hath chosen you to take away errours from others So we may say If the Church which God hath appointed to teach others and deliver them the Scripture should erre who could be found to discover and correct that errour Your Argument is no better than this If a man may be a man though he be deprived of some vnnecessary part of his Body as fingers feete c. why may he not remaine a man though he want some parts absolutly necessary for the conservation of him in Being as hart head braine c. For infallibility in the Church is a priviledge necessary and as I may say essentiall to her as she is the judge of Controversyes in Faith which office belonging to no private persons infallibility is not necessary for them 9. To your vaine subtility That we say It is nothing but opposing the Doctrine of the Church that makes an errour damnable and it is impossible that the Church should oppose the Church I meane that the present Church should oppose it selfe From whence you would collect that if the Church should erre yet her errour being not damnable as not opposite to the Church herselfe she might still remaine a Church I answer By the same reason you may say the Apostles might erre and yet remaine of the Church and their
could not haue believed Her in any one and so there had beene no meanes to attaine a Divine infallible Faith and that after the Canon of Scripture was persited the Church remaines infallible in Fundamentall Articles but may erre in Points not Fundamentall both which things are granted by Protestants I hope you will not deny but that the conclusion deduced from these Premises must be That she lost part and kept part of that infallibility with which she was endued before Scripture was written and that you haue an obligation to shew by some evident Text of Scripture that the Church by the writing therof was deprived of infallibility in Points not Fundamentall and conserved with infallibility in Fundamentall Articles beside what I sayd even now that according to your instance of a way the Church should haue bene deprived of infallibility when by writing of some Scriptures some points were made cleare in writing which before were believed only for the Authority of a Guide that is the Church And now consider whether Charity Maintayned may not say to you as you with your wanted humility speake to him jam dic Posthume de tribus capellis 45. Your N 141. hath beene answered in my confutation of your N. 124. concerning the infallibility of the high Priest and Jewish Church in your N. 142. you say to Charity Maintayned For particular rites and ceremonyes and orders for government our Saviour only hath left a generall injunction by S. Paul let all things be done decently and in order But what order is fittest i. e. what tyme what Place what Manner c is fittest that he hathleft to the discretion of the Governours of the Church But if you meane that he hath only concerning matters of Faith prescribed in Generall that we are to heare the Church and left it to the Church to determine what particulars we are to beliue The Church being nothing els but an aggregation of Believers this in effect is to say He hath left it to all believers to determine what particulars they are to belieue Besides it is so apparently false that I wonder you could content yourselfe or thinke we should be contented with a bare saying without any shew or pretence of proofe 46. Answer My hope was at the first general view of this section to haue answered it in very few words But vpon particular examination I find it to involve so many points of moment that to vnfold them will require some little more tyme and paynes First you cite Ch Ma. imperfectly His words Part 1. P. 69. N. 23. are He Dr. Potter affirmes that the Jewish Sinagogue retained infallibility in herselfe notwithstanding the writing of the old Testament and will he so vnworthily and â—â—justly depriue the Church of Christ of infallibility by reason of the New Testament Expecially if we consider that in the Old Testament Lawes Ceremonyes Rites Punishments Judgments Sacraments Sacrifices c were more particularly and minutely delivered to the Jewes than in the New Testament is done our Saviour leaving the determination or Declaration of particulars to his Spouse the Church which therfore stands in need of infallibility more than the Jewish Synagogue To these words you say I pray walke not thus in generality but tell vs what particulars And then you distinguish Rites and Ceremonyes and Orders for Governement from matters of Faith which indeed is no distinction if the matter be duly considered For although diverse Rites and Ceremonyes may chance to be of themselves indifferent and neither forbidden or commanded to be practised or omitted yet to be assured that indeed they are indifferent and not sinfull or superstitious and so infectiue of the whole Church we need some infallible authority And particularly this is true for the Hierarchy or Governement of the Church as I sayd hertofore which is a Fundamentall point if any can be Fundamentall to the constituting a Church For this cause Charity Maintayned expressly said that our aviour left to his Church the determination or declaration of particulars but you thought fit to leaue out the word declaration wheras we cannot certainly rely vpon the determination of any person or community without a power and infallibility to make a Declaration that the thing determined or ordained is lawfull and so a Determination or Ordination must suppose or imply in fact a declaration Do not you pretend to leaue vs for our superstitious Rites and Ceremonyes because you could not in conscience conforme yourselves to them And heere I may put the Reader in minde of the words which I cited aboue out of Moulin Epist 3 to Dr. Andrewes Non potui dicere primatum Episcoporum esse juris divini quin Ecclesijs nostris notam haereseos inurerem Enimvero obsirmare animum adversus ea quae sunt juris divini Deo jubentipertinaciter refragari planè est haeresis sive id Fidem attingat five disciplinam Thus your