sinne of Protestants who do not only erre but also communicate with others who erre from which Communion we haue heard him confess that Charity Maintayned hath some probability to disswade men In the eyes of vulgar people this mixture of different Sects vnder one name of Protestancy may seeme a kind of good thing as bearing a shew of Charity yet indeed to wise men such communicants must appeare to be as litle zealous constant and firme in their owne Religion as they affect to be esteemed charitable to others And to every such Protestant doe fully agree those excellent words of glorious S. Austine de Civit Dei Lib 21. Cap 17. He doth erre so much the more absurdly and against the word of God more perversly by how much he seemeth to himself to Judge more charitably 12. Neither in this Discourse doe we relie vpon his wordsonly but on his Tenets and Grounds and such Truths as both hee often delivers and must be granted by all Christians namely that it is damnable to deny any least Truth sufficiently propounded to a man as revealed by God and therefore seing Protestants disagree about such Truths some of them must of necessity erre damnably And so he ought to alter the Title of his Book into the direct contradictorie and saie The Religion of Protestants not a safe way to salvation For bonum ex integra causa malum ex quocunque defectu and as we cannot affirme that Action to be vertuous which failes in any one morall circumstance so Protestants being confessedly guilty of damnable errours he must giue this Title to his Booke Protestancy not a safe way to salvation but vnrepented a certaine way to damnation 13. Or if he be resolved not to chang his Title vpon this Ground That albeit Protestants erre damnably yet they may be saved because they erre not in Fundamentall Articles absolutely and indispensably necessary to constitute one a member of the Church and in that regard may be either excused by Ignorance or pardoned by Repentance Then 14. I proue my second Proposition That for the verie same reason he must say and might haue put for the Title of his Book The Religion of Roman Catholiques a safe waie to salvation seing he expresly and purposely teaches through his whole Book that we erre not in fundamentall points and that we may be saved by ignorance or Repentance That our Errors be not Fundamentall he declares in plaine termes For Ch Ma in his preface to the Reader N. 13. having saied Since he will be forced to grant that there can be assigned no visible true Church of Christ distinct from the Church of Rome and such Churches as agreed with her when Luther first appeared whether it doe not follow that she hath not erred fundamentally because everie such errour destroyes the nature and being of the Church and so our Saviour should haue had no visible Church on earth To which demand Mr. Chillingworth answers in these words Pag 16. N. 20. I say in our sense of the word Fundamentall it does follow For if it be true that there was then no Church distinct from the Roman then it must be either because there was no Church at all which we deny Or because the Roman Church was the whole Church which we also deny Or because she was a part of the Whole which we grant And if she were a true part of the Church then she retained those Truths which were simply necessary to salvation and held no errours which were inevitably and vnpardonably destructiue of it For this is precisely necessary to constiture any man or any Church a member of the Church Catholique In our sence therefore of the word Fundamentall I hope she erred not Fundamentally but in your sense of the word I feare she did That is she held something to be Divine Revelation which was not something not to be which was Behold how he frees vs from all Fundamentall errors though he feares we are guilty of errours which he calls damnable that is repugnant to some Divine Revelation whereas he professes as a thing evident that some Protestants must erre fundamentally in that sense because they hold Contradictories of which both partes cannot be true And so even this for consideration he must say The Religion of Roman Catholiques a safer way to salvation than Protestancy seing he can not proue that we erre by Reason of any contradiction among ourselves in matters of Faith as it is manifest that one Protestant is contrarie to an other especially if we reflect that not onlie one particular or single person contradicts an other but whole Sects are at variance and contrariety as Lutherans Calvinists Anabaptists new Arians Socinians c The first point then it is cleare he confesses I meane that our supposed errours are not Fundamentall which is so true that whereas in severall occasions he writes or rather declaimes against vs for denying the cup to laymen and officiating in an vnknown toung as being in his opinion points directly contrarie to evident Revelation yet Pag 137. N. 21. he hopes that the deniall of them shall not be laid to our charge no otherwise then as building hay and stubble on the foundations not overthrowing the foundation itself 15. But for the second doth he hold that we may be excused by ignorance or saved by Repentance as he saieth Protestants may Heare what he speakes to Catholiques Pag 34. N. 5. I can very hardly perswade myself so much as in my most secret consideration to devest you of these so needfull qualifications of ignorancce and Repentance But whensoever your errors come into my minde my only comfort is amidest these agoriâ—s that the Doctrine and practise too of Repantance is yet remaining in your Church And this hee teaches through all his Book together with Dr. Potter and they vniversally affirme that those Catholiques may be saved who in simplicity of hart believe what they profess as they may be sure English Catholiques doe who might be begged for fooles or sent to Bedlam if they did not belieue that Faith and Religion be be true for the truth whereof they haue indured so long and grievous persecution Besides it being evident that many learned Protestants in the chiefest points controverted betwene them and vs agree with vs against their pretended Brethren as is specified and proved hereafter and is manifest by evidence of fact the Religion of Protestants cannot be safe or free from damnable Opinions vnless our Religion be also such For I hope they will not say that the selfe same Assertions taken in the same sense are true in the mouth of Protestants and false in ours We must therefore conclude that if he will make good his title The Religion of Protestants a safe way to salvation he must say the same of vs Catholiques whoâ— he acknowledges not to erre in fundamentall points and to be capable of inculpable Ignorance or Repentance for which selfsame respects he pretends The
Religion of Protestants to be a safe way to salvation 16. But what if Mr. Chilling worth devest Protestants of that so needfull qualification by ignorance which he denies not to vs I will faithfully relate his words and leaue others to judge what a champion Protestants haue chosen Ch Ma part 1. Cap 5. N. 32. objects to Protestants that their departure from the Roman Church vpon pretence of errour could not be excused seing by leaving her they could not hope to avoide the like vnfundamentall nor be secured from Fundamentall errors To this Mr. Chillingworth Pag 290. N. 87. answers that Protestants are so farre from acknowledging that they haue no hope to avoide errors of the like nature and quality with ours which he confesses to be vnfundamentall that they proclaime to all the world that it is most easy and proue to so to doe all those that feare God aÌ„d love the Truth and hardly possible for them to doe otherwise without supine negligence and extreame impiety I will not insist here how strange and even ridiculous it is in him to say that it is most prone and easy for Protestants not to fall into errors at least not Fundamentall yea that it is hardly possible for them not to avoide such errours seing they disagree so irreconciliably among themselves and diverse of them fall into those pretended errours which we maintaine against Protestants all which one would think could not happen if it were most prone and easy for Protestants to avoide such errours and hardly possible for them to doe otherwise that is not to avoide them without supine negligence and extreame impiety But that which I saie now is That seing de facto he confesses Protestants to hold errours yea millions even the greater parte of them to be in error by their owne fault as we haue seene aboue it followes that in his judgment they are actually guilty of â—upine negligence and extreame impiety which vices certainly cannot stand with invincible or probable ignorance and so all erring Protestants are excluded from Mr. Chillingworths Excuse or Sanctuary of ignorance 17. Nay what if he hold the errours of Protestants to be vnpardonable Sure I am he saieth Pag 275. N. 58. God is infinitely just tod therefore as it â—â— to be feared will not pardon them who might easily haue come to the knowledg of the Truth and either through pridâ— or obstinacy or negligence would not Now we haue heard him avouch that it is easy for Protestants to come to the knowledg of the Truth and hardly possible for them to doe otherwise without supine negligence and extreame impiety and therefore it is to be feared God will not pardon them even in the opinion of Mr. I hil their selected Advocate though for ends of his owne he thought fit to publish his Book vnder this Title the Religion of Protestants a safe way to salvation 18. I saied in the third place That vnless he confess the Religion of Roman Catholiques to be a safe way to salvation he must not only affirme The Religion of Protestants not to be a safe way but also that Christian Religion is not a safe way to salvation And the Reason is cleare out of what hath bene saied already For seing he holds it not necessary that any Church be free from errours vnfundamentall and that the whole Church before Luther was infected with such errours and that at this day Protestants erre damnably I wonder of what ChristiaÌ„ church he can say with Reason it is a safe way to salvation if he deny it to the Roman Church which he confesses not to erre fundamentally And therefore if any Christian Church be a safe way we are safe even in the Principles of I hil and Potter And what greater security can be desired than when all sides both friends and Adversaries confess our possibility to be saved whereas we cannot with truth giue any such hope to Protestants without Repentance and retractation of their errors (a) Maximus hom 1. in Festo Palchae validis absque dubio uititur privilegijs qui causam de adversarijs assent instrumentis Speciosa victoria est contrariam partem chartulis suis velue proprijs laqueis irretire testimoniorum suorum vocibus confurare aemulum telis suis evincere vt pugnatoris tur argumenta tuis probentur vtilitatibus militare 19. I will say no more by way of Preface but only signify in a word for the Readers necessary knowledg or remembrace that there having bene printed a litle elegant and pithy Treatise with this Title Charity Mistaken with the want whereof Catholikes are vnjustly charged for affirming that Protestancy vnrepented destroies salvation And this Treatise having bene answered by Dr Potter the Doctors Answer was confuted by a Reply intituled Mercy and Truth Or Charity Maintayned by Catholiques To this Reply Mr Chillingworth published an Answer with this Title the Religion of Protestants a safe way to salvation against which diverse litle Treatises were presently put forth as I saied aboue and now I haue endeavoured to answer it at large By Cha Mi I shall hereafter vnderstand Charity Mistaken and by Ch Ma Charity Maintayned I cite the Second Edition of Dr Potters Book and the Oxford Edition of Mr Chillingworths which only I haue or could procure when and where I was to write this Answer and for brevityes sake speak to him as if he were Living As still he lives in his profane Booke and his Booke lives in the vaine esteeme of men who yet preteÌ„d to be ChristiaÌ„s A TABLE OF THE CHAPTERS An Introduction Touching the necessity of Divine Grace for all workes of Christian Piety Pag 1. Chap 1. Christian Faith necessary to Salvation is infallibly true Pag 37. Chap 2. All things necessary to be believed are not in particular evidently contayned in Scripture alone Pag 122. Chap 3. A Confutation of Mr Chillingworths errours against Holy Scripture Pag 279. Chap 4. A Living infallible Judge is necessary for deciding Controversyes in Matters of Faith Pag 352. Chap 5. In what manner and order wee proue the infallibility of the Church Pag 426. Chap 6. About Fundamentall and not Fundamentall Points of Faith Pag 440. Chap 7. Protestants are guilty of the sinne of Schisme Pag 458. Chap 8. Mr Chillingworrths errours concerning Repentance are examined and confuted Pag 596. Chap 9. The answer to the Preface of Charity Maintayned is examined Pag 623. Chap 10. The answer to his first Chapter about the state of the Question and whether amongst men of different Religions one side only can be saved Pag 630. Chap 11. The aÌ„swer to his Second Chapter concerning the meanes whereby the revealed Truths of God are conveyed to our vnderstanding and which must determine Controversyes in Faith and Religion Pag 648. Chap 12. The answer to his third Chapter about Fundamentall and not Fundamentall Points Pag 707. Chap 13. That the Creed contaynes not all Points necessary to be believed in answer to
will serue for an Answer to this very Objection of resistibility or irresistibility which you make against vs who defend the infallibility of the Church and absolute certaine Assistance that she shall never erre in matters belonging to Faith and Religion But to returne 80. Seing the Church cannot perish she cannot faile in Fundamentall Points and seing also you confess that it is impossible to determine in particular what Poynts be Fundamentall and we see other Protestants could never yet agree in giving a Catalogue of such Points we must either belieue that she can faile in no Points at all or else we cannot be sure that she failes not in Fundamentall Articles This granted I go a step further and say that seing in the ordinary course of Gods Providence we are not taught by immediate Revelations Enthusiasmes or the like but by the Ministery of the Church it followes that God hath indued and adorned her with such Prerogatives and Notes that all who will cooperate with Gods Grace may attaine the knowledg of Her and be able to joyne themselves to Her Communion and abandon all other false Synagogues or Congregations Otherwise it is all one to make the true Church invisible or vndiscernable from other Communityes and to say there is no true Church at all in order to any fruit which faithfull people can take or receiue from Her and infallibility in Fundamentall Points which even Protestants grant Her will serue to no purpose at all It is your owne saying Pag 105. N. 139. No Church can possibly be fit to be a Gaide but only a Church of some certaine denomination And what comfort can it be to our soules as Whitaker sayd That Christs Church never shall faile if we cannot know where that Church is nor that there be Meanes and Notes to shew her vnto vs Neither can any be obliged to obey her Commands follow her Doctrine heare her preachers frequent her Sacraments c vnless they can be sure to find her Rom 10. Vers 14.15 How shall they belieue him whom they haue not heard And how shall they heare without a Preacher But how shall they preach vnless they be sent Behold preaching in the ordinary course necessary to Faith and lawfull Mission necessary to Preaching All which can belong only to the visible true Church For this cause Ephes 4. There must be in the Church Pastors to governe and Doctors to teach And Esay 62.6 We reade vpon thy walles Jerusalem I haue appointed watchmen all the day and all the night for ever they shall not hold their peace If they hold not their peace they must haue auditours who must be knowne and these must know where their Preachers are to be found Even Calvin Lib 4. Inst Chap 1. Sect 4. Saith that the knowledg of the visible Church is not only profitable but necessary for vs and that we are to be kept vnder her custody and government all the dayes of our life our weakness requiring that we be her Disciples through the whole course of our life And having Sect 5. alledged the words Eph 4.11 He adds We see that God who could make men perfect in a moment yet will not do it but by the education of the Church God inspires Faith but by Meanes of the Gospell as Paul tell vs Rom 10.17 That Faith comes by hearing Although the Power of God be not tyed to outward meanes yet he hath tyed vs to the ordinary way of teaching Wherby we see that even those who talke so much of the private Spirit yet profess that it is not given without the Ministery of the Church as I saied above Fulk also in his Answer to the counterfaite Catholike Pag 100. sayes of Preachers Truth cannot be continued in the world but by their Ministery And in Propositions and Principles disputed in the vniversity of Geneva Pag 845. The Ministery is an esseÌ„tiall mark of the true Church Mr. Deering in his Reading vpon the Epistle to the Hebrewes Chap 3. Lecture 15. sayth Salvation springeth in preaching of the Gospell and is shut vp againe with the ceasing of it And Ibid Lectur 16. fine Take away preaching you take away Faith Cartwright in his second Reply Part 1. Pag 381. circa medium maintayneth that the people perish where there be no preachers although there be Readers And that by bare reading ordinarily there is no salvation no Faith Let Protestants marke this If Scripture were of itself evident in all Points of Faith it were sufficient to reade it and people need not perish for want of preaching but Faith and salvation might be had without it by only reading Scripture 81. Out of what hath bene sayd these important Corollaryes are manifestly deduced First That the true Church which all ought to seeke and may find if they indeavour aÌ„d be not waÌ„ting to Gods Grace is a visible Congregation which may be distinguished from all other aÌ„d so come to be of one denominatioÌ„ For it is evideÌ„t our Saviour sayd not of false pastours aÌ„d prelates he that heares you heares me Luc 10.16 nor were false Preachers sent by him nor did he appoynt Pastours Doctors c. to be followed in a false Church nor did he appoynt watchmen c. in Babylon but in Jerusalem nor can the sayings of Protesâ—nts which I haue â—ited aboue be vnderstood either of a false Church or of a true Church as it were in generall and in abstracto without being possible to be knowen in particular But they must be vnderstood of a true Church with relation to vs and the salvation of particular persons for which end our B Saviour did constitute and doth preserue Her What els â—â—n Calvins words signify That it is necessary for vs to know her That the keepes and defends vs That we must be her Discrples That our of her â—osome no remission of sins can be hoped That although God could yet he will not bring Vs to perfection but by the education of the Church That he inspires Faith by the instrument of the Gospell and Meanes of hearing and that God hath tyed vs to this ordinary way And what els can Fulk and other Protestants meane For it were but foolery to say That an vnknowne Ministery is an essentiall Mark of the true Church Or that salvation springeth in a preaching not known where to be found and is shut vp with ceasing of it Or that truth cannot be continued in the world without the ministery of Preachers Or of any such sayings 82. Secondly It followes that seing there must alwayes be a knowne particular Church which cannot perish that is in your Principles cannot erre in Fundamentall Points that knowen Church must be infallible absolutely in all Points Fundamentall and not Fundamentall For if we did conceiue she could erre in any one Point of Faith we could not rely on her Authority in any other which you also grant as we haue lately shewed and Pag 105. N. 139. you speake directly to our present
Fundamentall Points but that Particular Churches ād Persons may But in your doctrine there cā be no such distinction The vniversall Church with you is infallible because if she erre Fundamentally she ceases to be a Church as also Particular Churches if they erre Fundamentally cease to be Churches and the same I say of particular Persons and so particular Churches and Persons shall be no less infallible than the vniversall Church which is contrary to the doctrine of other Protestants and to your owne words also Pag 106. N. 140. We yield vnto you that there shall be a Church which never erreth in some Points because as we conceaue God hath promised so much Now you will not say that God hath promised so much to particular Churches and Persons and therfor you must put a difference between the vniversall and particular Churches which difference cannot stand with this your speculation that the Church is only in fallible in some points because if she erre in them she ceases to be a Church which exoticall kind of infallibility agrees to all particular Churches and persons 87. Hence it is that Protestants ground the Perpetuily of the vniverfall Church not vpon a probable belief or hope that it shall be so or vpon Her actuall not erring Fundamentally as you do but vpon some antecedent Principle namely the Promises of our Saviour Christ and Assistance of the Holy Ghost Dr. Potter in particular whom you vndertooke to defend speakes very clearly to this purpose Pag 105. in these words The whole Militant Church that is all the members of it cannot possibly erre either in the whole Faith or any necessary Article of it For such an errour must needs disvnite all the Members from Christ the Head and so dissolue the Body and leaue Him no Church which is impossible Mark that he sayth not as you doe The Church cannot erre in any necessary Article because therby she should cease to be a Church but contrarily seing it is impossible that she can cease to be a Church and leaue Christ no Church she cannot possibly erre in the whole Faith or any necessary Article of it With what modesty or conscience do you alledg here Dr. Potter as if he did not disagree from you The contrary wherof will appeare more by his words Pag 153.154.155 The Church saith he Vniversall is ever in such manner assisted by the good spirit that it never totally failes or falls of from Christ For it is so firmely founded on the Rocke Matth 16.18 that is on Christ the only Fundation Cor 3.11 that the gates of Hell whether by temptation or persecution shall not prevaile against it And that you may see how far he was from dreaming of your Chimericall infallibility he cites Bellarmine de Eccles Lib 3. Cap 13. saying That the Church cannot erre is proved out of Scripture Matth 16. vpon this rocke I will build my Church and then goes on in these words The whole Church cannot so erre as to be destroyed For then our Lords promise here Matth 16.18 of Her stable edification should be of no value Obserue this And what he hath afterward in these words The Church vniversall hath not the like assurance from Christ that she shall not erre in vnnecessary additions as she hath for her not erring in taking away from the Faith what is Fundamentall and necessary It is comfort enough for the Church that the Lord in mercy will secure her from all capitall dangers and conserue her on earth against all enemyes But she may not hope to triumph over all sinne and error That the Church be never robbed of any truth necessary to the being of the Church the promises of Christ assure vs. Behold First The Church may erre in not Fundamentall but cannot erre in Fundamentall Ponts wheras you say she may erre in both 2. That the reason why she canot erre in Fundamentall Points is because she is firmely founded on the rocke and if she did faile our Lords promise of her stableedification should be of no value And therfore the Lord will even secure her from all capitall dangers and of this the promises of Christ assure vs. And this as I sayd is the common doctrine of Protestants Wherby it appeares that the Church is not sayd to be infallible in Fundamentall Points because she should perish by every such Error but contrarily because she is assisted by the Holy Ghost never to erre in such Points she shall never be destroyed in direct opposition to you who say that she may erre and by erring be destroyed What a kind of Syllogisme must be framed out of this your Doctrine in this manner The Church is infallible or cannot erre in Fundamentall Points because if she did so erre she should cease to be a Church But she may cease to be a Church Therfore she is infallible and cannot erre in Fundamentalls You should in ferr the direct contrary Therfore she may erre and is not infallible I beseech you of what value should our Saviours promises be according to your doctrine That the Church should not erre at least in Fundamentall Poynts of Faith No. You say she can erre in such Points In what then Only in this admirable worke that if she did erre she should be sure to pay for it by perishing For say you To say the Church while it is the Church may erre in Fundamentalls implyes contradiction and is all one as to say the Church while it is the Church may not be the Church This then is the effect of Gods Promises that that shall be which implyes contradiction to be otherwise that is Gods Power and Promise shall only effect that two contradictions be not true as that if some Living sensible creature be a beast he shall not be a man Is not this to be sacrilegiously impious against God and his holy Promises and Providence Is the Church so built vpon a Rocke assisted by the Holy Ghost that the gates of Hell shall not prevaile against Her only to this effect that if she erre she shall perish that is the Gates of Hell shall in the most prevalent way that can be imagined prevaile against her What foolish impietyes are these Let vs therfore inferr out of these Premises That there must be alwayes a true visible Church knowen and discernable from all false ones and therfore of one denomination That even according to Protestants this true Church must be infallible in all Fundamentall Points That if she be infallible in Fundamentall Points we must belieue Her to be infallible in all even according to your owne grant as I haue shewed out of your owne words And so finally we must conclude that there must be alwayes a visible Church of one denomination and infallible in all Points of Faith as well Fundamentall as not Fundamentall 88. And by what hath bene sayd I confute and retort your saying Pag 150. N. 39. A man that were destitute of all meanes of communicating his thoughts to