demand what particulars Charity Maitâ—yned vnderstood is answered namely that he vnderstood all particulars which occasion might require to be ordained determined and declared by the Church but in the meane tyme where or when did Ch Ma say or dreame that which you say is apparently false that our Saviour hath only concerning matters of Faith prescribed in generall that â—â—â—re to heare the Church and left it to the Church to determine what particulars we are to belieue Your conscience cannot but beare witness against your owne words that Charity Maintayned hath expressed a thousand tymes our doctrine that we are bound to belieue whatsoever is sufficieÌ„tly proposed as revealed by God professing every where that this is the Ground for which he avouches that of two disagreeing in matters of faith one must be in a damnable state and that for this cause we are bound to belieue every particular truth contained in Scripture or defined by the Church which are millions And therfore not the Doctrine of Charity Maintayned but your imputation is apparently false Yet to say the truth that Doctrine which you say is apparently false aÌ„d no less falsely imputed to vs might be very true if it should stand or fall by the strength only of the argument which you object against it though perhaps it did seeme to you a great subtility 47. The Church say you being nothing els but an aggregation of Believers this in effect is to say he hath left to all believers to determine what particulars they are to belieue To which I may answer as you say to Charity Maintayned I wonder you would impugne that as apparently false which must be apparently true if the ground of all your doctrine be true That every mans Reason prescribes to himselfe and determines what he is to belieue and so your kind of Church being nothing but an aggregation of believers in that manner it followes that it is left to all Believers to determine what particulars they are to belieue The like may be sayd of the Councell of Apostles which
in this is persumption For although it were granted which yet is very false that they differ only in Points not Fundamentall yet I haue reason to find fault with the answer because they giue it to shew that notwitstanding their disagreement in Points not Fundamentall yet they are Brethren and may all be in state of salvation which to affirme is both very false and very pernicious seing that errour in any Point revealed by God and sufficiently proposed for such is damnable and excludes salvation even according to your owne doctrine and therfore this Answer doth not free them from what Charity maintayned objected that they abuse this distinction and to this you should haue answered without declining it by impertinent diversions and demands The other part of your Dilemma is this If you say they do not so that is differ not only in not Fundamentalls but in Points Fundamentall also then they are not members of the same Church one with another no more than with you And therfore why should you object to any of them their differences from each other any more then to yourselves their more and greater differences from you Thus you still flying a direct answerto Ch. Ma. and yet granting perforce all that he desires If say you Protestants differ in Points Fundamentall then they are not members of the same Church one with another And then say I they perniciously abuse people with this distinction to perswade them the direct contrary of that which even yourselfe here inferr to perswade men I say that they are members of the same Church and capable of salvation and Brethren though according to your supposition in this part of your Dilemma they differ in Points Fundamentall And this is that to which you should haue answered whether they do not abuse this distinction and either haue acquitted them or done Ch. Ma. Right by an open confession of his saying truly They abuse this distinction You say If Protestants differ in Fundamentalls they are not members of the same Church one with another no more than with vs Catholikes If this beso the more vnreasonable inconsequent and vnjust are they in pretending to be Brethren one to another and yet enemyes to vs wherby you do still more and more make good that they abuse this distinction in pretending to be Brethren one to another and not to vs especially if we call to mynd that many of their chiefest learned men in diverse most important matters agree with vs against other Protestants and yet they must be Brethren and we enemyes even in those very Points in which they agree with vs against other Protestants which is very prodigious 5. Your last words either passe my vnderstanding or else are no better than ridiculous You say to vs Why should you object to any of them their differences from each other any more than to yourselves their more and greater differences from you For my part I can draw no better Argument from these words than this we object to Protestants who pretend to be Brethren of the same Church substance of Faith and hope of salvation that they differ in Fundamentall Points of Faith for as I sayd you speake expressly of such Points in this second Part of your Dilemma therfore we may as well object to ourselves their more and greater differences frō vs frō vs I say who daily proclaime to the world that neither they nor any other Heretikes are our Brethren or of the same Faith Church and hope of salvation How can we object to ourselves a thing wherin we proceede with most evident consequence and Truth If indeed we did pretend to be their Brethren then we might and ought to object against ourselves the great differences between them and vs as now with reason we make such an objection against them But our case being directly contrary to theirs we are obliged to proceed in a contrary way and to professe that there can be no communication of light with darkeness of falshood with truth of Heresy with Catholique doctrine 6. You say in your N. 10. What els do we vnderstand by an vnfundamentall errour but such a one with which a man may possibly be saved I aske whether he may be saved with Repentance or without it If only with Repentance you make no difference between Fundamentall and vnfundamentall Points because with repentance any errour may be forgiven be it never so Fundamentall If you meane a man may be saved with such an errour even without repentance you contradict yourselfe who perpetually affirme that errours not Fundamentall are damnable in themselves and cannot be pardoned without repentance And I haue proved it to be impossible that any culpable errour can be forgiven without relinquishing it 7. To yuur N. 11.12 13.14 I haue answered in severall occasions Only for your N. 11. it must be remembred that I haue proved Communion in Liturgie Sacraments c to be essentiall to the Visible Church which makes your similitude of renouncing the vices of a friend and yet not renouncing a friend to be impertinent because vices are not essentiall to a friend as externall Communion is essentiall to the Church which therfore must needs be forsaken when one departs from that which is essentiall to her 8. Your N. 15.16.17 containe no other difficulty except that which yourselfe create out of nothing while you faine this roving argument and then impute it to Cha Ma Whosoever disbelieues any thing knowen by himselfe to be revealed by God imputes falshood to God and therfore errs Fundamentally But some Protestants disbelieue things which other belieue to be testifyed by God therfore they impute falshood to God and erre Fundamentally But why do you seeke to deceiue the ignorant with such Sophismes as these Doth not Charity Maintayned speake expressly of the case wherin there is Question between two contradicting one another cōcerning some Point which God hath revealed And therfore one of the litigants must really erre against Divine Revelation on and be a formall Heretike if ignorance chance not to excuse him which though perhaps some will conceiue may happen in one or two or a few yet to belieue that whole congregations and Churches should be excused by invincible ignorance notwithstanding all meanes of knowledg that God failes not to affoard can be neither discreete Charity nor charitable discretion but a dangerous and pernicious occasion and incitement to sloath and neglect of seeking the true religion vpon confidence of finding a lawfull excuse by ignorance You say 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 And Pag 19. and 20. you deny not but that the far greater part of Protestants faile in vsing sufficient diligence to find the truth and that their errours are damnable therfore Ch Ma might well say not only that per
se loquendo of two dissenting in matters revealed by God one must oppose his divine revelation and Veracity which is evidently true but also that de facto it is so in many millions yea in the far greater part of Protestants who therfore erre culpably against the divine Testimony and committ a deadly sin not because others as you speak belieue a thing to be revealed by God which Ch. ma. never sayd nor dreamed but because they themselves ought to haue believed that same thing to be revealed which others did belieue to be such and indeed was such Thus then you ought to reforme your distracted Syllogisme Whosoever disbelieves any thing knowne and which ought to be knowne by himselfe to be revealed by God imputes falshood to God and therfore errs fundamentally But some Protestants you say millions yea the greater part disbelieue those things which others belieue to be testifyed by God and which are and ought to be knowne by themselves to be so testifyed Therfere some Protestants yea millions and the greater part of them impute falshood to God and erre Fundamentally 9. But yet that it may further appeare how much you wrong Ch Ma I must set downe his words which Chap 3. N. 3. are these The difference among Protestants consists not in this that some belieue some Points of which others are ignorant or not bound expressly to know as the distinction ought to be applyed but that some of them disbelieue and directly wittingly and willingly oppose what others belieue to be testifyed by the word of God wherin there is no difference between Points Fundamentall and not Fundamentall Because till Points Fundamentall be sufficiently proposed as revealed by God it is not against Faith to reject them or rather without sufficient proposition it is not possible prudently to belieue them And the like is of Points not fundamentall which as soone as they come to be sufficiently propounded as divine Truths they can no more be denyed than Points Fundamentall propounded after the same manner What could be sayd more clearly to shew that Ch Ma spoke not of whatsoever kind of Objects but expressly of such as are really testifyed by God and not only believed to be such by others but also sufficiently proposed to a mans selfe as Divine Truths and which therfore bring with them a most strict obligation to be believed Your little respect to truth hath forced me to be longer in this point than I expected or desired to be And I hope it appeares that you had no other cause except want of Charity to Charity Maintayned to feare that his hart condemned him of a great calumny and egregious sophistry in imputing Fundamentall and damnable errour to disagreeing Protestants because forsooth some of them disbelieue and wittingly oppose what others do belieue to be testifyed by the word of God Seing Cha Ma expressly required that what others believed to be testifyed by God should also be sufficiently proposed to ones selfe before he could be obliged to belieue which sufficient proposition being supposed yourselfe do not deny but it is a damnable errour to disbelieue any such truth 10. Your N. 18. hath two good propertyes Falshood and Confusion or Obscurity You cite Ch. Ma. speaking thus The difference among Protestants consists not in this that some belieue some Points of which others are ignorant or not bound expressly to know and there you stop but Charity maintayned added these