most Fundamentall of all Articles in the Church that Iesus Christ the Son of God and the Son of Mary is the only Saviour of the world Surely one of you must be in such a most important and most Fundamentall errour that you cannot both be saved though you were inculpably ignorant of it as we haue seene out of Potter Pag 243. even concerning this particular Article And now I pray you consider this agreement of Protestants in the foresayd Articles of Repentance and Faith in Christ Iesus the Son of God and Saviour of the world which yet you confess to be simply necessary 24. Object 3. In the same Pag 159. N. 52. You say Suppose a man in some disease were prescribed a medicine consisting of twenty ingredients and he advising with Physitians should find them differing in opinion about it some of them telling hem that all the ingredients were absolutly necessary some that only some of them were necessary the rest only profitable and requisite ad melius esse lastly some that some only were necessary some profitable and the rest superfluous yet not hurtfull yet all with one accord agreeing in this that the whole receypt hid in it all things necessary for the recovery of his health and that if he made vse of it he should infallibly find it successfull what wise man would not thinke they agreed sufficiently for his direction to the recovery of his health I ust so these Protestant Doctours with whose discords you make such Tragedyes agreeing in Thesâ— thus far that the Scripture evidently containes all things necessary to salvation and that whosoever believes it and endeavours to find the true sense of it and to conforme his life vnto it shall certainly performe all things necessary to salvation and vndoubtedly be saved what matters it for the divection of men to salvation though they differ in opinion touching what Points are absolutly necessary and what not 25. Answer You Socinians who adore naturall reason and take pleasure in being esteemed considering men are much delighted in proposing similitudes which make a faire shew and may seduce the ignorant but being examined proue nothing against any except yoursel ves First This similitude can proue nothing vnless you begg the Question and suppose one receypt to haue in it all things necessary for the recovery of the diseased mans health that is Scripture to containe all Points necessary to salvation which you know we deny and say you erre in Thesi If with Scripture you would joyne the Tradition and Definitions of the Church your suppositions were true and your parity good Otherwise your receypt cannot haue all necessary ingredients 26. Secondly Suppose the sick man had great reason to belieue that the ground vpon which the Physitians build their opinion and agreement were not good nor such as he had any obligation at all to credit what sick man if he were also wise could judg their agreement to be sufficient for an vndoubted direction to the recovery of his health Heere then as in other severall occasions I must put you in mynd of your doctrine that we are not bound to belieue as an Object of our Faith Scripture to be the word of God but that we may reject it What then availes it me towards the belief of such or such Points that they are evident in Scripture if I do not belieue Scripture itself 27. Thirdly Suppose the ingredients were very soveraine and sufficient in themselves but that it were not in the sick mans power to procure them were the speculatiue agreement of the Physitians sufficient for his recovery So here It is impossible for most men to know all evideÌ„t texts of scripture which yet according to your grounds must make vp that number of Truths wherin one shall be sure to find all Fundamentall Points and so the agreement of Protestants that all necessary Truths are evidently contayned in Scripture is to little purpose since they cannot distinguish them from Points not necessary and for all men to know all Points evident in Scripture but not necessary is impossible and though it were possible yet being not of obligation for any man even though he be learned to know all such Texts defacto he might without sinne be ignorant of necessary Points which he can be certaine to know only by knowing absolutly all cleare places of Scripture and so be damned for want of believing some Point absolutly necessary necessitate medij which is a plaine contradiction that some Points should be necessary to salvation and yet that we are not bound to attaine the knowledg of them or that the End which is the knowledg of such Points should be necessary and the only meanes to attaine it be either impossible or at least not of obligation to any as certainly no man is obliged to know precisely all and every particular evident Text of Scripture which â—et in your way is the only meanes to know all Fundamentall Points as in your example if a sick man were obliged to procure the recovery of his health he must be obliged to make vse of that receypt which alone could be effectuall in order to that end 28. Fourthly Suppose I could not take such a receypt without danger of drinking poyson togeather with the wholsome ingredients your similitude which goes vpon the contrary supposition doth clearely proue nothing Thus it passes in our case Men left to themselves without the Direction and Traditions of the Church yea with direct opposition to her Definitions and Authority cannot chuse but by occasion of reading Scripture alone fall into many errours against some Divine Revelation delivered either in Scripture or by Tradition that is in the written or vnwritten word of God as we see by experience of old and new Heretikes and particularly by the dissensions of Protestants wherof some must needs contradict some Truth delivered in Gods Word either by detracting from or by adding to the true sense therof Now in divets places you affirme that every errour contrary to any revealed Truth is in its owne nature damnable without Repentance and you add Pag 158. N. 52. that for the most part men are betrayed into errours or kâ—â—t in them by their fault or vice or passion And therfore the true Conclusion will be that men presuming to reade and interpret Scripture by their owne wit without dependance on the Church ought to conceaue that they expose themselves to certaine danger of erring against some Divine Truth or Revelation that is to a thing in itself damnable Neither can they hope for any helpe from Sectaryes whom they see infinitly divided among themselves And if they take such men for their Physitians some of them will affirme some ingredients to be necessary or profitable which others will sweare to be ranke poyson and so every Protestant is left to himself and a particular Catalogne of Fundamentalls is necessary for every one All which is strongly confirmed by calling to mynd that even the most learned
because we cannot in this life hope to triumph over all sinne as Potter speakes so neither can her Communion be forsaken for Errours not Fundamentall seing the Doctor saith also that the Church may not hope to triumph over all Errours 8. Another Argument Charity Maintayned N. 25. tooke from these words of Potter Pag 75. There neither was nor can be any just cause to depart from the Church of Christ no more than from Christ himself But to depart from a particular Church and namely from the Church of Rome in some Doctrines and Practises there might be just and necessary cause though the Church of Rome wanted nothing necessary to salvation Marke what he saith There can be no cause to depart from the Church of Christ and yet he teaches that the Church of Christ the vniversall Church may erre in Points not Fundamentall therfore errours in Poynts not Fundamentall cannot be judged a sufficient and just cause to depart from the vniversall Church and for the same reason if the errours of the Roman Church be supposed to be not Fundamentall there can be no just cause to depart from Her But here he expressly speakes vpon supposition that the Roman Church wanted nothing necessary to salvation and consequently that she did not erre in Fundamentall Points therfore there could be no cause to forsake Her And that Potter affirmes absolutly in other passages of his Booke that the Roman Church doth not erre in Fundamentall Articles shall be demonstrated herafter and consequently that he contradicts himself in saying the vniversall Church cannot be forsaken and yet that there might be just and necessary cause to forsake the Church of Rome which erres only in Poynts not Fundamentall as he holds the vniversall Church may erre to say nothing for the present That Luther did forsake all Churches which is to forsake the vniversall Church as also that indeed all Ortodox Churches agreed with the Roman and so to forsake her was to forsake all Churches for which there can be no just cause 9. Another evasion Potter Pag 76. bring to avoyd the just imputation of Schisme and it is because they acknowledg the Church of Rome to be a member of the Body of Christ and not cut off from the hope of salvation And this saith he cleares vs from the imputation of Schisme whose property it is to cut of from the Body of Christ and the hope of salvation the Church from which it separates 10. This shift is confuted at large by Charity Maintayned as a strange Doctrine that men should be Schismatiks in for saking a Church which they judge to want somthing that is necessary to salvation and that they should be excused from Schisme who forsake her and yet profess that she hath all things necessary to salvation as if a man should thinke it a sufficient excuse for his rebellion to alledg that he held the Person against whom he rebelled to be his Lawfull Soveraine And Dr. Potter thinkes himselfe free from Schisme because he forsooke the Church of Rome but yet so as that still he held her to be a true Church and to haue all necessary meanes to salvation But I will no further vrge this most solemne foppery and do much more willingly put all Catholikes in mynd what an vnspeakeable comfort it is that our Adversaryes are forced to confesse that they cannot cleare themselves from Schisme otherwise thaÌ„ by acknowledging that they do not nor caÌ„not cutt off froÌ„ the hope of salvation our Church Which is as much as if they should in plaine termes say They must be damned vnless we may be saved Moreover this evasion doth indeed condemne your Zealous Brethren of Heresy for denying the Churches perpetuity but doth not cleere yourself from Schisme which consists in being divided from that true Church with which a man agreeth in all Points of Faith as you must profess yourself to agree with the Church of Rome in all Fundamentall Articles For otherwise you should cut her off from the hope of salvation and so condemne yourselfe of Schisme And lastly even according to this your owne definition of Schisme you cannot cleere yourselfe from that crime vnlesse you be content to acknowledg a manifest contradiction in your owne Assertions For if you do not cut vs off from the Body of Christ and the Hope of salvation how come you to say Pag. 20. that you Judg a reconcilation with vs to be damnable And Pag 75. that to depart from the Church of Rome there might be just and necessary cause And Pag 79. That they that haue the vnderstanding and meanes to discover their errour and neglect to vse them we dare not flatter them with so easy a censure of hope of salvation If then it be as you say a property of Schisme to cut off from the Hope of salvation the Church from which it separates how will you cleare yourself from Schisme who dare not flatter vs with so easy a censure And who affirme that a reconciliation with vs is damnable But the truth is there is no constancy in your Assertions by reason of difficultyes which presse you on all sides For you are loath to affirme clearly that we may be saved least such a grant might be occasion as in all reason it ought to be of the conversion of Protestants to the Roman Church And on the other side if you affirme that our Church erred in points Fundamentall or necessary to salvation you know not how nor where nor among what Company of men to find a perpetuall Visible Church of Christ before Luther And therfore your best shift is to say and vnsay as your occasions command I do not examine the Doctours Assertion that it is the property of Schisme to cut of from the Body of Christ the Church from which it separates wherin he is mistaken as appeares by his owne example of the Donatists who were formall and proper Heretiks as he affirmes because they denyed the perpetuity of Gods Church which he saith is in its nature a formall Heresy against the Article of our Creed I belieue the Catholike Church and not Schismatiks as Schisme is a vice distinct from Heresy Besides although the Donatists and Luciferians whom he also alâ—edges had bene meere Schismatiks yet it were against all good Logicke from a particular to inferr a generall Rule to determine what is the property of Schisme Thus farr Charity Maintayned And indeed this might seeme a good Argument The Church of Rome wants something necessary to salvation Therfore it is lawfull and necessary to forsake Her but not this We haue forsaken the Church of Rome but yet so as we belieue she wants nothing necessary to salvation Therfore we are not Schismatiques 11. A third devise Potter hath to cleere Protestants from Schisme saying Pag 75. There is a great difference between a Schisme from them and a Reformation of ourselves But this saith Charity Maintayned N. 29. is a subtility by which all Schisme and sin
yeild sufficient cause to forsake her communion which is directly against all those who teach that the Roman Church doth not erre Fundamentally and yet that they had cause to forsake her communion by reason of her errours We must therfore conclude that seing there can be no just cause to depart from the communion of the Church and yet that there might be just cause to do so if she were subject to corruption or errour we must absolutely belieue her to be infallible and that they who teach the contrary and vpon that pretence forsake her communion are guilty of Schisme and heresy 24. And this is a fit place to put you in mynd of your doctrine that the Apostles after the receaving of the holy Ghost and the whole Church with them erred in a point clearly revealed and commanded by our Saviour Christ about preaching the Gospells to gentils For this false doctrine supposed I aske whether or no it had been necessary or lawfull to leaue the communion of that most primitiue Church If it were not lawfull then errours even in Faith affoard not a just cause to forsake a Church If you say it was lawfull to forsake the Apostles and the whole Church of their tyme you blaspheme And yet if the Apostles and the whole primitiue Church did erre they that is all Christians might and ought to haue been forsaken and therfore if it were but to avoide this gross absurdity we must say that neither the Church of that nor of consequent ages could erre 25. Thus much be sayd in the first way That considering things as they are in themselves the Church might be forsaken if she could erre and therfore because it is most certaine that she can never be forsaken we must firmely belieue that she cannot erre though indeed I must add that if she could erre she might and might not be forsaken it being no strang thing that vpon a false supposition contradictoryes may follow wherof more herafter 25. Now let vs see what may be sayd in the second way or consideration that is in order to Protestants and their grounds or ad hominem though I must confess this to be a nice and difficult vndertaking by reason of their inconstancy saying and vnsaying as they are forced by different or contrary occasions which make them doe as they can not what they should and never hold constantly what they ought 27. First then we suppose that the Church out of which Luther departed was a true Church for substance whether it were the Roman or any other Church Otherwise we must say that Christ had no true Church on earth which you Potter and all chiefest Protestants deny and expressly teach that alwayes there hath been is and ever shal be such a Church as we haue seene aboue In so much as D. Lawd Pag 141. saieth All Divines Ancient and Moderne Romanists and Reformers agree in this That the whole Militant Church of Christ cannot fall away into generall Apostasy And Pag 142. he saieth that otherwise falshood in the very Article of the Creed that the Church is Holy may be the subject of the Catholike Faith which were no lesse then Blasphemy to affirme 28. Secondly Hence it followes that she did not erre in any Fundamentall Point every one wherof vtterly destroyes the Church but that her falsly supposed errours were only in Points not Fundamentall or not absolutely necessary to salvation 29. Thirdly That if such errours in Points not Fundamentall do not exclude salvation men may be saved without profession of the contrary truths it being impossible that one belieue an errour and also the truth contrary to that errour and therfore if the errour be not destructiue of salvation it is impossible that the contrary truth be necessary therto 30. Fourthly If therfore we can shew that according to Protestants errours in Points not Fundamentall destroy not salvation it will follow of it selfe that in their grounds they might and ought to haue remayned in the externall communion of the visible Church notwithstanding such errours since by so doing they had wanted nothing necessary to salvation nor done any thing incompatible therwith For which we take your owne words Pag 272. N. 53. It concernes every man who separates from any Churches communion even as much as his salvation is worth to looke most carefully to it that the cause of his separation be just and necessary For vnless it be necessary it can very hardly be sufficient And say I how can it be necessary if one may be saved without it Let vs now see what Protestants hold in this matter 31. I grant that somtyme in words they will seeme to teach that it is necessary to belieue whatsoever is revealed by God if it be sufficiently proposed But if we respect their deeds and consider other grounds of their Doctrine it will appeare that they must hold the contrary ād that in express words they somtyme actually declare so much Neither ought this to seeme any strang thing since Heretiks must say and vnsay to helpe a bad cause as well as their witts will serue them In which respect I could never much approue the great paines which some Catholike Divines imploy to proue that Heretiks hold this or that because somtyme they deliver expressions contrary to that of which it is disputed whether or no it was their Opinion For all that can be inferred from such their different sayings is not that they held determinately this and not that but only that indeed they contradicted and by Gods just judgment destroyed themselves 32. Well then that it is necessary to beleeue whatsoever is revealed by God and sufficiently propounded Potter Pag 245. affirmes in these words It seemes Fundamentall to the Faith and for the salvation of every member of the Church that he acknowledge and belieue all such Points of Faith as wherof he may be sufficiently convinced that they belong to the Doctrine of Iesus Christ For he that being sufficiently convinced doth oppose is obstinate an Hereticke and finally such a one as excludes himselfe out of Heaven wherinto no willfull sinner can enter And Pag 250. It is Fundamentall to a Christians Faith and necessary for his salvation that he belieue all revealed truths of God wherof he may be convinced that they are from God And herupon Chillingworth Pag 11. speaks to Charity Maintayned in this manner It amazed me to heare you say that he Dr. Potter declines this question and never tells you whether or no there be any other Points of Faith which being sufficiently propounded as divine Revelations may be denyed and disbelieved He tells you plainly there are none such Againe it is almost as strang to mee why you should say this was the only thing in question whether a man may deny or disbelieue any Point of Faith sufficiently presented to his vnderstanding as a truth revealed by God Produce any one Protestant that ever did so and I will giue you leaue to say it
is the only thing in question Thus hee 33. To which I answer That the state of the Question being whether both Catholiks and Protestants be capable of salvation in their severall Faiths and Religions and the same reason is of all who differ in any matters of Faith though of themselves they be not Fundamentall and Protestants judging vs to be very vncharitable in saying they cannot be saved seing they hold the Creed and all Fundamentall Points as they conceaue and therfore if they be in errour it is only in Points not Fundamentall Charity Maintayned said that Potter never answered to this Point clearly directly and constantly as he ought to haue done that is he never declared whether different beliefe in Points not Fundamentall doth so destroy the vnity of Faith in persons so disagreeing as that they cannot be sayd to be of one Faith for the substance or of one Church and Religion in such manner as one might absolutly say Catholiks and Protestants are of one Faith and Church and capable of salvation in their severall beliefs and professions of Faith This Potter never did nor in policy durst doe because saith Charity Maintayned Part 1. Pag 3. He was loath to affirme plainly that generally both Catholiks and Protestants may be saved And yet seeing it to be most evident that Protestants cannot pretend to haue any true Church before Luther except the Roman and such as agreed with her and consequently that they cannot hope for salvation if they deny it to vs he thought best to avoid this difficulty by confusion of Language and to fill vp his Booke with Points which make nothing to the purpose Besides if once he grant that difference of belief though it be only in Points not Fundamentall destroy the true Faith Church and Religion he could not pretend that Protestants disagreeing among themselves could be all of one Church or substance of Faith and Religion and capable of salvation What remedy then but that he must contradict himselfe accordingly as he might be pressed by diversity or contrariety of difficultyes and so by vttering contradictions say Nothing at all to the maine question or els speak equally in favour of both Contradictories For what implyes contradiction implyes only nothing But let vs go forward and add to what we haue already cited out of Chillingworth his other words Pag 21. If any Protestant or Papist be betrayed into or kept in any errour by any sin of his will as it is to be feared many millions are such errour is as the cause of it sinfull and damnable The same doctrine he pretends to deliver through his whole Booke wherby it seemes that both he and Potter hold in words that to belieue any errour against Divine Revelation sufficiently propounded is sinfull and damnable and destroyes the fundation of Faith being as Chilling saith P. 11. no less than to giue God the ly 34. Nevertheless it is evident that in reality and deeds yea and in express profession they and other Protestants do and must maintayne the contrary vnless they haue a mynd to contradict themselves in Points of heigh concernment for their cause This I proue by these considerations 35. First The World knowes that nothing is more frequent in the mouth of Protestants than that they all hold the same substance of Faith and retaine the essence of a true Church because they agree in Fundamentall Points which they are wont to proue because they belieue the Apostles Creed and the foure first Generall Councells and Potter in particular Pag 216. teaches that the Creed of the Apostles as it was further opened and explained in some parts by occasion of emerfent Heresyes in the other Catholike Creeds of Nice Constantinople Ephepsus Chacedon and Aranesius containes all fundamentall truths and from thence inferrs Pag 232. that Protestants agree in fundamentalls and Pag 241. he saith the Creed is the perfect Summary of those fundamentall truths wherin consists the vnity of Faith and of the Catholique Church But these assertions were very false and impertinent if it be damnable and even Fundamentall against Faith to belieue any errour repugnant to Divine Revelation though in a Point not Fundamentall of itself For what imports it to belieue all the Articles of the Creed if in the meane tyme they deny some other truths revealed by God and sufficiently proposed for such for example innumerable Texts of Scripture containing no matters Fundamentall of themselves As certainly some Protestants must doe seing two contradictoryes cannot be true Or why do they deceaue men in telling them that by believing the Creed they cannot erre Fundamentally seing they hold that there are millions of truths which to deny were a damnable and Fundamentall errour If therfore they will keepe this ground that they haue the same substance of Faith and hope of salvation because they agree in Fundamentall Points they must affirme that disagreement or errour in a Point not Fundamentall doth not destroy the substance of Faith or depriue men of hope to be saved nor is a Fundamentall errour as Potter and Chilling somtyme say it is as we haue seene and Chilling saith in particular Pag 131. N. 9. If Protestants differ in Points Fundamentall then they are not members of the same Church one with another no more than with you he meanes vs Catholikes Wherfore vpon the matter if to deny Points of themselves not Fundamentall sufficiently propounded be a Fundamentall errour de facto Protestants are not members of the same Church one with another according to Chillingworths owne words If it be not a Fundamentall errour the contrary Truth is not necessary and so one may be saved though he deny some revealed Truth sufficiently propounded which is the thing I intended to proue 36. Secondly Learned Protestants are very desirous and even ambitious that the world should belieue them to be of the same Church with the Roman and this meerly vpon necessity and for their owne sake least otherwise they should be necessitated to affirme that before Luther there was no true Church vpon earth but that he and his followers created a new Church out of nothing from which Potter vtterly disclaimes Pag 59. saying Protestants never intended to erect a new Church but to purge the old the Reformation did not change the substance of Religion And Pag 63. The most necessary and Fundamentall truths which constitute a Church are on both sides vnquestioned And for that reason learned Protestants yield them the name and substance of a Christian Church though extremely defiled with horrible errorurs and corruptions And adds that The very Anabaptists grant it But how can they be of the same Church for substance with vs who they say are defided with horrible errours and corruptions if every errour in any Point of Faith though not Fundamentall destroyes the substance o Faith and Church and possibility of salvation If then they will speake with consequence to themselves they must affirme that errours in Points not Fundamentall
may differ and yet preserue the one necessary Faith And Pag 299. he saith I do indeed for my part acknowledge a possibility of salvation in the Roman Church but so as that which I grāt to Romanists is not as they are Romanists but as they are Christians that is as they belieue the Creed and hold the foundation Christ himselfe not as they associate themselves wittingly and knowingly to the grosse superstitions of the Roman Church Behold a cleare confession that the pretended errours of the Roman Church do not exclude salvation and yet they are supposed to be against some revealed Truths Therfore errours in Points not Fundamentall are not repugnant to salvation 40. But what conclusion can we deduce from these Premises that errours in Points not necessary or Fundamentall are not damnable but that one may be saved in them Dr. Lawd hath done it for vs Pag 133. in these words The whole Church cannot vniversally erre in absoute Fundamentall Doctrines and therfore there can be no just cause to make a Schisme from the whole Church And Pag 196. he teaches that by the manifest places in Scripture there may be setled Vnity and Certainty of Beliefe in Necessaryes to Salvation and in Non necessarijs in and about things not necessary there ought not to be a Contention to a Separation And Pag 129. That the whole Church cannot vniversally erre in the Doctrine of Faith is most true so you will but vnderstand it s not erring in Absolute Fundamentall Doctrines And therfore t is true also that there can be no just Cause to make a Schisme from the whole Church Certainly Luther did not follow this advise who began and maintayned a Contention to Separation from the whole World from which Dr. Lawd expressly saith there can be no just Cause to make a Schisme But this is not all For Pag 226. he sayth Suppose a Generall Councell actually Erring in some Point of Divine truth I hope it will not follow that this Errour must be so gross as that forthwith it must needs be knowne to private men And doubtless till they know it Obedience must be yielded Nay when they know it if the Errour be not manifestly against Fundamentall Verity in which case a Generall Councell cannot easily erre I would haue all wise men consider whether externall Obedience be not even then to be yeelded For if Controversyes arise in the Church some end they must haue or theyil teare all in sunder And I am sure no wisdom can think that fit Why then say a Generall Councell Erre and a Erring Decree be ipso jure by the very Law itself invalid I would haue it wisely considered againe whether it be not fit to allow a Generall Councell that Honour and Priviledge which all other Great Courts haue Namely that there be a Declaration of the invalidity of its Decrees as well as of the Lawes of other Courts before priuate men take Liberty to refuse Obedience For till such a Declaration if the Councell stand not in force A. C. Sets vp private Spirits to controll Generall Councells which is the thing he so much cryes out against in the Protestants Therfore 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 For as for Morall Certainty that 's not strong enough in Points of Faith How many Points do these words containe in favour of Catholikes against Protestants 41. 1. That knowne Errours in Points not Fundamentall are not only to be tolerated but that Obedience is to be yeelded to the Church or Councell even concerning such Points and Errours How then can Luther be excused from Schisme who was so farr from yielding Obedience to the Church that he opposed himselfe to and made a publike Separation from all Churches And how can Protestants be now excused from Schisme who follow his example defend his doctrine and persist in the Separation and breach which he made 42. Secondly That to profess externally errours in Points not Fundamentall excludes not salvation For to do any thing repugnant to salvation I am sure no wisdom can thinke fit to vse his owne Words And then it cannot be necessary to forsake the Church for avoyding the profession of Errours not Fundamentall and yet this is the reason for which Protestants pretend to be excused from Schisme 43. Thirdly He doth not only affirme but endeavours to proue that externall Obedience must be yielded to the Decrees of Councells because if Controversyes arise in the Church some end they must haue or theyil teare all in sunder Which he sayth no wisdom can thinke fit Which proues very well that some Living Judge of Controversyes is necessary and is directly opposite to Chillingworth who affirmes that there is no necessity of such a Judg because it is not necessary that all Controversyes be ended But then 44. Fourthly It followeth evidently in true Divinity that if such a Judge be necessary He must be infallible in all things belonging to Faith and Religion For seing to dissemble in matters of Faith or profess one thing and belieue the contrary is a grievous sin and a most pernicious ly no man can yield externall Obedience against the judgment and dictamen of his Conscience and yet it being also true that we are obliged to obey the Decrees of Generall Councells we must of necessity affirme that they are infallible and cannot Decree any Errour in Faith Otherwise I must either disobey or speake against my Conscience in matters of Faith which is intrinsecè malum and can never be excused from a damnable sin To these straights Protestants are brought by denying the infallibility of Gods Church May Councells be disobeyed Then there will be no meanes to end Controversyes and theyil teare all in sunder Must they be obeyed Then in case they decree an Errour against Faith as they may doe if they be fallible men must proceed against their Conscience What then remaynes but to belieue that they are infallible and so we securely may and necessarily must obey their Decrees because I am sure that they haue both infallibility not to erre and Authority to command Thus our beliefe and proceeding is cleare smooth and most consequent wheras our Adversaryes denying the said infallibility are forced to great impietyes against God and manifest contradictions with themselves Besides seing he confesses that Morall Certainty is not strong enough in Points of Faith the Judge of Controversyes in such Points must be absolutely infallible otherwise we cannot receiue from him Certaintyes strong enough for Points of Faith And if Controversyes must be ended by Generall Councells as he affirmes their Decrees must be of more than Morall Certainty 45. Fiftly Wheras he sayes that Obedience is not to be yielded if the Errour be manifestly against Fundamentall Verity he ought to consider
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
wherin this separation of one part of the Church from another consists But seing you distinguish Schisme from Heresy and affirme that separation by Heresy consists in Errours against any necessary Article of Faith Schisme must consist in a separation from the externall Communion of that Church with which one agrees in all necessary Articles of the Christian Faith and consequently agreement in Fundamentall Articles is not sufficient to constitute men members of one Church seing it may stand with Schisme taken in the most proper sense which you say separates one part of the Church from another And therfore whosoever divides himselfe from the externall Communion of the Church is divided from the Church it selfe and so your Memorandum that to leaue the Church and to leaue the externall Communion of a Church is not the same thing is a meere vngrounded speculation Here also that which I haue often told you offers it selfe to be insinuated that Errours in Points not Fundamentall sufficiently propounded as testifyed by God become Fundamentall that is damnable and are true Heresyes as Potter grants and as I shewed out of your owne words they who are guilty of such Errours obserue not that Obedience which is required as a Condition for remission of sins and salvation and yet you require Obedience as one of those requisites which constitute a man a member of the Church and therfore a separation by Errours in Points not Fundamentall is not pure Schisme but more it is Heresy and separates a man from the Church though he beleeue all Points which are Fundamentall of themselves so that as I saied agreement in such Points which are Fundamentall of themselves is in no wise sufficient to make one a member of the Church yea and beside agreement in beliefe both of Fundamentall and not Fundamentall Points it is essentially required that he be not divided from her externall Communion and yourselfe say Pag 264. N. 30. A causlesse separation from the externall Communion of any Church is the sin of Schisme which were not true if the same beliefe of all Fundamentalls yea and vnfundamentalls also were of it selfe sufficient to denominate and conserue one a member of the Church For then he should remaine such a member by that beliefe alone though he did causelesly divide himselfe from the externall Communion of the Church And therefore we must conclude out of your owne grounds against your last Memorandum that to leaue the Church and to leaue the externall Communion of a Church is the same thing And thus having confuted your Remembrances wherby you pretended to excuse yourselfe from Schisme let vs now see what you can object against vs. 76. Object 1. You say Pag 132. N. 11. If you would at this tyme propose a forme of Liturgy which both side shold lawfull and then they would not joyne with you in this liturgy you might haue some colour then to say they renounce your Communion absolutely 77. Answer What a Chimera do you fancy to yourselfe and propose to vs First you must suppose that the Roman Church holds all essentiall and Fundamentall Points of Faith otherwise she should cease to be a Church and so you could not communicate with Her as with a Church neither could there be any Liturgy common to her and Protestants and then why do you so often blame Charity Maintayned for affirming that Potter acknowledged vs to hold all substantiall and Fundamentall Points of Faith which now yourself must suppose and also Pag 269. N. 45. you say That men of different opinion may be menbers of the same Church Provided that what they forsake be not one of those things wherin the essence of the Church consists And therfore no forme of Liturgy can be sufficient to warrant your joyning with vs if we erre in Points Fundamentall of themselves 78. Secondly Seing no Forme of Liturgy could be lawfull in case it did containe any Fuudamentall Errour and that you confesse it impossible to know what Points in particular be Fundamentall it followes that you cannot know what forme of Liturgy is lawfull and so in practise you cannot communicate with one another nor with vs nor with any Church at all as not knowing whether in their Liturgy there be not contained some Fundamentall Errours yea no man can frame any set Forme to himselfe but may feare least it containe some such Errour Neither can you avoide this difficulty by saying as you are wont to doe that whosoever believes all that is evident in Scripture is sure to belieue all Fundamentall Points For we speake not now in generall of what every one believes for himselfe but in practise of a particular Forme of Liturgy wherin he communicates with others which cannot be lawfull if it containe any Fundamentall Errour as well it may for ought you can know who profess not to know what errours be Fundamentall vnless for a short Forme of Liturgy you will propose the whole Bible which in your grounds is the only way to know all Fundamentall Points 79. Thirdly Some Points may be necessary for the constitution of a Church which are not necessary for every private person as for example to know who are lawfull Governous of and Ministers in the Church and consequently by whom the publike Liturgy is to be lawfully read to the people For seing we belieue your pretended Bishops in England to be no more then meere Lay men as those Protestants who stand for Episcopacy must hold the same of Ministers not ordayned by Bishops what Liturgy can be found common to Catholiks and Protestants or to Protestants among themselves seing there can be no agreement who be Lawfull Ministers for celebrating the Liturgy officiating reading publike Service and preaching to the people 80. Fourthly I must put you in mynd that you and Potter affirme and the thing in it selfe is very certaine and cleare that it is Fundamentall to a Christians Faith not to deny any Truth sufficiently propounded as revealed by God though in it selfe not Fundamentall and therfore there can be no Communion with any Church which denyes any such Point because she ceases to be a Church Seing then you say we erre in such Points and diverse learned Protestants hold with vs against their pretended Brethren and Protestants say that different Sects among themselves disagree in such Points all these must hold that all the rest disagreeing from them are no Church and consequently not capable of their Communion How then shall all such no churches agree in one Forme of Liturgy common to all Churches Since they differ in the very essence and being of a Church which is prerequired to all Communion of Churches in any lawfull Forme of Liturgy They may be a company of men but not one community Communion or Church of faithfull Believers 11. Fifthly You teach that minimum vt sic is to belieue That God is and is a rewardeâ— Would you haue a Liturgy so short as to containe only this point for feare of Errour
Fundamentalls I cannot in wisdome forsake her in any Point or parte from her Communion If you thinke it impossible not to sorsake her Communion in case she fall into Errours not fundamentall and yet belieue that you must not forsake her which is a plain Contradiction there remaines only this true and solid remedy against such an inextricable perplexity that you belieue her to be infallible in all Points be they Fundamentall or not FundameÌ„tall which is a certaine Truth and followes from the very Principles of Protestants that the Church cannot erre in Fundamentalls if they vnderstand themselves though you be loath to grant this so necessary a Truth Yea my inference that you must belieue the Church to be infallible in all Points even not Fundamentall if you belieue her to be infallible in Fundamentalls is your owne Assertion P. 148. N. 36. Where you expressly grant that vnless the Church were infallible in all things we could not rationally belieue her for her owne sake and vpon her owne word and Authority in any thing For an Authority subject to errour can be no firme or stable foundation of my beliefe in any thing And if it were in any thing then this Authority being one and the same in all proposalls I should haue the same reason to belieue all that I haue to belieue one and therfore must either do vnreasonably in believing any one thing vpon the sole warrant of this Authority or vnreasonably in not believing all things equally warranted 127. You say the Church of Rome was only a Part of the Church vnerring in Fundamentalls before Luther arose But I would know what other Church could be such an vnerring Church except the Roman and such as agreed with her against the Noveltyes which Luther began to preach Certainly there was none such and therfore since Protestants profess that the vniversall Church is infallible we must say it was the Roman togeather with such as were vnited in her Communion This Ground being layd and your maine Objection being retorted against your selfe let vs now examine in particular your other Objections 128. You aske Pag 164. N. 56. Had it not been a damnable sin to â—rofess errours though the errours in themselves were not dâ—mnable Then N. 57. You goe about to proue that it is impossible to adhere to the Roman Church in all things haâ—â—ng no other ground for it but because she is infallible in some things that is in Fundamentalls because in reason no Conclusion can be larger than the Principles on which it is be founded And therfore if I consider what I do and be perswaded that your infallibility is but limited and particular and partiall my adherence vpon this ground cannot possibly be Absolute and vniversall and totall This you confirme with a Dialogue which adds nothing to the reason which now I haue cited in your owne words saue only that it proves at large that which we chiefly desired to be granted That if the Church be believed to be infallible in Fundamentall Articles as Protestants say she is we must belieue her to be infallible in all Points In the end of this Dialogue you say It may be very great imprudence to erre with the Church if the Question be whether we should erre with the present Church or hold true with God Almighty 128. In the N. 60. You say Particular Councells haue bene liberall of their Anathemas which yet were never conceaved infallible And N. 61. For the visible Churches holding it a Point necessary to salvation that we belieue she cannot erre you know no such tenet And N. 62. God in Scripture can better informe vs what are the Limits of the Churches Power then the Church herselfe And N. 63. That some forsaking the Church of Rome haue forsake Fundamentall Truths was not because they forsooke the Church of Rome for els all that haue forsaken that Church should haue done so which we Protestants say they haue not but because they went too far from her It is true say you in the name of Protestants if we sayd there were no danger in being of the Roman Church and there were danger in leaving it it were madness to leaue it But we protest and proclaime the contrary And N. 64. You say It was no errour in the Donatists that they held it possible that the Church from a larger extent might be contracted to a lesser nor that they held it possible to be reduced to Africa But their errour was that they held de factâ— this was done when they had no just ground or reason to do so and so vpon a vaine pretence separated themselves from the Communion of all other parts of the Church And that they required it as a necessary condition to make a man a member of the Church that he should be of their Communion and divide himselfe from all other Communions from which they were divided Which was a condition both vnnecessary and vnlawfull to be required and directly opposite to the Churcheâ— Catholicisme You add morover that Charity Maintayned neither had named those Protestants who held the Church to haue perished for many Ages neither hath proved but only affirmed it to be a Fundamentall errour to hold that the Church militant may possibly be driven out of the world and abolished for a tyme from the face of the earth And N. 65. You say To accuse the Church of some errour in Faith is not to say she lost all Faith but he which is an Heretike in one Article may haue true Faith of other Articles These be your objections which being diverse and of different natures the Reader may not wonder if I be somwhat long in answering them Therefore I 129. Answer In this Question whether it be not wisdome and necessary not to forsake the Church in any one Point if she be supposed infallible in Fundamentall Points we may either speake First of things as they are in themselves or secondly according to the grounds of Protestants or ad hominem or thirdly what we may or ought to inferr vpon some false and impossible supposition as this is that the Church may erre in Points not fundamentall differently from an inference proceeding from a suppofition of a truth or fourthly what may or ought to be chosen at least as minus malum when there intervenes a joynt and inevitable pressure of two or more evills This Advertisment premised 130. I answer to your demand whether it had not been a damnable sin to profess errours though in themselves not damnable that a parte rei and per se loquendo it is damnable to profess any least knowne errour against Faith and for that very cause it is impossible the Church should fall into any errour at all But that I haue proved already that according to the Groundes and words of Protestants it is not damnable to do so if the errour be nor opposite to some Fundamentall Truth and consequently that they ought in all Reason to adhere to the
Church is not only secure but certaine and easy and therfore necessary Thus your mayne Objection is turned against your selfe And then it is further inferred that if it either be no sin or at least a less offense to profess errours than to forsake the Church she may justly exact and injoyne vnder Censures that to which every one is obliged by the Law of God notwithstanding any pretence or supposition of errours For when the Holy Fathers vnanimously agree that it is not possible there can be any just cause to forsake the Church they must suppose that either she cannot fall into any errour which is most true and indeed they suppose it otherwise there could be no difference betweene the vniversall and a particular Church which may fall into errour and so be forsaken or els you must grant that they did not conceiue any eriours could excuse the leaving her Communion And this vnaninâ—ous consent alone were sufficient for Christians to belieue that the profession of errours cannot be so great an evill as separation from the Church is Nevertheless reason it selfe grounded in principles of Faith convinceth the same For in true Divinity it is Fundamentall to the Faith of a Christian not to disbelieue any one point sufficiently proposed as revealed by God as Potter expressly grants and you say further that it is to giue God the ly and therfore to profess as a point of Faith any thing contrary to the beliefe of the Church is to say she erred fundamentally and fell into infidelity as Potter saith every one doth who denyes a Divine Truth sufficiently proposed and consequently to profess that the Church erred is to say that she perished which Potter saith is in the matter and nature of it properly hereticall and so Whosoever saith the Church erred he himselfe by that very saying professes indeed a damnable heresy which is worse than to profess an errour contrary only to a Truth supposed to be not Fundamentall nor necessary and so by your owne confessions though I grant your confessions contradict yourself we proue our intent 123. Besides it is no less evident that it is essentially and Fundamentally evill to disbelieue a truth knowne to be witnessed by God than to profess externally some point which one believes not to be true yea that first must be the ground for which you say it is damnable to profess against ones conscience an errour repugnant to Divine Revelation For if it be not damnable to deny interiourly such a truth much lesse can it be damnable to profess exteriourly only a deniall of that which one believes to be revealed by God For it is to be considered that we speake not of any internall errour but only of the externall profession of an errour not Fundamentall which alone is not so great a sinne as internall Heresy nor so vast a Mischiefe as the inconvenience of Schisme is which is destructiue of the whole Church essentially including communion in profession of one Faith Liturgy c. and necessarily brings with it a deluge of scandall irreligiosity contempt disobedience and in one word vniversitatem malorum and therfore S. Thomas teaches 2.2 Quest 29. Art 2. ad 3. that amongst sins against our neighbour Schisme is the most grievous because it is against the spirituall good of the multitude or community and as Cha Ma saith Part 1. Pag 156. N. 6. As there is as great difference betweene the crime of rebellion or sedition and debates among private men as there is inequality betwixt one man and a whole kingdome or Common wealth so in the Church Schisme is as much more grievous than sedition in a Kingdome or Common wealth as the spirituall good of soules surpasses the Civill and politicall weale See here the sayings of the Holy Fathers in Charity Maintayned Part 1. Pag 157. N. 70. of the grievousness of Schisme All which is confirmed by what we sayd even now that the profession of an errour in our case cannot so much as hurt a private person who constituted in an invincible perplexity doth not sin by embracing the less evill in the opinion of great Divines with whose Doctrine whosoever conformes his Conscience is certaine not to sin whatsoever the thing be in it selfe 134. Morover it is evident both in reason and by experience that Schisme always brings with it that very thing which you pretend to be so very inconvenient and damnable that is a profession of errours at least not Fundamentall by multiplying diversity of Sects and opinions as we see it happens among Protestants some of whoâ— must be in an errour And S. Hierome saith truly vpon those words of the Apostle which some casting of haue suffered ship wrack in their Faith though Schisme in the beginning may in some sort be vnderstood different from heresy yet there is no Schisme which doth not faine some Heresy to it selfe that so it may seeme to haue departed from the Church vpon good reason And is it not worse both to belieue and profess culpable errours than to belieue aright and faile only in the outward profession of that beliefe The former makes one a formall compleat Heretike both in conscience and judgment of the Church the latter is indeed no Heretike but only appeares so to be neither is he subject to the punishment of Heretiks The former offends in two respects in the beliefe of an errour and profession of it The latter only in profession which alone as I saied cannot be so sinfull as the errour of Heresy it selfe both because the profession is sinfull only by reason of the errour professed as also because by heresy one doubts or denyes some truth revealed by God which is immediatly against Gods supreme Uerity and veracity and so is against an Object of a Theologicall Uertue as S. Thomas saith 2.2 Quest 39. A â— c. Infidelitas est peccatum contra ipsum Deum secundum quod in se est veritas prima cui fides innititur But to profess a knowne errour is only against the precept of professing ones Faith which are distinct thinges and therfore as I sayd a culpable errour is worse than the only profession of an errour If you thinke that such an externall profession is worse than an internall errour because that is against ones conscience you are much mistaken it being certaine that not every sin of dissimulation against ones conscience is greater than any other sin as is cleare of it selfe to every Divine or Philosopher yea the externall sinfull profession of an errour flowes from the Heresy itself which ordinarily is a worse roote than humane feare hope or the like from which an externall false profession or dissimulation is wont to procede and therfore this is less damnable than that even though it were a finne and were not excused by the supposed invincible perplexity as we have Shewed it may be S. Thomas 2.2 Quest 39. Art 2. in corpore teaches that Infidelity ex suo genere is a greater