words but that some of them disbelieue and directly and wittingly and willingly oppose what others do belieue to be testifyed by the word of God wherin there is no difference between Points Fundamentall and not Fundamentall c Now I pray is there not a maine difference between ignorance or a not knowing or Nescience of a thing which another believes and a positiue opposition or actuall beliefe of the contrary to that which another believes How many truths are there which men do not know and yet erre not against them be cause their very ignorance keepes them from any judgement concerning them by way of Affirmation or negation but they carry themselves privatively or in a certaine manner passively or abstractively as if there were no such objects 11. But let vs heare what you object against so manifest a truth You say I would gladly know whether you speake of Protestants differing in profession only or in opinion also Answer I vnderstand not well what you meane by differing in profession only or in opinion also Do you meane that they make profession of differing in opinion when indeed they do not differ This were to dissemble and ly in matters of Religion But whatsoever your meaning be I answer that Charity Maintayned spoke expressly of Protestants differing in opinion one disbelieving what another believes as you confesse out of His words But you are willing to raise difficultyes where otherwise none could appeare 12. But then you say If they differ in opinion then sure they are ignorant of the truth of each others opinions It being impossible and contradictious that a man should know one thing to be true and belieue the contrary or know it and not belieue it And if they do not know the Truth of each others opinions then I hope you will grant they are ignorant of it If your meaning were they were not ignorant that each other held these opinions or of the sense of the opinions which they held I answer this is nothing to the convincing of their vnderstandings of the truth of them and these remaining vnconvinced of the truth of them they are excusable if they do not belieue 13. Answer Though it be much against my inclination yet truth commands me to say that here you shew either great ignorance or else write directly against your owne knowledge where you will needs confound pure ignorance with positiue Errour the difference of which I shewed even now and what Logician is ignorant of the division of ignorance into Ignorantiam purae privation is and Ignorantiam pravae disposition is that is a meere want of knowledge of some truth or a positiue errour contrary to it And by your leaue your saying If they differ in opinion they are ignorant of the truth of each others opinions is so far from being true speaking of pure ignorance that it implyes contradiction to say He who errs is ignorant seing to be purely ignorant in the sayd division of ignorance is one member into which ignorance is divided and one membrum dividens cannot in good Logicke include the other and therfore errour cannot include pure ignorance For it were to say one hath no knowledge at all and yet hath a false knowledg or a privation is a positiue entity and a Nothing a Something Your objection He who errs knowes not the contrary Truth and if he knowe not the truth he is ignorant of it is a meere mistake or equivocation For that he who errs knowes not or is ignorant of the contrary by a pure
And hence it followeth that it is Fundamentall to a Christians Faith and necessary for his salvation that he belieue all truths of God wherof he may be convinced that they are from God Marke convinced that they are from God which implyes a sufficient proposall Now with what conscience could you conceale all these cleare words of Potter which by Charity Maintayned are set downe immediatly after those which you cite out of Him Charity Maintaryned and impugne them Yea the Doctor Pag 213. in the very same threed of discourse which Charity Maintayned alledged out of his Pag 211. of which you take notice and endeavour to defend saith Fundamentall properly is that which Christians are obliged to belieue by an expresse and actuall Faith In other Points that Faith which the Cardinall Perron calls the Faith of adherency or non-repugnance may suffice to witt an humble preparation of mynd to belieue all or any thing revealed in Scripture when it is sufficiently cleared You see these words are in effect the very same which you answer it is enough by Dr Potters confessing to belieue some things negatively c and that He expressly requires that a thing be sufficiently cleared before one can be obliged to a non-repugnance or a non-denyall of it Which doctrine of Potter being once supposed certainly this is a good Argument It is enough for salvation not to deny some things when they shall be sufficiently propounded as revealed by God Therfore the denyall of them when they are so proposed is not enough for salvation but excludes it Can you possibly haue any thing to object against so manifest a deduction and truth as this is 17. You say N. 22. it is As if you should say One horse is enough for a man to goe a journey Therfore without a Horse no man can goe a journey As if some divine truths viz Those which are plainly revealed might not be such as of necessity were not to be denyed And others for want of sufficient declaration denyable without danger 18. Answer You could not even for a fee haue pleaded more effectually in fauour of Charity Maintayned than now you doe while your intention is to impugne Him You grant that truths sufficiently declared are such as of necessity are not to be denyed But both Dr Potter and Charity Maintayned in the words of which we treat expressly speake of truths sufficienty declared as I haue proved therfore even by your owne confession they cannot be denyed which is the inference of Charity Maintayned I confesse my selfe to find great difficulty how to frame any answer to your example of a Horse because I cannot penetrate what vse or application you intended or could make of it