this Objection which he makes to himselfe were clearly impertinent and foolish if he could haue dispatched all by saying we erre in essentiall points which had been an evident and more than a just cause to justify their separation which yet appeares further by his Answer to the sayd Objection That to depart from a particular Church and namely from the Church of Rome in some Doctrines and practises there might be just and necessary cause though the Church of Rome wanted nothing neâ—essary to salvation And afterward in the next P. 76. speaking of the Church of Rome he saith expressly Her Communion we forsake not no more than the Body of Christ wherof we acknowledg the Church of Rome to be a member though corrupted And this cleares vs from the imputation of Schisme whose property it is to cut of from the Body of Christ and the hope of salvation the Church from which it separates But if she did erre in any one Fundamentall point by that very errour she would cease to be a member of the Body of Christ and should be cut of from the hope of salvation therfore she doth not erre in any Fundamentall Point P. 83. we were never disioyned from her the Church of Rome in those maine essentiall truths which giue her the name and essence of a Church You must then say that she erres not in any Fundamentall Point For the essence of a Church cannot consist with any such errour And that it may appeare how desirous he is that it should be believed Catholiks and Protestants not to differ in the essence of Religion he adds these words immediatly after those which we haue last cited wherof if the Mistaker doubt he may be better informed by some late Roman Catholique Writers One of France who hath purposely in a large Treatise proved as be believes the Hugonots and Catholikes of that Kingdome to be all of the same Church and Religion because of the truths agreed vpon by both And another of our Country as it is sayd who hath lately published a large Catalogue of learned Authors both Papists and Protestants who are all of the same mynd Thus you see he ransacks all kind of proofes to shew that Catholikes and Protestants differ not in the substance and essence of Faith and to that end cites for Catholike Writers those two who can be no Catholiks as Charity Maintayned Part 1. Chap 3. Pag 104. shewes the former in particular to be a plaine Heretike or rather Atheist Lucian-like jeasting at all Religion Pag 78. he saith we hope and thinke very well of all those Holy and devout soules which in former Ages lived and dyed in the Church of Rome Nay our Charity reaches further to all those at this day who in simplicity of heart belieue the Roman Religion and professe it To these words of the Doctour if we subsume But it were impossble that any can be saved even by Ignorance or any simplicity of heart if he erre in a Fundamentall point because as by every such errour a Church ceases to be a Church so every particular person ceases to be a member of the true Churchs the Conclusion will be that we do not erre in any Fundamentall point Nay Pag 79. he saith further we belieue it the Roman Religion safe that is by Gods great Mercy not damnable to some such as belieue what they professe But we belieue it not safe but very dangerous if not certainly damnable to such as profess it when they belieue or if their hearts were vpright and not perversely obstinate might belieue the contrary Behold we are not only in a possibility to be saved we are even safe vpon condition we belieue that Faith to be true which we professe and for which we haue suffered so long so great and so many losses in all kinds which if we did vndergoe for extetnall profession of that Faith which we do not inwardly belieue to betrue we should deserue rather to be begged for fooles than persecuted for our Religion In the meane tyme every Catholike hath this comfort that he is safe even by the confession of an Adversary if he be not a foolish dissembler which would be cause of damnation in a Protestant or any other Even the profession of a truth believed to be false is a sin But I returne to say it were impossible for any Roman Catholike to be safe vpon what condition soever if we erre in any one Fundamentall Article of Faith Here I must briefly note that wheras Dr. Potter in the words now alledged saith It is not damnable to some and then to declare who those some are adds such as belieue what they profess Chillingworth Pag 404. N. 29. leaves out the distinction or comma placed betweene some and such and puts it after damnable Thus Not damnable to some such as beleue what they professe which words may signify that it is not safe to all such as belieue what they professe which may much alter the sense of Potters words as the Reader will perceiue by comparing them 149. Now Sir who will not wonder at your so often declaiming against Charity Maintayned for saying Dr Potter taught that the Roman Church doth not erre in Fundamentall Points But what if your selfe say the same It is cleare you do so For wheras Charity Maintayned Part 1. Pag 15. N. 13. saith Since Dr. Potter will be forced to grant that there can be assigned no visible true Church of Christ distinct from the Church of Rome and such Churches as greed with her when Luther first appeared I desire him to declare whether it do not follow that she hath not erred Fundamentally because every such errour destroyes the nature and being of a Church and so our Saviour Christ should haue had no visible Church on Earth To these words which you thought fit to set downe very imperfectly you answer Pag 16 N. 20. In this manner I say in our sense of the word Fundamentall it does follow For if it be true that there was then no Church distinct from the Roman then it must be either because there was no Church at all which we deny or because the Roman Church was the whole Church which we also deny Or because she was a part of the whole which we grant And if she were a true Part of the Church then she retained those truths which were simply necessary to salvation and held no errours which were inevitably and vnpardonably destructiue of it For this is precisely necessary to constitute any man or any Church a member of the Church Catholique In our sense therfore of the word Fuudamentall I hope she erred not Fundamentally But in your sense of the word I feare she did That is she held some thing to be Divine Revelation which was not some thing not to be which was You haue spoken so clearly and fully in favour of the Roman Church and not only affirmed but proved that she did not erre in any Fundamentall
Point that I need not say one word to ponder your words or declare the force of them Pag 7. N. 3. You expressly approue the saying of Dr. Potter That both sides by the confession of both sides agree in more Points then are simply and indispensably necessary to salvation and differ only in such as are not precisely necessary Therfore do we inferr Catholikes belieue all that is necessary to salvation and more But we can never yield so much to you Pag. 85. N. 89. You confesse the Roman Church to be a Part of the Catholique Church And we haue heard you say Pag 16. N. 20. If she were a true Part of the Church then she retained those truths which were simply necessary to salvation and beld no errours which were inevitably and vnpardonably destructiue of it For this is precisely necessary to constitute any man or any Church a member of the Church Catholique This you say and make good the like inference which I made by occasion of Dr. Potters words that the Roman Church is a member of the Catholique and other like Assertions of his Pag 163. N. 56. You say From Scripture we collect our hope that the Truths she the Roman Church retaines and the practise of them may proue an Antiaote to her against the errours which she maintaines in such persons as in simplicity of hart follow this Absalon These Points of Christianity which haue in them the nature of Antidots against the poyson of all sins and errors the Church of Rome though otherwise much corrupted still retaines therfore we hope she erreh not Fundamentally but still remaines a Part of the Church But this can be no warrant to vs to thinke with her in all things Seeing the very same Scripture which puts vs in hope she errs not Fundamentally marke how you professe to learne even out of Scripture that we erre not Fundamentally assures vs that in many things and those of great moment she errs very grievously And these errors though to them that belieue them we hope they will not be pernicious yet the professing of them against conscience could not but bring to vs certaine damnation Therefore the Points in which we differ from Protestants being acknowledged not to be Fundamentall and in other Points professing nothing against our conscience we are safe by your owne Confession If we did not belieue as we profess we were no Roman Catholikes In the same place you say expressly De facto we hope the Roman Church does not erre in Fundamentalls yea you say Lin 33. Perhaps she does not erre damnably the contrary wherof you affirme so often You example of Absalon was very ill applyed to the Roman Church which did not rebell from you but you against the whole Church the Mother of all Christians more sacrilegiously than Absalon behaved himselfe wickedly to wards his father Pag 404. N. 29. you approue Dr. Potters saying Pag 79. which I cited aboue that the Roman Religion is safe that is not damnable to some such as beleeue what they professe And in the same place you say we may hope that she retaines those Truths which are simply absolutely and indispensably necessary to salvatioâ— Pag 401. N. 27 We approue those Fundamentall and simply necessary Truths which you retaine by which some good soules among you may be saved but abhorre your many superstitions and heresyes The Truths you retaine are good and as we hope sufficient to bring good ignorant soules among you to salvation yet are not to be sought for in the conventi le of Papists If any soule may be saved in our Religion it is cleare that we hold not any Fundamentall errour with which no soule can be saved Pag 277. N. 61. you say The simple defect of some Truths prositable only and not simply necessary may consist with salvation Seing therfore you haue so often confessed that we erre not in Fundamentall Points our errours in some Truths profitable only and not fundamentall may consist with salvation How then do you say to Catholiks Pag 401. N. 27. As for our freeing you from damnable Herely and yielding you salvation neither He Dr. Potter nor any other Protestant is guilty of it Pag 219. N. 50. speaking of Protestants you say They doe not disser at all â—n Matters of Faith if you take the word in the highest sense and mâ—ane by Matters of Faith such Doctrines as are adsolutely necessary to salvation to be believed or not to be dâ—â—believed Now you know well that in Points of greatest moment which Catholiks belieue against some Protestants other Protestants stand for vs against their pretended Brethren and therfore you must either say that we belieue all such Doctrines as are absolutely necessary to salvation or that many learned Protestants do not belieue all such Doctrines and consequently are not capable of Salvation Pag Pag 269. N. 45. A man may possibly leaue some opinion or practise of a Church formerly common to himselfe and others and continue still a member of that Church Provided that what he forsakes be not one af those things wherin the essence of the Church consists For this cause you say that although Protestants left the externall Communion of the Church yet they left not the Church because they left her not in any thing essentiall to a Church as Fundamentall Points are Therfore you suppose the Church before Luther did not erre in any Fundamentall Article Otherwise you had left her that is you had disagreed from her in a Fundamentall Point Pag 272. N. 52. and Pag 283. N. 73. You deny that Protestants divided themselves from the Church absolutely and simply in all things that is ceased to be a member of it which still supposes that the Church before Luther believed all essentiall and Fundamentall Points which Protestants also pretend to hold and for that cause say they left not the Church Pag 272. N. 52. You say In the reason of our separation from the externall Communion of your Church you are mistaken For it was not so much because she your Church as because your Churches externall Communion was corrupted and needed Reformation But if we erred in Fundamentall Points Protestants must haue forsaken vs chiefly for that reason that our Church was corrupted with Fundamentall errours of Faith Therfore you grant that we erred not in any such necessary Points Pag 401. N. 26. You confess that Dr Potter saith indeed that our not cutting of your Church from the Body of Christ and hope of salvation frees vs from the imputation of Schisme Pag 133. N. 12. You say expressly By Confession of both sides we agree in much more than is simply and indispensably necessary to salvation It is well you make so open a Confession that we belieue much more than is simply necessary to salvation But as I sayd aboue we will not because we cannot yield so much to you And here I must aske againe How you could say Pag 401. N. 27. As for
that is that it is impossible that they can agree in all points Calvin Instit Lib 4. Cap 1. N. 12. speakes plainly Quoniam nemo est qui non c. Because none is free from some cloua of ignorance we must either leaue no Church at all or we must Pardon errours in those things of which men may be ignorant without breach both of the summe or substance of Religion and loss of salvation Marke how this Patriark of Protestants acknowledges that noe Church can be free from errours not Fundamentall Dr. Lawed Sect 38. Pag 360. In things not necessary though they be Divine truths also I confess it were hartily to be wished that men might be all of one minde and one judgment But this can not be hoped for till the Church be Triumphant over all humane frailtyes which here hang thinke and closes about her Whitaker Cont 2. Q. 5. C. 8. It is not needefull that all should thinke the same if such vanity be required there would be noe Church at all Potter Pag 39. It is a great vnity to hope or expect that all learned men in this life should absolutely consent in all the preces and particles of Divine Truth And Pag 69. He expressly confesses that all the weeds are not perfectly taken away in the reformed Church Chilling P. 279. N. 64. the visible Church is free indeed from all errours absolutely destructiue and vnpardonable but not from all errour which in it selfe is damnable Morton Appologie Lib 1.58 only Papists challenge priviledg of not erring And blessed be God who hath placed vs in a Church which vpon evident and necessary Reason challenges that priviledg without which there can be not infallibility in Christian Faith noe vnitie in the Church of which therfore we haue just cause to say with S. Austine Ep 48. wherewith Charity Maintayned ends the second part of his booke Others of the Donatists say we did indeed belieue that it imported nothing in what company we did hold the Faith of Christ But thanks be to our Lord who hath gathered vs from division and hath shewed to vs that it agreeth to one God that he be worshiped in vnity For what a Church is that which is divided even in points of Divine Faith If such errours be sufficient to divide from a Church as Protestants pretend to have parted from vs vpon that ground and without which they must confess themselves to be Schismatikes and that noe Church is free from such errours what followes but that all Churches and all men must be divided from one another and noe one Church be left in the whole world And how can they be excused from Schisme in leaving all Churches for errours which no Church can avoide And who would be a Protestant seing themselves confess that they neither are nor can be free from damnable errours that is errours against Divine Revelation which wil actually bring damnation vpon them that keep themselves in them by their owne voluntary and avoidable fault as you say Pag 279. 64. So as for the Generall effect of damnation they differ not from fundamentall errours which also are pardonable by repentance Beside Pag 220. N. 52. you say by fundamentall we meane all and only that which is necessary and then I hope you will grant that we may safely expect salvation in a Church which hath all things Fundamentall to salvation By which words you must vnderstand all truths necessary because they are revealed by God and commanded and not only things indispensably necessary of themselves because you say one may safely expect salvation if he belieue all things Fundamentall which safety he cannot expect who erres in points revealed though not Fundamentall of themselves seing you teach that all such errours are damnable and in plain termes Pag 133. N. 12. you say their state is dangerous which can not stand with safety therfore by Fundamentall points with the belief of which one may safely expect salvation you must vnderstand all points not only Fundamentall of themselves but such also as are necessary only because revealed And Pag 290. N. 88. you expresly giue those errours of which we speake the name of fundamentall even as one membrum dividens of Fundamentall as the Divisum in these wordes Fundamentall errours may signify either such as are repugnant to Gods command and so in their owne nature damnable though to those which out of invincible ignorance practise them not vnpardonable Or such as are not only meritoriously but remedilessely pernicious and desiructiue of salvation Well now these errours which you acknowledge in the Protestant Church being against Gods Revelation and command must be in their owne nature damnable as you doe not denie but they are so and therfore we say that Luther and his fellows could no more forsake the Roman Church for such errours than they must forsake one an other till they leaue no Church at all and all come to be Independents both in respect of others and even of a mansselfe who must still be forsaking his owne errours against Faith as being damnable in themselves I neede not here repeat what I haue of necessitie often mentioned That scarcely we hold any Article against some Protestants in which we haue not other learned Protestants on our side against their fellows and I hope you will not say that the selfe same errours are even in their owne nature damnable in vs and not in Protestants which were a pretty non-sense and an vnjust partiality therfore I conclude that this Objection is no less against Protestants then vs yea it is vnansweareable by Protestants who confes that really their Church is subject to and actually is stained with such errours which we absolutely denie in respect of the Roman Church and such as agree with her 155. And here you must ponder your wordes Pag 280. N. 95. For Charity Maintayned Part 1. Pag 184. haveing alledged Potters wordes Pag 69. that the weedes are not perfectly taken away among Protestants saith What man of judgement will be a Protestant since that Church is confessedly a corrupted one To this you reply And yet you yourselfe make large discourses in this very Chapter to perswade Protestants to continue in the Church of Rome though supposed to haue some corruptions And why I pray may not a man of judgement continue in the Communion of a Church confessedly corrupted as well as in a Church supposed to be corrupted 156. To this your reply I may answer out of what I sayd aboue How I pray is it all one to make a Supposition acknowledged by him who makes it to be a thing both vntrue and impossible and to speake of a thing so certainly and immoveably true that the contrary is impossible The former case treates of a voluntary supposition which the supposer knowes he may recall or reverse at his pleasure and bring things to the true state in which they really exist and so as I may say all will be mended
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
but not Fundamentall is but a contradiction to your owne doctrine Seing whatsoever errour is damnable is also Fundamentall and whatsoever is Fundamentall is damnable if we respect the negatiue precept of Faith obliging vniversally all persons in respect of all objects at all tymes semper pro semper as divines speake not to deny any Point sufficiently proposed as revealed by God as Charity Maâ—nâ—ayned declares at large Part 1. Pag 79. And the same is taught by your selfe Pag 194. N. 4. In these words To make any Points necessary to be believeâ— it is requisite that either we actually know them to be Divine Revelations and these though they he not Articles of Faith nor necessary to be belâ—eâ—ed in and for themselves yet indirectly and by accident and by consequence they are so The necessity of believing them being inforce vpon vs by a necessity of believing this essentiall and Fundamentall â—â—rtâ—cle of Faith that all Divine Revelations are true which to dâ— belieue or not to belâ—â—ue is for any Christian not only in pious but impossible Or els it is requisite that they be first actually revealed by God secondly â—ommaÌ„ded vnder â—â—ine of â—amnation to be particularly knowne and distinctly to be believed From these words of yours it clearly followes that culpably to deny any point sufficiently proposed as revealed by God implyes a contrariety with this essentiall and Fundamentall Article of Faith that all Divine revelations are true which certainly is a Fundamentall Truth and therfore all errours that are culpable and damnable are in this sense opposite to a Truth which indirectly and by accident and by consequence as you speake becomes Fundamentall The same you deliver Pa 197. N. 14. where you say to Charity Maintayned I deny flatly as aâ—thing destructive of it selfe that any errour can be damnable vnless it be repugnant immediatly or mediatly directly or indirectly of it selfe or by accident to some truth for the matter of it Fundamentall Why then do you distinguish between damnable and Fundamentall errours Morover if every damnable errour as you confess every errour to be which disbelieves any sufficiently proposed Divine Truth be Fundamentall every damnable errour destroyes the Essence of a Church which you confess cannot exist togeather with a Fundamentall errour and consequently the Church cannot erre culpably even in points not fundamentall of themselves and remaine a Church which is the thing we teach and you through your whole Booke deny and are forced to doe so in regard you hold that Christ hath always had a Church on Earth and yet must pretend that she hath erred to saue yourselves from the imputation of Schisme and Heresy The truth is every sinfull errour against Faith in a point of itselfe never so small is damnable and destroyes Faith Church and salvation neither is there any difference for the generall effect of damnation between errours in Points Fundamentall and not Fundamentall and therfore it is impossible the true Church can erre in either kind of such points because it is impossible that she can want any thing necessary to salvation or be obnoxious to any thing destructiue therof and so as I sayd for the Negatiue precept of not disbelieving any thing sufficiently proposed to be revealed by God there is no difference between those two sorts of Articles and the reason is because the Formall object or Motiue of our belief is the same in them both namely the Divine Revelation But for the affirmatiue precept of being obliged to belieue explicitly some prime Materiall Objects of Faith there is difference in regard that as such Truths are Fundamentall and necessary to be actually believed so errours contrary to them are most properly Fundamentall errours or errours directly and immediatly opposite to some Materiall Object of Faith Fundamentall of itselfe which every body sees doth not happen in all errours Otherwise how do you Potter and other Protestants distinguish between errours in Points Fundamentall and not Fundamentall if all errours be Fundamentall or against a Fundamentall truth But you erre by not distinguishing or not rightly applying the distinction between the Affirmatiue and Negatiue Precept of Faith nor between the Formall and Materiall Object therof The Negatiue Precept arises from the Formall Object it being vniversally and intrinsecè vnlawfull to disbelieve any thing invested with the Divine Testimony wheras the affirmatiue Precept is taken from the Materiall Object of Faith in regard that God hath commanded some Truths to be expressly knowne and believed as absolutely necessary to salvation Vpon this erronious mistake youvnadvisedly find fault with Charity Maintayned in your Pag 197. N. 14. for saying Part 1. Chap. 3 N. 2. That errours may be damnable though they be against some Points for their matter and nature in themselves not fundamentall which are the precise words of Ch Ma. Where you see he speakes of the Matter or Materiall Object and not of the Formall of Faith which is Divine Revelation and so this Doctrine of his is evidently true For â—s all Truths of Faith are not of their owne nature fundamentall Truths so neither can all errours be fundamentall Errours But say you the deny all of any revealed Truth for example of that of Pontius Pilates being judge of Christ is destructiue of this Fundamentall Truth that All Divine Revelations are true I answer as aboue that you erre by not distinguishing between the Materiall and Formall Object of Faith and not considering that fundamentall or not fundamentall Truths are not to be distinguished in order to the formall object of Divine Revelation which being the same in all Truths all should be fundamentall or all should not be Fundamentall But as I sayd that distinction is to be taken from the Materiall objects accordingly as some are more important and more necessary to be actually believed than other If any object that this truth All Divine Revelations are to be believed is a thing which we belieue as a Fundamentall Truth and therfore every errour against it must be Fundamentall To this I answer as aboue that those errours are Fundamentall which are directly and immediatly opposed to Fundamentall Truths not those which only mediatly and by consequence are such Now the errour directly opposite to this truth All Divine Revelations are true is this All Divine Revelations are not true which certainly is a Fundamentall errour as contrarily errours opposed immediatly and directly to Points not Fundamentall of themselves are not Fundamentall errours in the common sense of that distinction which were no distinction at all if every errour were equally opposite to a point Fundamentall in itselfe 171. You desire Charity Maintayned to reconcile his doctrine that errours may be damnable though they be repugnant to some point for its matter and nature not Fundamentall with his other saying Part 1. Chap 4. N. 15. Every Fundamentall errour must haue a contrary Fundamentall Truth because of two contradictory propositions in the same degree the one is false the
errour not be damnable yea even though it were damnable and fundamentall which is to be noted because It is nothing but opposing the Doctrine of the Apostles that makes an errour damnable and it is impossible the Apostles should oppose the Apostles The like you may say of Scripture it selfe that it might erre and yet that it could not containe any damnable errour because according to Protestants It is nothing but opposing the Scripture that makes an errour damnable and it is impossible that the Scripture should oppose the Scripture which consequences are absurd and therfore as you would answer by denying the supposition that the Apostles can teach or Scripture can containe any errour so you know we absolutly deny your supposition that the Church can erre in matters of Faith which if we did grant we would not be so foolish as to beliefe that Nothing but opposing the Doctrine of the Church makes an errour damnable but contrarily we would affirme that precisily to oppose the Churches Doctrine that supposition being once made could never be Heresy or a damnable errour And therfore we speake very consequently in First believing that the Church cannot erre and then in avouching that every errour repugnant to the Doctrine of the Church is heresy The Motto in the frontispice of your Booke taken out of Jsaac Casaubon in Epist ad Card Perron Regis Jacobi nomine scriptâ sayth Simpliciter necessaria Rex appellat quae vel expresse Uerbum Dei praecipit credenda faciendaue vel ex Uerbo Dei necessariâ consequentiâ Uetus Ecclesia elicuit Obserue that he speakes of things absolutely necessary to salvation and then I say if the Church be subject to errour how can we be sure that Her Deductions from Scripture are necessary or only probable true or false though to her they may seeme true and necessary You say it is impossible that the present Church should oppose itselfe and do not reflect by this vety saying yourselfe must suppose that the Church can teach nothing but truth For if she may erre in some Points and believe aright in others those errours may be opposite to some truth which she believes though she do not marke that opposition You say Pag 215. N. 46. no mans errours can be confuted who togeather with his errour doth not belieue 〈◊〉 grant some true Principle that contradicts his errour If then the Churches errours may be confuted as you will suppose they may she must belieue some truth that contradicts her errour and therefore if it be impossible that the Church can be opposite to herselfe as you say it is impossible you must grant that she cannot belieue or teach any errour and then indeed it will be impossible for her to oppose herselfe because truth cannot possibly be opposite to truth 10. In the same N. 4. I must touch in a word that you falsify the words of Charity Maintayned Part 1. Pag 19. some may for a tyme haue invincible Ignorance even of some Fundamentall Article of Faith through want of capacity instruction or the like and so not offend either in such Ignorance or errour But you cite them thus Ignorance may excuse errours even in Fundamentall Articles of Faith omitting that necessary limitation for a tyme without which restriction the words sound as if absolvtely a man may liue and dy with invincible ignorance of Fundamentall Articles or of Points absolutely necessary to salvation and so want meanes sufficient to besaved without any fault of his which is not true For if he cooperate with Gods holy Grace they shall be degrees advance to the beliefe of all necessary Points though for a tyme they were ignorant of them And here I reflect that if a Protestant erre in or be invincibly ignorant for a tyme fo some fundamentall Point sufficiently proposed and believed by other Protestants they differ in the beliefe of fundamentall Points and the ignorant party sins not damnably and yet they sin damnably who disbelieue any Point sufficiently knowne to be revealed by God though otherwise it be not fundamentall of it selfe and therfore it is cleare that in matters of Divine Faith consideration is chiefly to be had of the formall and not of the materiall object 11. In your N. 7. you say God hath left meanes sufficient to determine not all Controversyes but all necessary to be determined Which concession is as much as we desire For no man dare say that God hath given any meanes only for superfluous vses or occasions and therfore seing he hath left meanes for deciding all Controversyes necessary to be determined we cannot without injury to his infinite wisdome imagine that there will never be necessity of determining any Since then as I sayd God hath given Authority to his visible Church for determining such Controversyes he will not faile to replenish her with Wisdome to discerne what be the occasions wherin they ought to be determined according to the exigence of particular circumstances Thus the Apostles called a Councell vpon occasion of difference amongst Christians about the Law of Moyses and the first foure Generall Councells which commonly Protestants pretend to receiue were gathered vpon severall occasions of emergent Heresyes The Scripture it selfe was not written all at once but as occasion did require and the same Holy Spirit which assisted Canonicall Writers in writing did appoint to them the tymes and occasions for which their writings would be most seasonable yet after they were once written it was necessary to belieue them as also the Decree of the Apostles in their Councell registred Act 15. and other Generall Councells and commands of the Church If Controversyes rise to such a height that there is periculum in mora danger in delaying to determine them either for avoiding insufferable breach of Charity and Schisme or corruptions in manners or invalidity of Sacraments which cannot be otherwise prevented If silence may be interpreted to imply a consent If errour be like to prevaile vnlesse it be condemned if new Heresyes be in danger to take roote if they be not crushed with speede if these or any other causes require the Decision of Controversyes the Holy Ghost will effectually inspire and direct his Church to apply a convenient remedy according to the Condition of the matter Neither ought it to seeme strang that somthing may grow to be necessary one tyme which was not necessary at another and in the meane tyme men may be saved by an humble preparation of mynd to belieue and obey whatsoever the Church shall in good tyme determine or command And by the way out of this discourse we may inferr that Scripture alone cannot be a Rule to decide all Controversyes in regard that such a Rule or judge must serue for all emergent occasions and Scripture being always the same cannot be applyed sutably to all new different circumstances as I haue often saied 12. You say If some Controversyes may for many Ages be vndetermined and yet in the meane tyme
Living Guide to them who haue and belieue the Scripture Wherby you must signify that to those who either haue not Scripture or haue not sufficient reason to belieue it it is all one as if Scripture had never beene written and consequently that de facto there is an absolute necessity of an infallible Guide Nay men could not haue had sufficient reason to belieue infallibly the Scripture except for the Authority of the Church of God which therfore must be believed to be absolutely infallible before any Scripture be believed which is directly contradictory to your saying that the necessity of an infallible Guide is grounded vpon a false supposition in case we had no Scripture For contrarily if we haue and belieue Scripture we must first belieue an infallible Church independently of that supposition and vpon which that supposition of our believing Scripture must depend 57. But it seemes this Authority of S. Irenaeus doth yet vex you And therfore N. 146. 147. 148. you say That in S. Irenaeus his tyme all the Churches were at an agreement about the Fundamentalls of Faith which vnity was a good assurance that what they so agreed in came from some one common fountaine and they had no other then of Apostolique Preaching 58. This I haue answered hertofore and told you that when the Fathers alledge the Authority of the Church or Tradition they suppose the Church to be absolutly infallible and not only that accidentally she teaches at that tyme the truth which had beene no proofe but a meere petitio principij For if the Church might erre as you say she hath done the Heretikes against whom the Fathers wrote would easily haue answered that all Churches might erre and had erred in such or such particular Points and how could you or any Protestant impugne such an Answer supposing once the Church could erre When Luther appeared he forsooke the Faith and Communion of all Churches vpon pretence that they all agreed in errours against Scripture and how do you now tell vs that the agreement of Churches was a good assurance that what they so agreed in came from some one common fountaine and they had no other but Apostolicall Preaching In this manner hertofore I retorted against you the saying which you alledge out of Tertullian Variasse debuerat c If the Churches had erred they could not but haue varied but that which is one amongst so many cannot be errour but Tradition That seing all Churches agreed in a beliefe contrary to the Faith of Protestants we must affirme that the thing which is one among so many can not by errour but Tradition And your words here add a particular strength to my retortions while you say that the agreement and vnity of Churches about the Fundamentalls of Faith is a good assurance that what they so agree in comes from the common fountaine of Apostolique Preaching For those Heretikes might haue answered that the errours of the Church which they impugned were not Fundamentall as we haue proved that you say the errours of the Roman Church and such as agreed with Her when Luther appeared were not Fundamentall and so the assurance taken from vnity in Fundamentalls could be no Argument against them Besides I pray you reflect on your saying that Protestants departed not from the whole Church because they were a part therof and they departed not from themselves and then you cannot but see that those Heretikes in S. Irenaeus his tyme might haue sayd all Churches are not at an agreement about matters of Faith seing we who are a part of the Church do not agree with the rest and therfore the agreement which you speake of is of no force against vs but you must proue by some other kind of Argument that our doctrines are false just as Protestants answer vs when we object against them the agreement of all Churches against the doctrine of Luther when he first appeared Wherfore I must still inferr that it is not the actuall or accidentall agreement but the constant ground therof that is the infallibility of the Church that must assure vs what is Orthodoxe and what is Hereticall doctrine Moreover whereas you say In S. Irenaeus his tyme all the Churches were at an agreement about the Fundamentalls of Faith I beseech you informe vs how it could be otherwise then how can it be otherwise now how shall it be otherwise for the tyme to come or for any imaginable tyme than that all Churches are at an agreement in Fundamentalls of Faith Seing you professe through your whole Booke that if they faile in Fundamentalls they cease to be Churches and so it is as necessary for all Churches to agree in Fundamentalls as for all men to agree in the essence of man And you might as well haue sayd that at S. Irenaeus his tyme the Definition did agree or was all one with the Definitum as that all Churches agreed in Fundamentalls If therfore it was easy to receiue the truth from Gods Church in S. Irenaeus his tyme as he affirmes and you grant it will be no lesse easy to doe it in these our tymes seing the Church can never faile in Fundamentall Points of Faith and so it was easy for Luther and his companions to haue received the truth or rather to haue retained the truths they found in the Church seing she was a true Church and consequently did not erre in Fundamentall Points From whence it followes that when S. Irenaeus saith the Apostles haue most fully deposited in the Church as in a rich store-house all things belonging to truth it must be vnderstood that she cannot but keepe that depositum sincere for Fundamentall Points even according to Protestants and you say here N. 164. The visible Church shall always without faile propose so much of Gods Revelation as is sufficient to bring men to Heaven for otherwise it will not be the visible Church in which sense that depositum is not committed to private persons though otherwise never so qualifyed and therfore all that you haue N. 148. is of no force even in the Principles of Protestants And then further seing indeed any errour against divine Revelation is damnable and without Repentance destroyes salvation as you grant it is impossible that the Church which must needs enjoy all things necessary to salvation as we haue heard you even now saying the visible Church shall always without faile propose so much of Gods Revelation as is sufficient to bring men to Heaven It is I say impossiblle that the Church can fall into any damnable Errour but must be vniversally infallible Which is vnanswerably confirmed by your doctrine that it is impossible to know what Points in particular be Fundamentall and so we cannot know that she failes not to propose so much of Gods Revelation as is sufficient to bring men to Heaven vnless we belieue Her to be infallible in all Points of Faith as well not Fundamentall as Fundamentall And here againe how could you
we can be certaine of the fallhood of no Propositions but these only which are damnable Errours For you know that we spoke not of whatsoever truth or falshood but of a Proposition the truth or falshood wherof cannot be knowne by sense or naturall Reason but only by Revelation in which if the vniversall Church may erre for Points not Fundamentall we cannot possibly haue certainty of the truth of them as I haue proved and it is intolerable in you to make this Argument we may be certaine that snow is not blacke nor fire cold therfore we may be certaine of truths which can be knowne only by Revelation for Points in which you say the whole Church of Christ and much more private men may erre 76. To your N. 162. I need only say that a publike and vniversall Authority to decide Controversyes of Faith and interpret Scriptures must be infallible otherwise it might either be disobeyed or els men would be forced to obey exteriourly that which they judge in Conscience to be a damnable Errour as hertofore I haue declared and shewed a large difference betweene a Judge in Civill causes and Controversyes in matters of Faith alledging to that purpose your owne words Pag 59. N. 17. That in Matters of Religion such a Iudge is required whom we should be obliged to belieue to haue judged right So that in Civill Controversyes every honest vnderstanding man is fitt to be a Iudge but in Religion none but he that is infallible And yet so farre you forget yourself as to object to vs in this N. 162. I hope you will not deny but that the Iudges haue Authority to determine criminall and Civill Controversyes and yet I hope you will not say that they are absolutely infallible in their determinations Infallble while they proceed according to Law How then can you distinguish betwene a Judge in Civill and a Judge in Controversyes of Religion vnless you grant not only a conditionall but an absolute infallibility to this latter whereby he is sure never to erre whereas a Judg in Civill matters may erre by not proceeding according to Law If therfore the Propositions which were publikly defended in Oxford that the Church hath Authority to determine Controversyes in Faith and to interpret Scripture be patient of your Explication I can only say that they either say nothing or teach men to dissemble in matters of Faith by obeying the Commandements of the Church against their Conscience I haue read your friend Irenaeus Philalethes Dissertatione de Pace Ecclesiae who teaches that no man ought now after the tyme of the Apostles who were infallible to be punished by Excommunication as long as he followes the dictamen of his Conscience and how do you tell vs that now one may be excommunicated for an errour in Faith Though you admit no infallible Judge to declare the sense of Scripture and that those Texts which seeme evident to some appeare obscure to others as is manifest in the examples which you alledge as evident of our Saviours Passion and Resurection which diverse Heretikes haue either denyed or vnderstood in a different way from the doctrine of Gods Church and yourselfe in particular belieue that his suffering and Death was not the Death and Passion of God and that his Sufferings did not merit and satisfy for mankind and that he remaines in Heaven with a Body of a different nature and Essence from that which he had vpon Earth which is to deny his Resurrection for substance and Death for the fruite therof You say The Doctor who defended the saied Conclusions together with the Article of the Church of England attributeth to the Church nay to particular Churches and I subscribe to his opinion an Authority of determining Controversyes of Faith according to plain and evident Scripture and vniversall Tradition and infallibility while they proceed according to this Rule But how doth this agree with the whole Scope of your Booke that the Bible the Bible the Bible is the only Rule and with your express words heere N. 155. that no vnwritten Doctrine hath attestatten from Tradition truly vniversall Seing beside Scripture you grant a Tradition which you say gives an infallibility to him who proceeds according to it Which shewes that there is some infallible vnwritten word or Tradition You say But what now if I should tell you that in the yeare 1632. among publike Conclusions defended in Doway one was that God predeterminates men to All their Actions I answer That if you will inferr any thing from hence it must only be this that as the Question about Predetermination is not defined by the Church but left to be disputed in Schooles with an express command of our Supreme Pastour that one part do not censure another so if you grant that out of the sayd Propositions defended in Oxford I may inferr that the Scripture alone is not the Rule of Faith or at least that you are not certaine it is so nor can condemne vs Catholikes for holding the contrary if I say you grant this you overthrow that Ground in which alone all Protestants pretend to agree and of which if they be not absolutly certaine the whole structure of their Faith must be ruinous You overlash in supposing we say that the Church cannot erre whether she vse meanes or no. But we are sure that as the Holy Ghost promised Her the End of not erring so also he will not faile to moue Her essectually to vse such meanes as shall be needfull for that End Your N. 163. about a place of S. Austine I haue answered very largly hertofore 77. In your N. 164. you say Why may not the Roman Church be content to be a Part of that visible Church which was extant when Luther began and the Grecian another And if one must be the whole why not the Greeke Church as well as Roman There being not one Note of your Church which agrees not to Her as well as to your owne 78. Answer If you speake of the true Church of Christ in Greece she is so farr from being divided from the Roman that she doth not only agree with but submitts to Her and receives from her Priests ordained in Rome it selfe and brought vp in Catholique Countries The Scismaticall Grecians to their division from the Roman Church haue added Heresy as even Protestants confesse and so are neither the whole Church nor any Church at all it being indeed no lesse than a kind of blasphemy to affirme that Conventicles of Heretikes can be the true Church of Christ Dr Lawde Pag 24. saith of the Errour of the Grecians I know and acknowledge that Errour of denying the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son to be a grievous errour in Divinity And Pag 154. I would faine know what Article of the Faith doth more concerne all Christians in generall than that of Filioque Which Errour of the Grecians hath beene condemned by three Generall Councells in which the Grecians
be infallible only in Fundamentall Points if she erre not in such Points she performes as much as our Saviour exacts at her hands seing he exacts no more than that which may bring her to salvation and it is not necessary that God assist her for more than salvation Or if he absolutely exact more than is necessary men are bound to doe more than is necessary and so more shall be necessary than is necessary because it is necessary to doe what we are bound to doe 30. You say to Ch. Ma The ground of your errour here is your not distinguishing betweene Actuall certainty and Absolute infallibility But in this you speake either against your owne conscience or against manifest truth For if you say the meaning of Cha. ma. to be that whosoever is actually certaine of one thing must haue an absolute infallibility in all other matters your Conscience cannot but tell you that He could haue no such meaning as if because I am actually certaine what I am doing at this instant I must therfore be infallible and know certainly what every one is doing in the Indyes But if you meane that it is an errour in Ch Ma to say that if one haue actuall certainty of a thing he must be infallible both in that ād all other for which he hath the same or like grounds to make him certaine then you erre against manifest truth it being evident that if I clearly see my selfe to haue an vndoubted Ground to belieue a thing it is impossible that I should erre in any other for which I also evidētly see that I haue the same certaine ground This is our case If I be actually certaine by evidence of Scripture of the truth of one thing I am certaine that I cannot erre in any other Point for which I haue the like evidence of Scripture as he who actually assents to a demonstration knowne to be such can neither erre in it nor in any other knowne to haue the like certainty This being supposed your examples proue against yourselfe as I shewed in an other like occasion 31. I haue already particularly and at large answered your N. 27.28.29 In your N. 30 33.34 you impugne Ch Ma. whose words I wish you had set downe as you found them in Him and not as you collect and offer them to the Reader whom therfore I must intreate to peruse the Author himselfe Ch. Ma. N. 13. saith That to limite the generall promises of our Saviour for his Church to Points Fundamentall as namely that the gates of Hell shall not prevaile against Her and that the Holy Ghost shall lead them into all truth c. is to destroy all Faith For by this manner of interpreting and limiting words whatsoever is delivered in Scripture concerning the infallibility of the Apostles or of Scripture it selfe may be restrained to infallibility in Fundamentall Points And in this Ch. Ma. hath reason For seing you haue no certaine Rule of Faith but Scripture whatsoever you cannot proue by evident Scripture cannot be to you certaine or a Point of Faith Let vs then take these words Matth. 16.18 The gates of Hell shall not prevaile c. Which our B. Saviour pronounced of the Church and those other Jo 16. V. 13.14.16 The spirit shall lead you into all truth and shall abide with you for ever which promise Potter saith Pag 153. was made directly and primarily to the Apostles who had the spirits guidance in a more high and absolute manner than any since them yet it was made to them for the behoofe of the Church and is verifyed in the Church vniversall The first words The gates of Hell shall not prevaile against Her Potter Pag. 153. limites they shall not prevaile so far as to sever it from the foundation that is that She shall not erre in Fundamentall Points Now I beseech you produce some evident Text of Scripture declaring that those words are not to be vnderstood as they sound that the Church shall be secure from all errours against Faith even in Points not Fundamentall which errours are gates that leade to hell seing they are as you often confesse damnable in themselves and so lead to hell and damnation but with this limitation that she shall be secured for Points Fundamentall Produce I say some such evident Text of Scripture and not topicall discourses of your owne In the meane tyme while you are busy about that impossible taske of producing some such Text 32. I will ponder the second place The spirit shall lead you into all truth and shall abide with you for ever which Potter saith is vnderstood of the Apostles and of the vniversall Church but so as being referred to the Apostles it signifyes all truths Fundamentall and not Fundamentall Points which is a harder explanation than that of the former words out of S. Matthew The gates of hell c. because you are engaged to alledge some evident Text of Scripture to proue that the very selfsame as I may saie indivisible Text which is acknowledged to speake both of the Apostles and of the Church must be forced and as it were racked to speake one thing of the Apostles and another of the Church All truth for the Apostles not all but only Fundamentall truth for the Church Bring I say some such evident Text of Scripture But it seemes you did easily perceiue that no such place could be pretended and therfore in stead of Scripture or the Word of God you offer only your owne conceits discourses and seeming congruences which are far beneath that certainty which is required for an act of divine Faith There is not say you N. 30. the same reason for the Churches absolute Infallibility as for the Apostles and Scriptures For if the Church fall into errour it may be reformed by comparing it with the Rule of the Apostles doctrine and Scripture But if the Apostles erred in delivering the Doctrine of Christianity to whom shall we haue recourse for the discovering and correcting their errour 33. Answer I haue often sayd that in matters knowne by revelation only and depending on the free will or decree of Almighty God we are not to proue by humane reason what he hath decreed Protestants grant that both the Apostles and the Church are infallible for Fundamentall Points If then one should make vse of your reason and say There is not the same reason for the Churches infallibility in Fundamentall Points as for the Apostles For if the Church fall into such errours it may be reformed by comparing it with the Rule of the Apostles doctrine and Scripture But if the Apostles haue erred in delivering the doctrine of Christianity to whom shall we haue recourse for the discovering and correcting their errour What would you answer Would you grant that the Church is not infallible in Fundamentall Articles because there is not the same reason for Her infallibility in Fundamentall Points as there is for the Apostles That were to deny the
were not the Apostles an aggregation of men of which every one had freewill and was subject to passions and errour if they had beene left to themselves And therfore by your Divinity it was in their power to deviate from the infallibility which the Holy Ghost did offer to them I wonder you durst publish such Groundes of Atheisme But is the Church indeed nothing else but an aggregation of men subject to paâ—sions and errour Hath she not a promise of divine assistance even according to Protestants against all Fundamentall errours which surely is more than to be nothing else than an aggregation of men subject to passions and errours even Fundamentall And as for freewill I aske whether that be taken away by the Churches infallibility in Fundamentall Points or no. If not then freewill may well consist with infallibility If it be taken away then what absurdity is it to say that it is takeÌ„ away by infallibility in Points not FudameÌ„tall In aword whatsoever you answer about infallibility and freewill in the Apostles for all Points and in the Church for Fundamentall articles the same will serue to confute your owne Objection and shew that you contradict your owne doctrine and the Doctrine of Protestants yea of all Christians who belieue the Apostles to be infallible But of this I haue spoken hertofore more than once and will now passe to the examination of your answer to the argument of Charity Maintayned that by Potters manner of interpreting those texts of Scripture which speake of the stability and infallibility of the Church and limiting it to Points Fundamentall he may affirme that the Apostles and other Writers of Canonicall Scripture were endued with infallibility only in setting downe Points Fundamentall For if it be vrged that all Scripture is divinely inspired Potter hath affoarded you a ready answer that Scripture is inspired only in those parts or parcells wherin it delivereth Fundamentall Points Of these words of Charity Maintayned you take no notice but only say that the Scripture saith All Scripture is divinely inspired Shew but as much for the Church shew where it is written that all the decrees of the Church are divinely inspired and the Controversy will be at an end But all this is not to the purpose to shew by what Law Rule Priviledge or evident Text of Scripture you take vpon you to restraine generall Promises made for the Church to Points Fundamentall and not limite those words All Scripture is divinely inspired to the same Fundamentall Points For this you neither doe nor are able to answer but dissemble that Charity Maintayned did expressly prevent your alledging this very Text All Scripture is divinely inspired Nay beside this you do not shew by what authority you do not only restraine the Praedicatum divinitus inspirata but also the subjectum togeather with the signe all All Scripture which not only may but in your doctrine must be limited in a strange manner seing you teach that some Part of Scripture is infallible neither in Fundamentall nor vnfundamentall Points For here N. 32. you endeavour to proue that S. Paul hath delivered some things as the dictates of humane Reason and prudence and not as Divine Revelation And so it will not be vniversally true for any kind of Points that All Scripture is divinely inspired How then will you proue by these words that Scripture is infallible in all Points if yourselfe limite the Subjectum of that Proposition which is Scripture to certaine Parts of Scripture and that indeed the Praedicatum divinely inspired may be limited to Fundamentall Points vpon as good ground as you limite the generall promises ef God and words of Scripture which concerne the infallibility of the Church 39. But N. 33. you will proue that Dr. Potter limits not the Apostles infallibility to truths absolutely necessary to salvation because he ascribes to the Apostles the Spirits guidance and consequently infallibility in a more high and absolute manner than to any since them and to proue this sequele you offer vs a needlesse Syllogisme But I haue shewd that the Apostles may haue infallibility in a more high absolute and independent manner than the Church although the Churches infallibility reach to Points not Fundamentall as Protestants will not deny that the Apostles had infallibility in Fundamentall Points in a more high manner than the Church hath though yet she be absolutely Infallible in all Fundamentall articles Yea if you will haue the Doctour speake properly to say the Apostles had the guidance of the Spirit in a more high manner than the Church must suppose that the Church hath that guidance and consequently as you inferr infallibility though not in so high a manner as the Apostles I intreate the Reader to peruse Charity Maintayned N. 13. and judge whether he speakes not with all reason and proves what he saith in this behalfe and if Potter declare himselfe otherwise and teach notwithstanding his owne confession that what was promised to the Apostles is verifyed also in the vniversall Church that the Church may erre in Points not Fundamentall I can only favour him and you so far as to tell you he contradicts himselfe 40. Whatsoever you say to the contrary Charity Maintayned N. 13. spoke truth in affirming that Potter Speakes very dangerously towards this purpose of limitting the Apostles infallibility to Fundamentall Points For though the Doctor name the Church when he saieth Pag 152. that there are many millions of truths in Nature and History whereof the Church is ignorant and that many truths lie vnrevealed in the infinite treasurie of Gods wisdome where with the Church is not acquainted yet his reasons either proue nothing or els must comprise the Apostles no less than the Church as Charity Maintayned expressly observes Pag 93. though I grant that some of the Doctors words agree only to the Church which is nothing against Charity Maintayned that other of Potters words and reasons agree also to the Apostles and therefore I assure you he had no designe in the c at which you carp But let the Doctour say and meane what he best pleases sure I am that neither he nor you will ever be able to proue by any evident Text of Scripture that the foresayd or other generall promises of infallibility extend to all sorts of Points for the Apostles and to Fundamentall Articles only for the Church And this is the maine businesse in hand Though in the meane tyme I must not omit to say that your Syllogisme is very captious and deceitfull which is He that grants the Church infallible in Fundamentalls and ascribes to the Apostles the infallible guidance of the Spirit in a more high and absolute manner than to any since them limits not the Apostles infallibility to Fundamentalls But Dr Potter grants to the Church such a limited infallibility and ascribes to the Apostles the Spirits infallible guidance in a more high and absolute manner Therfore he limits not the Apostles