Only I wish you to consider that when Dr Potter saith it is enough to belieue some things by as it were a negatiue Faith wherby they are not denyed so that one haue an humble preparation of mynd to belieue them when they are sufficiently cleared that they are revealed as we haue heard him speake he supposes that it is necessary to salvation to haue such a preparation of mynd And then your similitude must goe thus A horse is necessary for a man to goe a journey therfore without a horse no man can goe a journey and so we may say it is necessary and not only sufficient for salvation in preparation of mynd not to reject any Point sufficiently propounded as testifyed by God Therfore whosoever is not so prepared excludes himselfe from salvation which is that we would haue Or els thus A horse is enough for a man to goe a journey not absolutly but vpon condition that he be not lame or extremely weake or otherwise vnable to travell Therfore if a horse be lame or otherwise vnable he is not enough for a man to goe a journey which consequence will teach vs to make this inference it is enough for salvation that one belieue some things with an implicite Faith not absolutly but vpon condition that he be ready to imbrace and belieue them actually and explicitly when they shall be sufficiently propounded in particular Therfore an implicite Faith is not sufficient for salvation if he want such a readiness of mynd which is our Conclusion Never the lesse if your Faith be so strong that you will needs haue one horse though lame and loaden with as many diseases as a horse to be enough or sufficient though not necessary for a man to goe a journey and for that cause that this is no good consequence One horse is enough for a man to goe a journey therfore without a horse no man can goe a journey you know that not only Catholikes but Potter yourselfe and all Protestants as we haue heard you affirme hertofore and all Christians must deny the parity it being most certaine and evident that the beliefe of all Points Fundamentall is not enough for salvation but is of itselfe taken alone as it were lame and too weake without a mynd ready not to contradict whatsoever is sufficiently propounded as witnessed by God which is absolutely necessary to salvation and therefore we must still conclude that all denyall of any Divine Truth sufficiently propounded excludes salvation though one be supposed to belieue all Points which are Fundamentall of their owne nature These are the best considerations that I can draw from your example of a horse which yet you see make strongly for vs against yourselfe 14. You are pleased N. 24. to summe vp or as you speake bring out of the cloudes the discourse of Charity Maintayned in his Chap 3. N. 5. and then you censure it thus Which is truly a very proper and convenient Argument â—o close vp a weake discourse wherin both the PropositionÌ„s are false for matter confused and disordered for the forme and the Conclusion vtterly inconsequent 20. Answer You are so far from bringing out of the cloudes the discourse of Charity Maintayned that you haue cast over it a cloude and darknesse which neither you nor any body els will be able to remoue from it and place it in its owne former light except by hearing his owne words which are these I will therfore conclude with this Argument According to all Philosophy and Divinity the Unity and distinction of every thing followeth the nature and essence therof and therfore if the nature and being of Faith be not taken from the matter which a man believes but from the motiue for which he believes which is Gods Word or Revelation we must likewise affirme that the Unity and Diversity of Faith must be measured by Gods Revelation which is a like for all Objects and not by the smalness or greatness of the matter which we belieue Now that the nature of Faith is not taken chiefly from the greatness or smalness of the things believed is manifest because otherwise one who believes only Fundamentall Points and an other who together with them doth also belieue Points not Fundamentall should haue Faith of formall
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
House of God a Gate of Heaven why may he not say of the Church that it is a House of God a Pillar of Truth What greater repugnance is there betwene a House and a Pillar than betwene a House and a Gate If men may take the liberty to interpret holy Scripture by such light subtilityes what certainty can ever be gathered from any Text What difficulty is there to conceiue that the Church should be the House wherein Gods resides and raignes by infallibly assisting it and yet be a Pillar of Truth to teach others Especially seing God assists the Church to the end she may teach others Passiuè taught Actiuè teaches as yourself avouch heere N. 78. that it is the essence of the Church to be alwayes the maintayner and teacher of all necessary truth But yourself profess not to relie vpon this interpretation and therefore 88. Secondly you put vs in mynd that the Church which S. Paul heere speaks of was that in which Timothy conversed and that was a particular Church and not the Roman and such we will not haue to be vniversally infallible 89. Answer Although S. Paul spoke to Timothy who conversed in the particular Church of Ephesus whereof he was Bishop yet he puts him in mynd of his duty by a Motiue and Reason more vniversall and certaine as Proofes are wont to be than could be taken from that particular Church alone that is he gaue a Reason which did concerne it as a member of the vniversall Church which being the Pillar and Ground of Truth could not but exact of Him and every Bishop a zeale to imitate with care and vprightness their mother the Church in conserving for their parte that Truth which the Church teaches and from which she cannot swarue To which very purpose Cornelius à Lapide vpon these words Quae est columna firmamentum veritatis saieth Addit hoc Apostolus vt innuat Timotheo magno cum studio ad haereses errores devitandos refellendos purae veritati intelligendae