say The Reason and connexion of this consequence I feare neither I nor you doe well vnderstand But you feare where there is no cause of feare For is it not a cleare consequence that if the Church be infallible only in Fundamentall points and I haue recourse to her about any matter not knowing it to be Fundamentall I cannot be sure but that she may erre therin We haue hard yourselfe saying of meere particulars nothing can be certainly concluded and to vse your owne words who would not laugh at him who should argue thus the Church is infallible in some things the Church saith this is true Therfore it is true Or thus the Church is infallible only in fundamentall Points The Church saieth this particular is true which I know not whether or not it be Fundamentall therfore the Church is infallible in this The conclusion should be Therfore I cannot know that the Church is infallible in this You say N. 37. that the Scripture must be vniversally true and not only in fundamentalls because otherwise it could not be a sufficient warrant to belieue this thing that these only points are Fundamentall which shewes your opinion to be that it would litle availe vs to know that Scripture is infallible in fundamentalls only vnless we could know what Points in particular are fundamentall and therfore you impugne yourself while you find fault with Ch Ma for saying that if the Church be infallible only in fundamentalls we cannot belieue her with certainty vnless we know that such and such things are Fundamentall The residue of this Number 39. you spend in distinguishing between being infallible in fundamentalls and being an infallible guide in fundamentalls of which I haue alreadie spoken at larg 51. In your N. 40. you cite these words as out of Char. Maintayn They that knowe what Points are Fundamentall otherwise then by the Churches Authority learne not of the Church Char. Maint speakes more distinctly and sayeth If before they address themselves to the Church they must know what points are Fundamentall they learne not of her but wil be as fit to teach as to be taught by her How then are all Christians so often so seriously vpon so dreadfull menaces by Fathers Scriptures and our blessed Saviour himself counselled and commanded to seeke to heare to obey the Church Which he proves there at large out of S. Austine and S. Chryiostome And is not all this very cleare For how can I be saied to learne of the Church that which I must know before she can teach me that is what Points be Fundamentall Yes say you they may learne of the Church that the Scripture is the word of God and from the Scripture that such Points are Fundamentall others are not so and consequently learne even of the Church even of your Church that all is not Fundamentall nay all is not true which she teaches vs to be 52. Answer First can we indeed learne from the Scripture that such Points are Fundamentall others are not so How then do you say it is impossible to giue a Catalogue of Fundamentall Points seing there is meanes to know that such Points are Fundamentall others are not so Secondly You grant what Charity Maintayned saied That I cannot learne of the Church that which I must know before she teaches me while you tell vs that men learne of the Church one thing that Scripture is the Word of God and an other from Scripture namely what Points be Fundamentall and so we are so far from learning of the Church that fuch points are Fundamentall that we are as fit to teach her as she to teach vs which Points in particular be Fundamentall which we learne from Scripture not from her just as you teach that not from the Church but from Scripture we learne all particular Points of Faith with certainty though we receiue the Scripture from the Church Thirdly If it be a Fundamentall truth that Scripture is the Word of God I must know it to be such before I can be assured that the Church cannot erre therin and so I cannot learne it of the Church and much less can I learne it of the Church with certainty if it be not a Fundamentall Point in which you hold the Church may erre and Pag 116. N. 159. you say it is not a Fundamentall point Fourthly Whereas you say That one may learne from the Church that Scripture is the Word of God and from the Scripture that all is not true which the Church teacheth to be so I answer if we belieue Scripture to be the word of God vpon the sole Authority of the Church it is impossible that I can proue out of Scripture that all is not true which the Church teacheth to be so For by this meanes Scripture would be destructiue of it self if we belieue it for an Authority which it self saieth may affirme a falshood and so we cannot belieue it even in this particular that Scripture is the word of God Yourself say heere N. 36. An Authority subject to errour can be no firme or stable Foundation of my belief in any thing and if it were in any thing then this Authority being one and the same in all proposalls I should haue the same reason to belicue all that I haue to belieue one and therfore must either do vnreasonably in believing any one thing vpon the sole warrant of this Authority or vnreasonably in not believing all things equally warranted by it Therfore you either do vnreasonably in believing the Scripture vpon the sole warrant of the Church or vnreasonably in not believing her in all her proposalls and Luther was and all Protestants are vnreasonable in saying that all is not true which the Church teacheth to be so You say N. 40. Neither do I see what hinders but a man may learne of a Church how to confute the errours of that Church which taught him As well as of my Master in Physick or Mathematicks I may learne those rules ād Principles by which I may confute my Masters erroneous Conclusions But if the ground which I haue laied and corfirmed out of your owne words be considered this your instance will proue against yourself For if I belieue those Rules or Principles because I belieue my Master cannot erre and not for the evidence of them in themselves I do vnreasonably in not believing whatsoever he proposes Otherwise I may feare he erred even in those Rules if once I sinde him to erre in any other thing Now we receiue with certainty Scripture for the sole Authority of the Church and therfore we do vnreasonably if we belieue her not in all her proposalls 53. Your N. 41.42 haue bene answered hertofore In your N. 43. you speake to Ch Ma. in this manner In the next place you tell vs out of S. Austine That that which has bene alwayes kept is most rightly esteemed to come from the Apostles Very right and what then Therefore the Church cannot erre indefining
not agree with the Church truly Catholique These words cannot be true vnless he presupposes that the Church truly Catholique cānot erre in Points not fundamētall For if she may erre in such points the Roman Church which he affirmes to erre only in points not fundamētall may agree with the Church truly Catholique if she likewise may erre in points not fundamētall This is the Argumēt of Ch Ma and is it not cleare that if the Church Catholique can erre for example in the Doctrines of Purgatory Invocations of Saynts reall presence and the like as de facto Luther and his followers pretend she did erre and that they were reformers of such errours seing the Roman Church may and doth hold the same Doctrines the Church vniversall and the Roman Church shall agree in the same pretended errours and so Potter saied not truly that if we agree with the Roman Church for example about Purgatory Praiers to saynts c we cannot agree with the Church Catholique Will you deny the Axiom Quae sunt eadem vni tertio sunt eadem inter se If then the vniversall and the Roman Church agree in the belief of errours as you falsly terme them do they not agree one with an other And so contrary to Potters affirmation it must be saied If we did dissent from these opinions of the present Roman Church we could not agree with the Church Catholique if once it be supposed that the Church holds those or the like vnfundamentall errours as you grant she may And further it would follow that seing Protestants dissent from the Roman Church they cannot agree with the Catholique Church But let vs heare how you make good your censure 69. You say let vs suppose either that the Catholique Church may erre but doth not but that the Roman actually doth or that the Catholique Church may erre in some few things but that the Roman errs in many more And is it not apparent in both these cases which yet both suppose the Churches infallibility a man may truly saie vnless I dissent in some opinions from the Roman Church I cannot agree with the Catholique Either therfore you must retract your imputation laied vpon Dr. Potter or doe that which you condemne in him and be driven to say that the same man may held some errours with the Church of Rome and at the same tyme with the Catholique Church not hold but condemne them For otherwise in neither of these cases it is possible for the same man at the same tyme to agree with the Roman and the Catholique 70. Answer Your conscience cannot but witness that the Doctor when he saied If we did not dissent in some opinions from the present Roman Church we could not agree with the Church truly Cathelique did not speak of accidentall cases or voluntary suppositions such as you put but meant and spoke absolutely that if we did not dissent from the Present Roman Church we could not agree with the Church truly Catholique For if he meant only of contingent cases without regard to any particular advantage or prerogatiue of the Church vniversall he might haue made suppositions directly contrary to yours that the Roman Church may erre but doth not but the vniversall actually doth or that the Roman Church doth erre in some few things but the Catholique errs in many more For if once it be granted the Catholique Church to erre to say she may erre in many or few is a voluntary vngrounded conjecture or divination and nothing to any purpose Nay seing if once the Catholik Church be supposed to erre she may multiply errours without end and so to day agree with to morrow disagree from the Roman Church and it must follow that according to your explication the Doctours words may be in a perpetuall alteration to day fals to morrow true which either was farre from his meaning or his meaning was not only impertinent but against his owne scope and Intention which was to make the vniversall Church as it were the Modell or Rule to judge of the necessity which Protestants had to forsake the Roman Church by reason of her dissenting from the Church Catholiques which had bene no good reason if the vniversall Church may erre and erre as much and more than the Roman or any other partioular Church Which appeares also by these words of the Doctor in the same Pag 97. The Catholique Church is carefull to ground all her declarations vpon the divine Authority of Gods written word And therfore whosoever wilfully opposed a judgement so well grounded is justly esteemed an Heretique And P 132. he saieth For vs the mistaker nor his he Masters will never prove that we oppose either any declaration of the Catholique Church or any Fundamentall or other truth of Scripture and therefore he doth vnjustly charge vs with Schisme or Herisie Do not these sayings attribute more to the vniversall than to particular Churches and more than a meerely casualty that either she doth not actually erre or els erres in fewer things than the present Roman Church And vpon the whole matter is not that true which Charity Maintayned N. 22. saied That D. Potter must either grant that the Catholique Church cannot erre in Points not Fundamentall or confess a plain contradiction to himself in the saied words If we did not dissent in some opinions from the present Roman Church we could not agree with the Church truly Catholique Would not Protestants take it in ill parte if one should say If we did not dissent in some opinions from Protestants we could not agree with the Church truly Catholique And yet according to your explication and suppositions it could not be ill taken because either the Church might be supposed not to erre actually or in some few things but that the Protestants erre in many more it being manifest that some of them erre By the way when Potter saieth For vs the Mistaker will never proue that we oppose any Declaration of the Catholique Church or any truth of Scripture I would know whom he vnderstand by vs Seing it is evident that of Protestants holding so many contrary Doctrines some must of necessity oppose some Declaration of the Church or truth of Scripture and since they haue no certaine Rule to know which of them be in the wrong and oppose some Declaration of the Church or Scripture we must conclude that no man desirous of his salvation can commit his soule to any of them all Your Conclusion Either therefore you must retract your imputation laid vpon Dr Potter or doe that c. is obscure but I am sure it is answered seing it goes vpon your fals explication of the Doctors words 71. Your proceding N. 69. puts me vpon a necessity of intreating the Reader to peruse the N. 23. of Charity Maintayned which evidently demonstrates that it was wholy impertinent for you to answer the places which He saieth are wont to be all edged out of Scripture for the infallibility of Gods
Potter to proue that the Church cannot erre against any Fundamentall Truth Which limitation I haue confuted already and joyntly your first Answer Your Second and Third are directly against the Doctor who Pag 151. teaches that the Promises which our Lord hath made vnto his Church for his assistance are intended to the Church Catholique and they are to be extended only to Points Fundamentall And then he alledges the saied text Joan 16.13 And Chap 41.61 adding that Though that Promise was direstly and primarily made to the Apostles yet it was made to them for the behoof of the Church and is verifyed in the Church vniversall Now if the Church cannot erre fundamentally she is taught by the holy Ghost not only sufficiently but effectually And if those Promises were made to the Apostles not only primarily as Potter affirmes but to them only as you say how could the Doctor proue by them the Infallibility of the Church for all Fundamentalls Can a Text of Scripture proue that to which it nothing belongs As well by this Text interpreted as you doe he might haue proved you or himself or any other infallible in Fundamentall Points So that now I must defend the Doctor against Mr. Chill who among all English Protestants was picked out as a fit champion to maintayne the cause of Protestants and defend Potters Booke You are greatly mistaken and offend against the knowen Rule which Logicians give for Division while you say one may be taught only sufficiently and not irresistibly as if these were adequately the membra dividentia of being taught whereas one may be taught effectually and neither sufficiently only nor yet irresistibly as hath bene declared more than once Do not yourself tell vs heere that the saied Promises were made to the Apostles only Who I hope you will say were taught effectually and not sufficiently only Otherwise we cannot be sure but that de facto they deviated from the direction of the Holy Ghost and so we can haue no certainty that their writings are infallible Or if the doctrine of freewill which you Socinians also defend can consist with the infallibility of the Apostles how can it be inconsistent with freewill in the Church You say The word in the Originall is hodegesei which signifyes to be a guide and director only not to compell or necessitate But what is this to any purpose against vs who teach nothing against Freewill by our Doctrine of the infallible assistance of the Holy Ghost And yet I must say that you vse fraude by writing so as if the word did signify a guide or director only with exclusion of being necessitated whereas the Greeke word is verified whether one be a guide or director resistibly or irresistibly For in both cases he is a guide and so Cornelius à Lapide interprets it ducet rectâ viâ ad virtutem quasi dux viae which one may doe either by leading and leaving one to his liberty to follow or by forcing him to followe his guidance and so the places which you alledg out of Scripture of men that had eyes to see and would not see are to no purpose except to ingage you to answer them in case of the Apostles whom I suppose you will not deny to haue bene secured from errour both sufficiently and effectually Yea you take much vnprofitable paines to proue that the saied Texts were by our Saviour meant only of the Apostles by reason of circumstances which appropriate them to his Disciples 80. But Dr. Potter hath told you that Though that promise directly and primarily was made to the Apostles yet it was made to them in behoof of the Church and is verified in the Church vniversall For we may consider in the Apostles a double capacity either as they are private and particular Persons or as they respect and represent or beare the place of the Church and for her good receiue some Power or priviledg and not meerely with relation to their owne persons And therefore although some words in the places which you alledge be referred to the Apostles only yet it does not follow that all must be restrained to them Otherwise you will destroy the whole Church of Christ and all Christianity Nothing is more necessary in Christian Religion than Preaching to all Nations and Baptizing which our Saviour injoyned Matth. 28. Mark 16. Luke 24. yet by your manner of arguing it may be proved that they concerned the Apostles only For it is saied Mark 16.14 Last he appeared to those Eleven as they sate at the table and he exprobrated their incrudelity and hardness of hart because they did not belieue them that had seene him risen againe And N. 15.16 he saied to them Going into the world preach the Ghospell to all Creatures He that believes and is baptized shall be saved Heere you see that although some circumstances be proper to the Apostles as sitting at table and incrudelity yet it does not follow that all must concerne them only as that preaching and baptizing belongs to the whole Church I imagine you will not deny In the same manner Matth. 28. N. 16.17.18.19.20 divers things are specified which belong to the Apostles only as going into Galilee adoring doubting and our Saviours speaking to them and yet his command Going teach ye all Nations baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the Holy Ghost belongs to the whole Church The like Argument may be taken out of S. Luke Cap. 24. N. 44.45.46.47.48.49 where some thing is personall to the Apostles and we must not say that pennance to be preached in his name and remission of sinnes vnto all Nations as is sayd N. 47. belonged to the Apostles only though it be expresly saied beginning from Hierusalem which seemes proper to the Persons of the Apostles and yet Preaching Pennance a thing common to the whole Church is set downe in the same verse with beginning from Hierusalem which was personall to the Apostles Thus Joan. 20. Some particulars are spoken and done to the Apostles only as N. 21. He saied to them againe Peace be to you and N. 22. He breathed vpon them and yet N. 23. he gives them Power to forgiue sinnes which Power did not cease with the Death of the Apostles These instances shew that you must answer your owne Objections and will force you to confess that it is no good way of arguing that all things in the Texts which Ch. Ma and Dr. Potter alledg out of S. John for the infallibility of the Church must be appropriated to the Apostles for the substance because some circumstances concerne them alone and that we must prudently distinguish betwene those two kinds of things as certainly not to be led into any errour against Faith is most necessary for the Church which God hath appointed for Teacher of all Christians and Judge of controversies And that the Apostles may be and are sometyme considered as publike persons and with relation to the Church
of setting downe particular Truths Whence it followes that that article alone cannot be a Creed as men speake of Creeds and particular points may be a Creed though that article of the Church were not exprest but presupposed and proved independently both of the Creed and Scripture in manner declared heretofore And here Dr. Potter should remember his owne doctrine and the doctrine of most Protestants that the Church cannot erre in Fundamentall Articles of Faith and therfor according to your manner of arguing this short Creed I belieue the Church to be infallible in all Fundamentall points would haue been better that is more effectuall to keepe the believers of it from heresy and in the true Faith then this Creed which now we know and so either you must forsake the Doctor about the Churches infallibility in fundamētalls or he must reject your argument and both of you grant that you proue nothing against Ch Ma but only contradict one another You confesse that the Creed containes not Agenda why doe you not say It had been better to refer vs to the Church then to set downe in the Creed only Credenda which alone are not sufficient to bring any man to heaven and so make men thinke hey haue all in the Creede when the haue scharsly halfe Motrover If you respect only infallibility or being more effectuall to keepe men from heresy in your grounds neither the Articles of the Church nor the other articles as they are now in the Creed could haue so great commodity and no danger as you say speaking of the Churches infallibility as this one generall article belieue the Scripture to be infallible and therfor either you must take this one article as the best Creed which no man will ever grant or answer your owne argument by saying To belieue the Scripture is too generall an object and that a Creed or Catechisme must include some other particular objects or some such answer you must giue which will be easily turned vpon yourselfe Thus your N. 78. and 79. which goe vpon your first supposition that that Creed is the better that keepes the believer of it frō heresy c remaine confuted and the Syllogisme which you make proves a meere paralogisme For that petite Creed which you propose would be so farr from having greater commodities in order to the intent of Creeds then this other that it could be no Creed at all in that sense in which hitherto the ancient Fathers and all Divines haue spoken of Creeds and of summaries of Faith If you haue a minde to change the name and meaning of Creeds and to substitute some one proposition indeed I know no better in order to vse and safety then this The visible Church of Christ is infallible For this being once believed I may learne what is true Scripture what the sense therof what points be necessary in all occasions which commodity we cannot attaine by Scripture alone as hath been often sayd 64. You say N. 80. That having compared the inference of Ch. ma. and Dr. Potters togeather you cannot discover any shadow of resemblance betweene them nor any shew of reason why the perfection of the Apostles Creed should exclude a necessity of some Body to deliver it Much lesse why the whole Creeds containing all things necessary should make the beliefe of a part of it vnnecessary As well for ought I vnderstand you might avouch this inference to be as good as Dr. Potters The Apostles Creedcontaines all things necessary therfor there is no need to belieue in God Neither does it follow so well as Dr. Potters Argument follows That if the Apostles Creed containes all things necessary that all other Creeds and Catechismes wherin are added diuers other particulars are superfluous For these other particulars may be the duties of obedience they may be profitable points of Doctrine they may be good expositions of the Apostles Creed and so not superfluous and yet for all this the Creed may still containe all points of beliefe that are simply necessary These therfor are poore consequences but no more like Dr. Potters then an apple is likean Oister 65. Answer Dr. Potter argued that if the Apostles did not deliver in the Creed all necessary points they might as well haue given only that Article of the Church Which manner of arguing Ch. Ma. retorts and sayth we may rather inferr thus If the Apostles delivered in the Creed all necessary points what need we any Church to teach vs And consequently what need is there of the Atticle concerning the Church What need we the Creed of Nice Constantinople c. Superfluous are your Cathecismes wherin besides the articles of the Creed you haue divers other particulars These would be poore consequences and so is yours Thus Ch. Ma. who as you see doth not approue these consequences but expresly saith they are poore ones Which consequences while you also labour to disproue you doe but take paines for your adversary to your owne cost But at least you will say ther is no shadow of resemblance betweene them and that of Dr. Potters Yes ther is this resemblance That as the Doctour argues all necessarie points are not contained in the Creed therfor it had been as good or better to haue no Article of the Creed but that of the Church least that as he saieth Pag. 226. in setting downe others besides that and yet not all they may make vs belieue we haue all when we haue not all So contrarily Ch Ma argues That if all other necessary points be contained in the Creed what need we the Church to teach vs or that Article of the Church which deduction might be made good by the Doctours feare least that if we haue that Article of the Church we may thinke that alone sufficient wherein he might be confirmed by the commodityes which you say are implied in the point of the Churches infallibility and so be carelesse in seeking any other particular object or article of Faith Which argument is like to that of the Doctours except only that indeed it is much better than his and may be made a kinde of demonstration by adding that in your grounds the article of the Church is not fundamentall or necessary to salvation and therfor whosoever believes all the articles of the Creed if it be supposed to containe all necessary points of Faith may be saved though he belieue not that of the Church of which you say expresly in this your fourth Chapter N. 34.45 that it is not a fundamentall article and consequently not necessary to salvation yea it is further infer'd from hence that D. Potters argument is of no force seing it cannot be better to haue one only vnnecessary article of Faith then to haue divers fundamentall articles which no man denyes the Creed to containe and want that one not necessary or vnfundamentall point You say that you cannot discover any shew of reason why the perfection of the Apostles Creed should exclude
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
than words even that Maximianus who succeeded your wicked great Grandfather Nestorius in the Sea of Constantinople was a monk and a holy man and farre from being a parasite and an Embassage was sent to Rome from him the Emperour and people in congratulation of the victory gotten chiefly by meanes of Pope Caelestinus against Nestorius all which declared the Authority of the Roman Church 1200 yeares agoe though you tell vs you cannot beleeue it aÌ„d though you take notice of Maximianus who succeeded Nestorius yet you thought fit to dissemble this Embassage c. Whereof more may be seene in Baronius Ann 431.432 Your answer given N. 37. to the Anthority cited by Ch. Ma. out of John Patriarch of Constantinople cannot satisfy any who reads his words and your answer which is so evident that I need say no more 34. For answer to your N. 38.39.40.41 if in any occasion particularly in this I must intreate the Reader not to trust your summing vp the Discourse of Ch Ma N. 20.21.22.23 but to trust only his owne eyes which if he doe I am sure he will finde all that you object against vs in the saied Numbers to be answered already when we proved that Faith is the Gift of God and that in the ordinary course of Gods Providence it is exauditu by the preaching of Pastors Prelats Doctors c. And the necessity of a perpetuall succession of Bishops in the true Church besides what hath bene saied heretofore appeares by the confession of the best learned Protestants as may be seene in Brereley Tract 2. Sect 6. and Tract 2. Cap 3. Sect 4. and Tract 2. Cap 2. Sect 3. Subdivis 2. No man can doubt but that God may teach vs in what manner he pleases but seing de facto he will haue men to be taught by men aÌ„d that Faith is his Gift as we proved in the Introduction we shall be sure never to attaine this inward gift otherwise than by those outward meanes nor can we belieue the Doctrine of Christ without the Introduction of Teachers appointed and taught by his Holy Spirit Neither doth if follow that by this meanes one should be necessitated to be an Heretique because that there should haue bene a perpe â—uall Succession of believers in all points Orthodox is not a thing which is in our power as you argue most weakely and seing Protestants teach that Heresie is a deviation from Scripture and that it is not in the power of man to conserue Scripture incorrupted Protestants may be Heretiques whether they will or no if your objection were of any force And why do you not make this argument Men cannot sinne vnles they exist and be in their right witts But that a man be in his right witts or exist is not in his Power for who can be his owne creator Therefore sinning or not sinning depends not on these things As therefore men may be Heretiques and sinners because de facto God conserves Scripture and preserves men in their being so seing he hath promised to conserue his Church without errour against Faith and gives every one sufficient grace to follow her Directions if they refuse to doe so they become Heretiques by their owne free-will not by any necessity Your saying By this reason you should say as well that no man can be a good Bishop or Pastour or King or Magistrate or Father that succeeds a bad one is manifestly impertinent seing the Direction of Faith is not the personall life but the publik Definition and doctrine of such as God hath appointed to be our Guides and whom he hath commanded vs to obey 36. Seing your N. 39. containes only a heap or rabble of demands without telling vs what you hold I were much to blame If I would spend time about theÌ„ especially I having proved out of Fathers and learned Protestants that the true Church cannot subsist without a succession of Bishops which is the point you desire should be proved before you answer the argument of Ch. Ma. and your owne demands whereof I must tell you in generall some are ridiculous some dangerous and tending to confusion some begg the Question some containe shrewd insinuations against the necessity of Bishops some are evidently fals and all of no force against vs. You ask whether Ch Ma in saying the Donatists Sect was confined to Africa do not forget himself and contradict what he saied N 17. that they had some of their Sect residing in Rome But this is a poore contradiction For even D. Potter Pag 125. cites S. Austine affirming that the Donatists held the Church to haue perished through the whole world except in their Sect in Africa and Pag 126. the Doctor denies not but they had some of their Sect in Rome and you expresly affirme it yet because they were so few as could not make any considerable number it may well be saied that their Sect de facto was confined to Africa as they were wont to say and as Ch Ma must speake in their sense concerning them and he is expresly warranted by S. Optatus Lib 2. saying that the Donatists Bishop in Rome was Episcopus sine populo Non enim grex aut populus appellandi fuerant pauci qui inter quadraginta quod excurrit basilicas locum vbi colligerent non habebant 37. All that is materiall in your N 40. hath bene answered heretofore to your small credit You haue no reason to alter the Translation of Ch. Ma. of the words of Tertullian How is it likely that so many and so great Churches should erre in one Faith Quid vetisimile est vt tot ac tantae in vnam Fidem erraverint Which you say should be translated should erre into one Faith For it is certaine that your obscure expression should erre into one Faith must signifie that it is not likely so many different Churches agreeing should erre in that Faith in which they agree which is according to the cleare expression of Ch Ma And it is cleare that the reason why they could not erre into one Faith must be because error could not consist with one Faith for if it could they might erre into one Faith and so your Translation if it be good must be beholding to his expression You say in the Pag 362. that the Roman Church is Catholique to herself alone and Hereticall to all the rest of Christian Churches and in this Pag 332. N. 11. you say It is not Heresy to oppose any Truth propounded by the Church but only such a Truth as is an essentiall part of the Gospell of Christ Which sentences put together conclude the Roman Church to want what is essentiall to a Church and yet you expresly teach in other parts of your Book that she errs not in essentiall or fundameÌ„tall points How will you saue yourself from a contradiction in this As also in your saying that it is not Heresy to oppose any truth but only such a truth as in an essentiall part
a Gentile wherby one would apprehend that S. Paule judged it necessary at least per accidens because all knew that his father was a gentil that Timothy should be circumcised and yet contrarily Gal. 2. N. 3. it is sayd but neither Titus wheras he was a Gentil was compelled to be circumcised It is therfor very cleare that this Poynt which you alledg as clearly expressed in Scripture ought rather to be numbred amongst difficult and obscure places and directly against your inference that there is no need of an infallible guide shewes the necessity of such a guide because this determination about the Mosaicall Law was a Definition of a Counsell ād must be declared by the practise of Gods church as being concerning some things not to be alwayes observed but intended to be ordered by the sayd Church without whose authority how should we know when and in what manner the keeping of the Mosaicall Law became both vnnecessary and damnable mortua and mortifera dead and deadly since we see some part therof observed by the Apostles after our Sauiours ascension and sending the Holy Ghost 36. But at least though you haue erred in the first part of your example concerning the evidence of Scripture that the keeping of the Mosaicall Law is not necessary to salvation yet you haue vndoubtedly proved your purpose in the other part That good works are necessary to salvation 37. To this I answer It is strang you should hold this point of the necessity of good works to salvation to be so evident in Scripture that every one who believes the Scripture hath sufficient meanes to discover and condemne the contrary heresie seing you know the common Tenet of Protestants that it is impossible to keep the commandements and the doctrine of many of them that all our actions are sinnes Can the breach of the commandements be a good worke Or can sinfull works be necessary to salvation That is can it be necessary to doe that which is necessary for vs not to doe as every one is obliged not to sinne How then can you say the Scripture is cleare in this poynt since so many of your chiefest brethren must mayntayne the contrary and divers of them do in express termes deny good works to be necessary yea and call it a Papisticall errour yea worse than is the Papists Doctrine as is exactly sett downe in Brierly Tract 2. Cap. 2. Sect. 10. subdivis 4. And see in the same Author Tract 3. Sect. 7. N. 7. The necessity of good works contradicted for new Papistry as pernicious as the old by Illyricus in Praefat. ad Rom. and many others And all this they pretend to doe vpon the warrant of evident scripture 37. And heer I am to obserue that Pag 157. N. 50. you having alledged some poynts as clearly contayned in scripture and in particular concerning Faith Repentance and Resurrection of the body which we haue demonstrated not to be clear without assistance from Gods Church and to be controverted even amongst Protestants add these remarkable words These we conceyue both true because the Scripture sayes so and Truths Fundamentall because they are necessary parts of the Gospell wherof our Sauiour sayes Qui non crediderit damnabitur Therfor say I scripture alone is not cleare even in Fundamentall points which directly overthrowes the whole Foundation of Protestants religion And because heer you name expressly the Resurrection of the Body and not only that all men shall rise againe at the last day as you spoake Pag. 101. N. 127. I would gladly know how it is a Resurrection of the Body which never rises againe but another celestiall body is created to succeed it And what reckoning do you make of the 39. Articles of the English Church since Art 4. it is sayd Christ did truly rise rgaine from death and tooke againe his body with flesh bones and all things appertaining to the perfection of mans nature wher with he ascended into Heaven and there sitteth vntill he returne to judg all men at the last day 38. You see then that he hath produced Fundamentall poynts as cleare in scripture which are proved not to be so Of poynts not Foundamentall he chuseth in the same place one example so pregnant and certaine in his conceypt that he hopes we will grant it to be such namely that Abraham begat Isaac But this text is not so cleare as he supposes For how will he be sure if we take those words alone that Abraham was Isaacs Father and not grandfather or yet higher We reade in S. Matthew 1.8 Ioram begat Ozias three Kings being left out For Ioram immediatly begat Ochozias Ochozias begat Ioas Ioas begat Amazias Amazias begat Azarias or Ozias for he had two names as is manifest 1. Paral. 3.11 and 12. and 2. Paral. 22.9 seqq he therfor left out three to wit Ochosias Ioas and Amazias as also Matth. 1.12 frequently in the Latin copy one generation is left out for with S. Epiphanius and others it is thus to be supplyed and read Josias begat Jeconias and his brethren and Jeconias begat Jechonias in the transmigration of Babilon For now we haue only Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren in the transmigration of Babylon On the contrary where Genes 11. V. 12. it is sayd Arphaxad begat Sale as the Hebrew and Caldaean text haue both in this place and also 1. Paral. 1.18 24. the Septuaginta both heer and there put Cainan between For they saye Arphaxad begat Cainan and Cainan begat Sale S. Luke rollowes the Septuagint Chap. 36. saying Who was of Sale who was of Cainan who was of Arphaxad Besides all this what will he vnderstand by genuit he begat or fuit Filius he was the Son which may haue divers significations as Luc. 3.38 Who was of Henos who was of Seth who was of Adam who was of God Where we see Filius a son must be taken in a different sense as it is referred to Henos Seth and Adam and as it is referred to God vvhose naturall son Adam vvas not But I may seeme to haue sayd too much of such a matter as this vnless it did shevv clearly the difficulty of scripture even in texts vvhich scarcely seeme capable of difficulty 39. Sixtly vvhatsoever effect Protestants yield to Sacraments at least it is necessary they be maintayned and not quite abolished and taken from the true Church of vvhich Protestants teach the right administration of Sacraments to be an Essentiall Note Yea seing there vvant not learned Protestants vvho hold Baptisme to be necessary to salvation if the scripture be not cleare in vvhat concernes this Sacrament it is not cleare in a necessary poynt as I sayd Novv the very vvord Sacrament taken in this sense according to Protestants is not found in scripture yea Socinians teach that it is an abuse of the vvord Sacrament to apply it to holy rites (a) Volkelius Lib. 4 Cap. 22. And in the definition therof Protestants cannot agree
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 say Can we imagine that either they ommitted somthing necessary out of ignorance not knowing it to be necessary Or knowing it to be so maliciously concealed it or out of negligence did the work they had vndertaken by halfes If none of these things can without Blasphemy be imputed to them considering they were assisted by the Holy Ghost in this worke then certainly it most evidently followes that every one of them writt the whole Gospell of Christ I meane all the essentiall and necessary parts of it In which words you do nothing but begg the Question still supposing that the Evangelists were obliged to set downe in writing all necessary Points of Faith which though they knew to be necessary to be believed yet they neither did nor could know that they were necessary to be written which two things you ought to distinguish though it seemes you are resolved never to do so And here also you take vpon you to limit the Gospell to the essentiall and necessary parts of it of which your voluntary restriction I haue already sayd enough 172. But Sr. I cannot chuse but aske you vpon the occasion which here you giue how you can say that ignorance or negligence cannot without blasphemy be imputed to the Evangelists seing Pag. 144. N. 31. you affirme that the Apostles even after the sending of the Holy Ghost were and through inadvertence or prejudice continued for a tyme in an errour repugnant to a revealed truth and against our Saviours express warrant and injunction and Pag. 137. N. 2. you teach that the Church of the Apostles tyme did erre against a revealed truth through prejudice or inadvertence or some other cause which last generall reason gives scope to proceed in blasphemy if once we say that the Apostles were not in all things belonging to Faith directed by the Holy Ghost and for such as you to say that if they could erre by inadvertence prejudice or some other causes it was not impossible but at length one of those other causes might grow to be malice But more of this herafter Now I will only touch that which I noted before how little credit or authority your reasons ought to haue with any judicious person since you acknowledg it to be but probable that every one of the Evangelsts hath written all things necessary and yet you would needs haue your proofes therof to be certaine and evident Thus we haue heard you say Pag. 211.42 Take it as you will this conclusion will certainly follow that all that which S. Iohn wrote in his Gospell was sufficient to make them belieue that which being believed with lively Faith would certainly bring them to eternall life Vrceus institui coepit cur Amphora prodit A probability improved to a certainty by the only strength of confidence And Pag. 93. N. 105. you say that vnless we will blaspheme and accuse the Evangelists either or ignorance or malice or negligence certainly it most evidently follows that every one of them writt the whole Gospell of Christ I meane all the essentiall and necessary parts of it 173. Morover although you pretend to a certainty that S. Luke hath written all necessary Points which you hold only probable for the other three Evangelists yet your reason comes to be the same for all which is that the Evangelists were obliged to write all things necessary or els this which in effect is all one with the former what reasōn can be imagined that they should not write all things necessary and yet set downe many things only profitable For vnless you presuppose this reason which is common to all the Evangelists you haue no ground to affirme that the words of S. Luke all that Jesus began to doe and teach must signify determinately all necessary things as I haue often sayd and so vppon the matter you haue the same reason for all the foure Evangelists which is no more then the same begging of the Question 174. But what need we vse many reasons Our eyes can witness that the Evangelists haue not written all necessary Points of Faith For to omitt that they haue not set downe the matter and forme of Sacraments the forme of Government of the Church the power of inflicting censures and many such Points which cannot be evidently proved out of scripture alone without the assistance of tradition we do not find clearly expressed in S. Matthew the Eternall generation of the Son of God wherwith S. Iohn beginnes his Gospell In the beginning was the word c. S. Mark is silent of the Incarnation of our Lord in the wombe of the B. Virgin by vertue of the Holy Ghost His Birth and all other Mysteryes of his sacred life till his age of thirty yeares S Luke as also S Mark omits the giving power to forgiue sins Ioan. 20. V. 22.23 and Matth. 18. V. 18. which is a chief Article of our Creed I beleeue the remission of sinnes S. Iohn wrote nothing of the Annuntiation Nativity Circumcision Epiphany and Ascension of our Saviour Christ and according to Protestants he speakes not of the Eucharist For they deny that Cap. 6. he speakes of that Sacrament And consequently communion vnder both kinds which they hold to be a Divine precept and therfore necessary to salvation is omitted by him as also our Lords prayer All of them haue omitted in their Gospells that which is expressed Act. 2. about the sending of the Holy Ghost and the Decrees of the Councell of the Apostles Act. 15. wherin amongst other things they declare that it was not necessary to obserue the Mosaicall Law which is a most important and necessary point I haue bene longer in answering this objection as contayning many heads and divers Arguments of the same nature which I thought best not to divide Let vs now see what more you can object 175. Object 3. Pag 93. N. 105. If men cannot vnderstand by scripture enough for their salvation why then doth S. Paul say to Timothy the scriptures are able to make him wise vnto salvation 376. Answer First It is not sayd the scriptures alone are able to make one wise to salvation And if you had dealt honestly and not conceald what went before and after it would haue been cleare that S. Paul speakes not of scripture alone and of what scripture he speakes and how scripture may instruct to salvation which points being well considered it will appeare that this Text is so farr from proving what you intend that it makes against you S. Paul V 14. and 15. saith Tu vero permane c. But thou continue in those things which thou hast learned and are committed to thee knowing of whom thou hast learned and because from thy infancy thou hast knowen the holy scriptures which can instruct thee to salvation by the Faith that is in Christ Iesus In which words S. Paul speakes of things which Timothy had learned of him though out of humility ād modesty he concealed his owne name as
the same tyme in thâ— same circumstances necessary to be belieyed Out of which words it followeth that seing one can at no tyme disbelieue or dissent from that for which he hath the same reason in vertue wherof he belieues another thing he must necessarily belieue it according to your doctrine Secondly If we belieue a thing meerly for some humane or naturall Reason you will not I belieue be able to shew that we are obliged to belieue any one thing and are not obliged to belieue another for which we haue the same reason For if the command be only this that reason obliges vs to belieue that which in reason deserves belief the reasons being equall the necessity of believing must be equall But if the command of believing be supernaturall or some Positiue Divine Precept then this must be notifyed to vs by revelation and so there will not be the same reason for both but as different as is between humane reason and divine revelation and therfore Thirdly If I haue the same reason of divine revelation to belieue both there is alwayes an equall necessity for the belief of those things for the belief wherof there is that equall reason of divine reuelation and so your subtilty That there is not alwayes an equall necessity for the belief of those things for the belief wherof c is against reason against yourself aÌ„d against all divinity 11. I haue no tyme to loose in examining your saying If any man should doubt or disbelieue that there was such a man as Henry the eight king of England it were most vnreasonably done of him yet it were no mortall sin nor sin at all God having no where commanded men vnderpayne of damnation to belieue all which reason induceth them to belieue Yet perhaps some wold aske whether you suppose that he who in the example you giue so doubts or disbelieves doth it vincibly or invincibly If invincibly then in him it is not vnreasonable because he in such circumstances could judg no otherwise and so in him it is reasonable For it falls out often that a true judgment may be imprudent and vnreasonable if it be framed lightly and for insufficient reasons and contrarily one may judge amisse for the materiall truth in it self and yet judg prudently if he be moved by probable reasons and so a true judgment may be rash and a false one prudent But if he who so doubts be supposed to erre vincibly you will not easily excuse him from all fault for example of pertinacy and obstinacy of judgment against all wise men or precipitation or imprudency or at least from an idle thought in his extravagant vnreasonable false and foolish belief which surely can be of no solid profit for himself or others or for the glory of God and you know our B. Saviour hath revealed that every idle word is a sin But whatsoever be sayd of your Doctrine taken in generall that God hath no where commanded men to belieue all which reason induceth them to belieue yet I leaue it to be considered whethert he particular example which you giue may not seeme in it self to imply somthing of the dangerous for if it be no sin at all to belieue that there was never any such man as Henry the eight and I suppose you will say the same of other like examples of Kings Princes Commonwealths and Magistrats some perhaps will infer That if your Doctrine were true it could be no sin at all to belieue that they had no lawfull Successours seing no body can succeed to a Chimera or to a No-Body or a Non-Entity as you say King Henry may be without sin believed to haue bene 12 But at least your frends will thinke you haue spoken subtilly and to the purpose in your other reason or example That as an Executor that should performe the whole will of the dead should fully satisfy the law though he did not belieue that Parchment to be his written will which indeed is so So I belieue that he who believes all the particular doctrines which integrate Christianity aÌ„d lives according to theÌ„ should be saved though he neither believed nor knew that the Gospels were written by the Evangelists nor the Epistles by the Apostles Yet in this also you either erre against truth or overthrow your owne maine cause For if such an Executor did not belieue that Parchment to be the dead mans written will and had no other sufficient ground to belieue the contents to be his will he should neither satisfy the law which gives him no power but in vertue of the dead mans will nor his owne conscience but should vsurpe the office without any Authority and expose himself to danger of committing great injustice by disposing the goods of the dead against his meaning and depriving of their right those to whom for ought he knowes they were bequeathed by the true will of the party deceased Now apply this your case to our present Question and the result will be that seing according to Protestants de facto we know the contents of Scripture and the Will and Commands of God delivered therin only by Scripture it selfe aÌ„d by no other meanes of Tradition or declaration of the Church if one be not obliged to belieue the Scripture he cannot be obliged to belieue all or any of the particular doctrines which integrate Christianity nor can judge himself obliged to liue according to them nor can any man without injury depriue men of the liberty which they possess by imposing vpon their consciences such an obligation 13. And here I must not omitt your saying that a man may be saued though he should not know or not belâ—â—ue the Scripture to be a Rule of Faith no nor to be the word of God Where you distinguish between being a Rule of Faith and being the word of God wheras it is cleare that nothing caÌ„ be a Rule of ChristiaÌ„ Faith except it be the word of God because Christian Faith as I sayd hath for its Formall Object the Divine RevelatioÌ„ or word of God aÌ„d nothing which is not such caÌ„ be a Rule of our Faith D. Potter Pag 143. saith The chief Principle or ground on which faith rests and for which it formally assents vnto those truths which the Church propounds is Divine Revelation made in the Scripture Nothing less then this nothing but thâ—s caÌ„ erect or qualify an act of supernaturall faith which must be absolutely vndoubted and certaine In which words although he erre against truth in saying that the Divine Revelation on which Faith must rest must be made in scripture seing Gods word or Revelation is the same whether it be written or vnwritten yet even in that errour he shewes himself to be against your errour that one may belieue or reject scripture in which alone divine revelation is made according to him aÌ„d so take away scriptures or the belief of them all Revelations and Faith must be taken away and he declares