praedicandae in Ecclesia sibi incumbendum esse adeoue se non judaizantium aliorumue Novantium sed Ecclesiae fidem sequi praedicare debere vtpote quae sit basis veritatis And so I may retort your Argument and say S. paul speakes of a Church which is the Pillar and Ground of Truth but Protestants teach that no particular Church is such a Pillar even for things necessary to salvation as they saie the vniversall Church is Therefore S. Paul speaks not of a particular but the vniversall Church And by this I confute what you answer 90. Thirdly N. 77. That many Attributes in Scripture are not notes of performance but of duty and teach vs not what the thing or Person is of necessity but what it should be Ye are the salt of the Earth said our Saviour to his Disciples Not that this quality was inseparable from their Persons but because it was their office to be so For if they must haue bene so of necessity and could not haue bene otherwise in vaine had he put them in seare of that which followes if the salt hath lost his savour wherewith shall it be salted So the Church may be by duty the Pillar and Ground that is the Teacher of Truth of all truth not only necessary but profitable to salvation and yet she may neglect and violate this duty and be in fact the teacher of some Errour 91. Answer Even now it hath bene saied that Potter and other Protestants commonly teach that the vniversall Church cannot erre in Fundamantall Articles as a particular Church may and yet every particular Church by duty is a teacher of all Necessary Points Therefore the vniversall Church must be more a teacher by duty and performance Your Proofe that to be the salt of the earth which was spoken to the Apostles signifyes only that it was infallibly certaine they should be so tends plainly to Atheisme if the denyall of Scripture and all Christianity must bring to Atheisme as certainly it must For take away infallibility from the Apostles what certainty can you haue that in fact they haue not neglected and violated their duty as you say the Church may You still fall into the same mistake that God cānot effectually moue vs to the performance of a thing without necessitating our will Neither doth it follow that in vaine our Saviour put them in feare of that which followes if the salt hath lost his savour c For when God doth promise a thing he doth not exclude meanes or our endeavour to the application of which he can also moue vs effectually without prejudice to the freedom of our will The Apostles in the Councell which they held at Hierusalem were certaine not to determine any Errour and yet they vsed great diligence examination and dispute Act 15.7 I suppose you will not deny that S. John was infallibly assisted in writting his Gospell and yet S. Hierom in praef in Evangel Matth saieth that he could not be intreated to set on that holy Work but vpon condition that indicto jejunio in commune omnes Deum deprecarentur the Christians should haue a fett fast and all should joyne in prayer to God Do you not belieue that God did so assist the Writers of Canonicall Scripture that they were infallible in their writings and yet that they might exercise an act of obedience and freely though infallibly follow the Direction of the Holy Ghost It is cleare that you must either deny freedom of will to the Writers or infallibility to their writings or grant that free will and infallibility are not incompatible I might add to all this that men may loose themselves not only by error in Faith but also by an ill life whereby Preachers destroy by deeds what they pretended to build in words Which Answer would evacuate the force of your Argument but I haue saied enough of this matter 92. Fourthly N. 78. you answer that we must proue that by Truth in the saied Text is meant all Truth both Fundamentall and profitable and that you grant it to be the Essence of the Church to be a maintayner and teacher of all necessary truth But this evasion hath bene confuted already out of your owne assertion that we cannot belieue the Church in Fundamentall Articles vnless she be infallible in all and this vrges most clearely in your opinyon who profess it impossible to know what Points in particular be Fundamentall And I beseech you cōsider that S. Paul speaks of the primitiue Church of those tymes which you will not deny to haue bene infallible ād therefore if he speak of the vniversall Church as in this Fourth Answer you suppose he doth you must grant that Church to be infallible in all Fundamentall and vnfundamentall Points And so this Text cannot be restrayned to Fundamentall Truths 93. Your N. 79.80 Pretends to answer the Argument taken out of S. Paul Ephes 4. He gaue some Apostles and some prophets and
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
cause Now your selfe here N. 9. confesse that without credible reasons and inducements our choice even of the true Faith is not to be commeÌ„ded as prudent but to be condemned of rashness and levity I say an act of Faith must alwayes be prudent not that every one must be able to giue to others an account of his faith as you interpret the matter but that the capacity of the believer and all other circumstances considered the beliefe of such a man is indeed prudent I wonder what could moue you N. 10. to say to Charity Maintayned It is against Truth and Charity to say as you doe that they with cannot doe soe that is cannot giue a Reason and account of their Faith either are not at all or to no purpos true believers whereas Charity Maintayned hath no such matter 8. In your N. 11.12 you say It is not Heresy to oppose au Truth proposed by the Church but only such a Truth as is an essentiall part of the Gospell of Christ 9. Answer you haue no constancie in your doctrine Here you say Heresy cannot be without errour against some essentiall part of the Gospell of Christ And every errour against any Doctrine revealed by God is not a damnable Heresy vnless it be revealed publickly plainely with a command that all should belieue it By essentiall I suppose you meane Necessary and Fundamentall as contrarily Pag. 140. N. 26. you say not Fundamentall â— e. no essentiall point of Christianity But contrary to this your doctrine in other places you teach that whatsoever is opposit to Scripture is an Heresy as Pag 101. N. 127. you say If Scripture be sufficient to informe vs what is the Faith it must of necessity be also sufficient to teach vs what is Heresy seing Heresy is nothing but a manifest deviation from and opposition to the Faith But you will not deny that every text of Scripture is sufficient to make a thing a matter of faith therfore you caÌ„not deny but that errour against any such text being a deviation from and an opposition to Faith must necessarily be heresy which is more cleare in your groundes who teach that it is impossible to know what points in Scripture be fundamentall and consequently what is Heresy if you take it for a deviation only from fundameÌ„tall points And this you declare clearly in the same Number Pag 102. Saying If any man should obstinatly contradicÌ„t the truth of any thing plainely delivered in Scripture who doth 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 You teach also that as things are ordered there is equall necessity of believing all things contained in Scripture whether they be Fundamentall or not Fundamentall and nothing is more frequent in your Booke than that it is a damnable sinne to disbelieue any one truth sufficiently propounded to be revealed by God and what sinne can it be but the sinne of Heresy which is opposit to the Theologicall vertue of Faith Potter also speakes clearly to this purpose saying Pag 98. He is justly esteemed an Heretick who yealds not to Scripture sufficiently propounded and yet it is cleare that in Scripture there are millions of truths not Fundamentall And Pag 128. An obstinate standing out against evident Scripture cleared vnto him makes an Heretick And Pag 247. If a man by reading the Scriptures be convinced of the truth this is a sufficient proposition to proue him thâ—t gainesayeth any such truth to be an Heretick and obstinate opposer of the Faith And 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 Diuine Authority of God and his word by which it is recommended that is such as may not be denyed or contradicted without in fidelity Such as every Christian is bound with humility and reverence to belieue whensoever the knowledge therof is offered to him And further Pag 250. Where the revealed will or word of God is sufficiently propounded there he that opposeth is convinced of errour and he who is thus convinced is an Heretique and Heresy is a worke of the flesh which excludeth from heaven Gal 5.20.21 And hence it followeth that it is Fundament all to a Christians Faith and necessary for his salvation that he belieue all revealed truths of God whereof he may be convinced that they are of God And Pag 57. Whosoever either wilfully opposes any Catholick verity maintayned by this Church the fellowship of the Saints or the Catholick visible Church as doe Heretiks 〈◊〉 perversly divides himselfe fromthe Catholik communion as doe Schismatiks the condition of both these is damnable And Field L. 2. C. 3 speakes plainely Freedom from Fundamentall errour may be found among Heretiks Therefore errour against points not fundameÌ„ntall is Heresy seing they be may Heretiks aÌ„d yet be free froÌ„ fundameÌ„tall error Fulk in his Rejoinder to Bristow P. 82. The parliament determined Heresy by contrariety to the Canonicall Scripture Can you expect a greater authority then that of the Parliament But no wonder if Heresies be familiar and ripe among you if they consist only in fundamentall errours and that you are not able to determine what errours be fundamentall and theÌ„ who will be carefull to avoyd they know not what For the rest of this number I need only say that it is vnreasonable in you to desire a proofe of that which here you expresly grant to be true and is cleare of itselfe that either the Protestant or Roman Church must erre against the word and testimony of God seing they hold contradictories in matters belonging to faith and it is a fond thing in you to say that Ch Ma hath for his reason their contradiction only seing we alwayes speake of contradiction in matter of Faith Your N. 13. containes no difficulty supposing we haue already proved the infallibility of the Church as we haue done in divers places 10. To your N. 14. I answer that if Luther were an Heretick who can deny but that they who followed and persist in the same Doctrine must also be such seing it is a foolery to thinke that all of them can be excused by ignorance Besides we speake per se loquendo that the Doctrine of it selfe being Hereticall the defenders of it must also be Heretiks abstâ—acting from ignorance c. And so your distinction out of S. Austin of Haeretici and Heraeticorum sequace is not pertinent neither did Charity Maintayned ever affirme that all 's Arians who followed their teachers were excused from formall Heresy by Salvianus and I am sure Ch Ma himselfe is far from any such opinion yea even Dr. Potter who Pag 119. alleadgeth the words of Salvianus sayth he speakes of some Arian Hereticks from whence it doth not follow that he spoke of all those who followed their teachers and those of whome he spoke he
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
Charity Maintayned and the Doctor cite are absolute And Matth 28. V. 20. behold which particle holy Scripture is wont to vse when it speaks of some great or strang thing I am with you all daies even to the consummation of the world Which wordsare both absolutely without any condition and cannot be restrayned to the lives of the Apostles and therfore dato non concesso that the Promise had bene made to the Apostles vpon condition of Loving God it does not follow that the same condition must be required in every one of their successours but for the merit of the Apostles it may be communicated to others in whom the Apostles liue and so what is granted to them is a reward bestowed vpon the Apostles as heroicall acts of particular men are rewarded both in themselves and in their posterity for their sake though their successors be destitute of that worth and desert without which condition theyr first progenitors would never have attained that Dignity or Prerogatiue which afterward is derived to their posterity absolutely and without any such condition as was required in the beginning Morover though it were granted that keeping the commandements were a necessary condition for receyving Infallibility yet you will never be able to proue by any evident Text of Scripture that it is necessary in respect of every particular person it being sufficient that it be veryfied of the Church Catholique of which even Dr. Potter Pag 10. saieth that it is not improbable only but meerely impossible the Catholique Church should be without Charity Our blessed Saviour before he encharged the care of his Church vpon S. Peter exacted of him a triple profession of loue and will you therfore haue none to be lawfull Pastors except such as loue God aboue all things and are in state of Grace and free from deadly sinne Haue you a mynd to fetch from Hell the condemned and seditious heresy of Wicliffe That If a Bishop or Priest be in deadly sinne he doth not indeed either giue Orders consecrate or Baptize As authority and Jurisdiction are not of that nature of things which require Charity and the State of Grace so neither is infallibility no more than working of Miracles Gift of tongues and the like which by Divines are called Gratiae gratis datae and therfore you cannot imagine with any reason that the Holy Ghost cannot be given for some Effects to any who is not in state of Grace and I hope you will at least pretend to be more certaine that Scripture is of infallible Authority than that every Canonicall Writer did loue God and keep the commandements when they wrote Scripture yea of some Bookes of Scripture some call in Question who were the writers of them I will not heere stay to put you in minde that it is common among Protestants to deny the posfibility of keeping the commandements must they therfore deny the infallibility of the Apostles They are so farre from doing so that they hold the Church to be infallible in Fundamentalls notwithstanding the impossibility in their opinion of keeping the commandements 85. Now I hope it appeares that your two Syllogismes goe vpon a false ground that the promise made to the Apostles is conditionall and so proue nothing As also that you breath too much gall and vanity in saying that Charity Maintayned and generally all our Writers of Controversy by whom this Text is vrged with a bold Sacriledge and horrible impiety somewhat like Procrustes his cruelty perpetually cut of the head and foot the beginning and end of it For I suppose you will not hold Dr. Potter for a Writer of Controversy against Protestants and yet he cites this Text and leaves out more than Charity Maintained omitts cutting of not only the head ād foot but also the breast and middle thereof therby shewing his judgment that the other words which you cite out of the precedent 15. and the following 17. verse make nothing to that purpose for which that Text is produced that is the infallibility of the Apostles and Church and that you by citing those different verses without distinction not only joyne head and foot and the whole Body confusedly together which is no less monstrous than to cutt them of but doe indeed vtterly destroy and depriue it of all infalllibility by questioning the infallibility of the Apostles from whom this very Text must receiue all the certainty it can haue Do not I maintayne the most perfect kind of Charity in defending my adversary the Doctor in this occasion of being forsaken and even impugned by whom alone he hoped to be relieved And indeed Dr. Potter only and not Charity Maintayned stands in need of defence seing he alledged those texts which the Doctor cites only to shew in deeds that Scripture alone is not sufficient to interpret itself whereas D. Potter brought them absolutely to proue the infallibility of the Church in all Fundamentall Points which is the common tenet of Protestants and yet you overthrow it by making our Saviours Promise not absolute but depēding vpon a volūtary vncertaine condition 86. In your N. 76. you endeavour divers wayes to elude the Argument which is wont to be alledged for the infallibility of the Church taken out of S. Paul 1. Tim 3.15 where the Church is saied to be the Pillar and Ground of Truth 87. First you say Charity Maintayned is somewhat too bold with S. Paul For it is neither impossible nor improbable these words the Pillar and ground of truth may haue reference not to the Church but to Timothy But this exposition is not only against Calvin and other Protestants who expresly refer those words to the Church but also it cannot well agree with the Greek And even the Protestant English Translation reades it as we doe for as much as belongs to our present purpose Howesoever it appeares by this very example how hard and impossible it is to determine Controversyes by Scripture alone which every one will find meanes to interpret for his best advantage though it be not donne without violence to the Text. Neither is it heterogeneous as you argue that S. Paul having called the Church a House should call it presently a Pillar For you should consider that he calls it a House and Pillar in different respects A House of God the Pillar not of God but of Truth You will not deny that the Primitiue Apostolicall Church was vniversally infallible and so was both the House of God and Pillar of Truth and therefore it is nothing absonous or heterogeneous that the metaphor of a House and of a Pillar be applyed to the same thing Cornelius à Lapide heere saieth Alludit Apostolus ad Bethel de qua viso ibi Domino dixit Jacob Genes 28. verè non est hic aliud nisi Domus Dei porta Caeli If therefore in that place of Genesis to which the Apostle alludes the same is saied to be a House and a Gate in diverse respects a