also transmitted to posterity by being recorded by S. Luke whom you alledg and so if your false assertion were true we are as sure that they held an errour as that they delivered any truth because we belieue both by the same Authority of scripture yea according to your doctrine related aboue we are not obliged to belieue that scripture it self is the word of God and yet are bound to belieue the truths delivered therin one of which you affirme to be that the Apostles did erre and therfor we must belieue that they erred and yet may deny the Authority of scripture which relates that errour God I say cannot in his Holy Providence be contrary to himself and oblige vs to belieue with certainty the writing of those whom we belieue to haue erred and yet for whose Infallibility we belieue those very writings to be infallible For the Apostles were not infallible because they wrote Scripture but we belieue Scripture to be infallible because it was written by the Apostles who by Divine Meanes even before they wrote any Scripture immediate proved themselves to be infallible and worthy of all credit and so mediate those same Meanes proved their writings to be Divine and infallible We could not belieue any Booke to be Canonicall if we did thinke it delivered any one point contrary to some other Part of the Scripture and how can we certainly belieue the Apostles in other Matters of Faith if we once yeld them to haue erred and contradicted truth in any one 32. The second condition required by you for assuring vs that the Doctrine of the Apostles was neither false nor vncertaine is that it be delivered by them as a certaine Divine Truth This also is a source of vncertaintyes For Scripture is not wont to declare expressly or as I may say in actu signato whether the Writers therof intended to deliver this or that as a certaine Divine Truth and though they had done so yet if their infallibility be not Vniversall we could not believe them with certainty in that Declaration And if their infallibility be Vniversall we must belieue them though they vse no such expression of a certaine Divine Truth Hitherto it hath bene believed that Scripture is the word of God and that all the Verityes contained in it though otherwise they be but naturall truths are revealed or testifyed by God and by that Meanes growe to be both certaine and Divine as invested with the supernaturall Divine Testimony Now if some things be delivered in Scripture as certaine Divine Truths others not you make Scripture an Aggregate of different kinds of Truths without being able to giue any infallible certaine generall Rule and not only some probable conjecture of your owne to know positively and certainly when the Scripture speakes of one kind and when of another which yet in your grounds is necessary for giving vs assurance whether the Doctrine of the Apostles be entirely true and in no part false or vncertaine For if that condition of delivering a certaine Divine Truth do not subsist we haue not a sufficient ground to exercise an act of Diuine Faith and so we cannot be obliged to believe the contents of Scripture 33. The third condition which you require for our assurance that the Doctrine of the Apostles be entirely true is that it haue the attestation of Divine Miracles which either discredits the writings of the Apostles and most of the Uerityes contayned in them or els confutes your onwe Doctrine that the Apostles might erre in Matters belonging to Religion For if you meane that every particular Truth which they preached must be confirmed by Miracles you disoblige men from believing innumerable Points of Scripture for which we haue no proofe that they were so particularly confirmed yea we haue no proofe from Scripture that the Apostles did ever directly and immediately confirme by Miracles that it is the word of God and yet vpon this ground all the pretended Religion of Protestants that is the whole Bible and Truths conteyned therin depends If your meaning be only that it was sufficient for the belief of every particular Truth which the Apostles spoke or wrote that by Miracles Sanctity of life and other vndoubted arguments they approoved themselves as it were in generall that they were worthy of credit in all Matters belonging to Religion then you cannot maintayne that S. Peter who wrought many Miracles to proue himself a man sent from ād approved by God did erre in that particular mayne article about preaching the Gospell to Gentils or if he could erre in that we cannot believe his words or writing in many other Points not confirmed in particular by Miracles The same I say of the other Apostles Preachers and Canonicall Writers Lastly I confute these your errours by your owne words Pag. 290. N. 88. To speak properly not any set knowne company of men is secured that though they neglect the meanes of avoiding error yet certainly they shall not erre which were necessary for the constitution of an infallible guide of Faith But you say Pag. 114. N. 155. The Apostles persons while they were living were the only Iudges of controversies And Pag. 60. N. 17. That none is fit to be judge but he that is infallible Therfore according to you we must inferr that the Apostles were secured not to erre though they were supposed to neglect the meanes of avoiding error and consequently they neither did nor could erre by inadvertence or prejudice or by any neglect of the meanes to avoide error Beside Pag. 146. N. 34. you say The Apostles were led into all Truths by the Spirit efficaciter The Church is led also into all truths by the Apostles writings sufficienter How then could the Apostles actually fall into any error seing they were efficaciter led into all truths And yet againe you contradict yourself and say Pag 177. N. 77. Ye are the salt of the earth said our Saviour to his Disciples not that this quality was inseparable from their Persons but because it was theyr office to be so For if they must haue been so of necessity and could not haue been otherwise in vain had he put them in feare of that which followes if the salt haue lost his Savour c. If this be so what certainty can we haue that de facto the Apostles did not erre seing they may erre 34. Your Objection is easily answered S. Peter himself never doubted whether the Gospell were to be preached to the Gentils Neither can any such thing be proved out of the 11. and 12. of the acts as you pretend Pag. 137. N. 21. The Vision recorded in those Chapters as exhibited to S. Peter was ordayned to the satisfaction not of all Christians but of converted Jewes who were offended with him for conversing with Gentiles as is evident Chap. 11. V. 2.3 They that were of the Circumcision that is Jewes made Christians reasoned against him saying why didst thou enter into men vncircumcised
our Saviours express warrant and injunction to goe and preach to all Nations Christ then according to you did not depriue the Apostles of freewill though he proposed externally the Object and gaue them sufficient Grace to performe his will For if he had mooved them to Truth by way of necessity they could not haue erred If you grant this what will follow but that as the Church so the Apostles might deviate from that which God declared and commanded and consequently either belieue amiss or not set downe faithfully in writing what they believed Which is also confirmed by what you write P. 86. N. 93. If it were true that God had promised to assist you for the delivering of true Scripture would this oblige Him or would it follow from hence that he had obliged himself to teach you not only sufficiently but effectually and irresistibly the true sense of scripture And a little after God is not lavish in superfluityes and therfor having given vs meanes sufficient for our direction and power sufficient to make vse of these meanes he will not constraine or necessitate vs to make vs of these meanes For that were to crosse the end of our Creation which was to be glorifyed by our free Obedience Wheras necessity and freedom connot stand togeather And afterward If God should worke in vs by an absolute irresistible necessity the Obedience of Faith c he could no more require it of vs as our duty than he can of the sun to shine of the Sea to ebb and flow and of all other creatures to do those things which by meere necessity they must do and cannot choose And Pag 88. N. 96. you say expressly That God cannot necessitate men to belieue aright without taking away their free will in believing and in professing their belief It seemes by these words you hold the Apostles to haue had freewill in believing preaching and writing and that therfor it was in their power to deviate from Gods will and motion and then according to your grounds as the church so also the Apostles might erre Which deduction is also proved by your words Pag 172. N. 71. The spirit of truth may be with a man or Church for ever and teach him all Truth and yet he may fall into some errour even contrary to the truth which is taught him only sufficiently and not irresistibly so that he may learne it if he will not so that he must and shall whether he will or no. Now who can assertaine me that the spirits teaching is not of this nature Or how can you possibly reconcile it with your Doctrine of freewill in believing if it be not of this nature Now if you do not depriue the Apostles of freewill because otherwise God could no more require of them as their duty to belieue preach and write such truths as were inspired by Him than he can of the sun to shine of the sea to ebb and flow c this discourse of yours takes away their infallibility and proves that they might fall into some errour even contrary to the truth which was taught or revealed to them and the contrary assertion cannot possibly be reconciled with their freewill And Pag 87. N. 95. you say If the Holy Ghosts moving the Church be resistible then the Holy Ghost may moue and the Church may not be moved And why do you not say if the Holy Ghosts moving the Apostles to belieue preach and write Scripture be resistible it must in the same manner follow that the Holy Ghost may move and the Apostles may not be moved and so may belieue preach and write errours 64. But this is not all the bitterness you Vent against the church in such manner as it wounds the Apostles no less than the church You say P. 86. N 93. and P. 87. N. 94. If you Church be infallibly directed concerning the true meaning of Scripture why do not your Doctours follow her infallible direction why doth she thus put her candâ—e vnder a bushell and keepe her Talent of interpreting Scripture infallâ—bly thus long wrapt vp in napkins why sets sheenot forth Infallible Commentaryes or Fxpositions vpon all the Bible Is it because this would not be profitable for Christians that Scripture should be interpreted It is blasphemous to say so The scripture itself tells vs all scripture is profitable And the scripture is not so much the words as the sense 65. In answer to this your weake and irreligious discourse I returne the like Demands whether the Apostles were infallibly directed concerning the true meaning or interpretatioÌ„ of scripture as they were for writing it I suppose you will say they were so directed Why then did they put their candle vnder a bushell and keepe their Talent of interpreting Scripture infallibly wrapt vp in napkins Why did they not set forth infallible commentaryes or expositions vpon all the bible Was it because this would not haue bene profitable for Christians that scripture should be interpreted It is blasphemous to say so The Scripture itself tells vs all scripture is profitable And scripture is not so much the words as the sence And when you haue made these Demands against the Apostles you may in like manner ascend higher and aske why divers parts of scripture were so written as they not only need expositions but that no mortall man can vnderstand them When you haue given a satisfactory answer to these Demands the same will answer your Questions concerning the church which being directed by the Holy Ghost will not faile to interpret declare and performe all that is necessary in order to the Eternall salvation of soules and in particular will supply by Tradition or other Meanes what is obscure or is not contayned in Scripture But then you aske againe N. 95. Whether this Direction of the Holy Ghost be resistible by the Church or irresistible I still answer by demanding whether the Motion of the Holy Ghost was resistible by the Apostles or irresistible If irresistible why may we not say the same of the church for those particular Actions of Interpreting Scripture and Deciding controversyes in Religion If resistible then either we are not sure that the Apostles did not deviate from the Motion of the holy Ghost as you inferâ— against the infallibility of the church or els we learne by this example of the Apostles that God may moue resistibly and yet infallibly for attainng that End which by meanes of such a Motion he intends This if you be resolved to deny we must conclude that the Apostles were not infallible in their writings and that we can haue no certainty that Scripture doth not containe errours But whatsoever you thinke the truth is that God wants not power to moue men resistibly and yet infallibly by divers wayes knowen to his infinite Wisdome I would gladly know whether you belieue that God can possibly be sure to make any one a Saint or a repentant sinner or can promise perseverance to the end I
others might yet in himselfe and to himself be infallible but he could not be a Guide to others A man or a church that were invisible so that none could know how to repayre to it for direction could not be an infallible Guide and yet he might be himself infallible This I say is retorted For whosoever is infallible in him selfe is fit to be an infallible Guide to others per se loquendo and in actu primo and needs only that accidētall impediments bee removed as it happeneth in our case the Church being visible and spred over the whole world So that she can be hidden to no body but is furnished with all meanes of communicating her Doctrine to others Yourself and Protestants grant that the Church is a necessary introduction to Faith which she could not be if she were invisible or that none could know how to repayre to her for direction And then Protestants teaching that she is infallible in Fundamentall points it followes that she may be an infallible Guide in such points and in all other according to your owne inference And so I conclude that your difference of the Churches being infallible and an infallible Guide is vanished into nothing But enough of this Let vs now proceed to other Reasons proving the necessity of an infallible Guide 89. I proue the infallibility of the Church by confuting a Reason or similitude much vrged by our Adversaryes That to him who knowes the way a Guide is not necessary And therfore the Scripture being a plaine Rule for all necessary Articles of Faith no living Guide will be necessary 90. But this Argument is many wayes defectiue 1. We retort it Seing it hath bene proved that Scripture alone is not a sufficient Rule a Living Guide must be necessary Certainly if the whole Bible had bene put into severall mens hands without any precedent knowne Tradition Declaration or Ministery of the Church it would haue fallen out that in the most important Mysteryes of Christian Religion which now all are obliged to belieue for example The chiefest Articles of the Creed Sacraments c. scarcely any one would haue agreed with another and much more had it bene impossible for them by the sole evidence of Scripture to joyne in the same Idea or frame of a Church Suppose then the Bible had bene offered to some Vnderstanding Pagan wholy ignorant of Christian Religion and Doctrine do you thinke he would haue bene able to gather from the bare words of Scripture the same meaning or Articles which Christians now belieue by the help of Tradition instruction and preaching I say he would never have fallen vpon the same meaning of the words whether he did belieue them to be true or no as we see Protestants themselves cannot agree Which is a signe that the words only of Scripture do not evidently signify those Mysteryes which Christians belieue them to containe Otherwise every one who vnderstands the words would vnderstand the true sense as ordinarily we vnderstand the meaning of other writings wherin we see men do seldome disagree And the more we consider the force vse and necessity of Tradition the more we shall be constrained to ranke it among those things which are better knowen by wanting than we can apprehend by alwayes enjoying them If men did do things only by the Booke even in mechanicall arts or handy-crafts how different and vnlike works would every one take from the precepts learned only by reading and with how much study and difficulty would that be done and how different would they be both from one another and from those which artificers do now by custome and tradition worke with great ease and vniformity I doubt whether you would trust an apothecary taught only by his booke or pharmacopaeia without any master at all 91. Secondly If one know a way as perfectly as it is capable to be knowen but that indeed it is such as there cannot possibly be given any Rule or Direction how to find or walk in it without danger of errour such a knowledg of such a way would not be sufficient of itself but a guide would be necessary to sind and walke in it without danger Now we haue shewed not only that the Scripture containes not all points necessary to be believed for which therfor we stand in need of a guide but also that there is no certaine infallible Rule how to know certainly the meaning of those truths which it containes which we proved out of Protestants themselves and by the many hard and intricate Rules which they give for that purpose and by their perpetuall and irreconciliable differences which could not happen if they had any such cleare and certaine Rules wherin agreeing they must needs agree among themselves Que sunt eadem vni tertio sunt eadem inter se Therfore beside scripture which you compare to a way there must be a living Judg to guide vs in that way 92. Thirdly You teach That Scripture is a plaine way in this sense that although we cannot either by it or any other Meanes know what points in particulat be Fundamentall yet because all such Truths and many more are evident in Scripture whosoever knowes all that is evident shall besure to know all that is necessary or Fundamentall Now this very Doctrine shewes that Scripture alone cannot be a plaine and sufficient way For to know precisely and certainly all evident places of Scripture is impossible to many and of obligation to none as I declared elswhere and therfore the End which is to know all necessary points and can be attayned by this Meanes alone cannot be of obligation which to affirme is absurd as if one should say points necessary to be knowen are not necessary to be knowen By a Living Guide this difficulty is avoyded we being sure that the Church will not faile to propose in due tyme all that shall be necessary without imposing on mens Consciences heavy and vngrounded burthens 93. Fourthly There is a great and plaine disparity betweene the knowing of a way by our corporall eyes and finding out a Truth by our vnderstanding the eye of our soule Our senses are naturally necessarily and immoveably determined to their objects One who is supposed to know his way perfectly may Voluntarily take an other way but cannot therfore be sayd to mistake his owne It passes not so with our vnderstanding except in some prime principles of Reason evident of themselves In other points which either are elevated above the naturall forces of humane capacity or haue an appearance of being contrary to it or crosse our will or cary with them a repugnance to the naturall dictates and inclinations of flesh and bloud our vnderstanding is apt and ready to mistake or be misled as daily experience teaches and therfore stands in need of some assisting help and Authority believed to be infallible to strengthen and settle it against all encounters and temptations It is your owne Assertion Pag 329. N.
composito as I may say That is vpon supposition that once they be desined he expressly declares as we haue seene that that belongs to the Fundation of Faith whatsoever the Church vniversally holds either in Doctrine or worship When therfore he sayth Princip Doctrin Controv 4. Lib 8. Chap 15. for God as also nature as he is not wanting in things necessary so is he not lavish in superflnityes He speakes not of points of Faith not Fundamentall which being once defined he professes to belong to the Fundation of Faith but in the next precedent words he expressly declares that when he saith the Church is not infallible he vnderstands only that infallibility was not granted to her Propter aut invtiles curiositates explendas aut subtilitates non necessarias investigandas Either for satisfying idle curiosityes or finding out vnnecessary subtiltyes and proves it because God and nature as they are not wanting in things necessary so are they not lavish in superfluityes And therfore Potter did wrong the learned Stapleton alledging those his words as if he had ever dreamed that the Church is not vniversally infallible in all Points of Faith whether the matters of themselves be great or small 96. And you also wrong Charity Maintayned in saying Pag 144. N. 32. That he wrongs Dr. Potter when Part 1. Pag 91. he writes thus Dr. Potter Sect 5. Pag 150. speakes very dangerously toward this purpose of limiting the infallibility of the Apostles and Scripture to necessary Points only as he restraines the Promises made by Christ to his Church where he endeavoureth to proue that the infallibility of the Church is limited to Points Fundamentall because as nature so God is neither defectiue in necessaryes nor lavish in superfluityes Which Reason doth likewise proue that the infallibility of Scripture and of the Apostles must be restrained to points necessary to salvation that so God be not accused as defective in necessaryes or lavish in superfluityes In which words you say Charity Maintayned wrongs Dr. Potter Because it is not he but Dr. Stapleton in him that speakes the words Charity Maintayned cavills at Answer If Charity Maintayned had absolutely assirmed those to be the very words of Dr. Potter the Doctour might blame himself only who having first cited the immediatly precedent words of Dr. Stapleton in a different or cursiue letter declaring that they were Dr. Stapletons and not his owne the words immediatly following for as nature so God is neither defectiue c. he sets downe in the ordinary letter of his Booke both in his first and second Edition 2. Seing Potter accepts and approves those words he must be answerable for all consequences that are truly deduced from them as if they were his owne 3. The truth is Dr. Stapleton brings those words for a purpose not only different but contrary to that for which Dr. Potter alledges them and therfore not Stapleton but Potter must be lyable to all bad consequences which follow out of them For Potter would proue out of them that infallibility was given to the Church not for all but only for Fundamentall points of Faith which we haue seene to be directly contrary to the Doctrine of Stapleton who out of the sayd words proves only that infallibility was not granted for deciding idle curiosityes or vnprofitable subtiltyes And therfor 4. seing the life and essence of words is their signification this being wholy different in those words as they are spoken by Stapleton and vnderstood misapplyed and misalledged by Potter Charity Maintayned did not wrong him but he did wrong Dr. Stapleton in applying the sound and as I may say carcasse of his words against the true meaning and life of them intended and fully declared by Stapleton as you also do wrong Stapleton in approving Potters allegation of those words and Charity Maintayned as if he had wronged Potter Who can deny this to be a good consequence God is neither defectiue in necessaryes nor lavish in superfluityes Therfor he hath not induced the Church with infallibility for deciding of vnprofitable questions which is Stapletons Argument As contrarily this other is of no force God is not lavish in superfluityes Therfore he hath not conferred infallibility vpon his Church for any other Points of Faith and revealed Truths except such as are of themselves necessary to salvation as if all points which are not Fundamentall were curious or vnprofitable matters Which Potter doth inferr directly against the consequence which Stapleton drawes from those very same words affirming that every thing defined by the Church belongs to the Foundation of Faith Besides since Potter alledgeth those words to proue that the promises of our Saviour made to his Church must be restrained to Points Fundamentall least he might seeme lavish in superfluityes Charity Maintayned had reason to inferr that for the same Reason of not being lavish in superfluityes the Doctour might limite the infallibility of the Apostles to necessary and Fundamentall Points Neither is it sufficient for you to say Pag 143. N. 30. that we read in Scripture All Scripture is divinely inspired and therfore All Scripture whether it deliver Fundamentall or not Fundamentall Points is true For Charity Maintayned in this very place and about this very Text of Scripture which you cite out of him and endeavour to answer by way of prevention had confuted this your instance in these words If it be vrged That All Scripture is divinely inspired that it is the word of God c Dr. Potter hath affoarded you a ready answer to say That Scripture is inspired c Only in those parts or parcells wherin it delivereth Fundamentall points Thus Charity Maintayned But you thought safest to dissemble these words And I pray if those vnlimited words concerning the Church that the gates of hell shall not privaile against her Matth 16.18 and that the holy Ghost shall lead her into all truth c which texts are alledged by Potter must be limited to Fundamentall points why may not those other words all scripture is divinely inspired signify only that all scripture is inspired for what belongs to points fundamentall or necessary to salvation as Cha Ma doth vrge in the same place 97. Now then vpon the whole matter it is manifest that the learned Dr. Stapleton teaches neither more nor lesse concerning the Infallibility of the Church than all other Catholikes doe For besides that which we haue sayd already Relect Controv 4. Quest 2. He expressly declares That she is infallible in the Conclusion or Doctrine and definition though it be not necessary that she be Infallible in the Arguments or proofes or manner of teaching Est saith he in ipsa Doctrina infalliblis etsi in forma ratione docendi non ita and therfore he puts no difference between the certainty of her Definitions though the Reasons or proofes which she vse chance to haue of themselves more or less certainty whether they be taken from Scripture or Tradition or otherwise
Fundamentall for the contrary reason that men may be ignorant of them or not belieue them explicitely without sinne and damnation yet so as they cannot without a grievous sin be rejected or denyed whensoever they are sufficiently represented to our vnderstanding as Thruths revealed by God For in that case they grow to be Fundamentall so farr as they cannot be denyed without damnation And in this sense there is no distinction between Fundamentall and not Fundamentall Objects of Faith Which is so evident that Potter Pag 240. sayes It is Fundamentall to a Christians Faith and necessary for his salvation that he belieue all revealed truths of God wherof he may be convinced that they are from God And Pag 212. he teaches that such Points may not be denyed or contradicted without Infidelity This he sayth and this every one must say who vnderstandes the termes For to reject what one believes to be testifyed by God is to thinke that he either deceives or may be deceived 2. But then How comes it to passe that when we object to Protestants that all of them cannot be of the same Church and Faith and consequently cannot all hope to be saved seing it is evident they contradict one another in many Points of Faith wherin one side must deny a revealed Truth which they confess to be damnable how I say come they to answer not that those Points wherin they differ are not sufficiently proposed to all of them as revealed by God and so all of thē may be excused by ignorance which were a poore and vncertaine and as it were a casuall Answer depending on particular circumstances of persons capacityes c for which no generall Rule can be given and they themselves often pretend some of them to erre against Scripture when it is no lesse evident in some not Fundamentall than it is in some Fundamentall Points and so ignorance cannot excuse them but they are wont only to answer that they agree in all Fundamentall Points though they differ in Points not Fundamentall placing the difference not in the different proposition of the Object but in the nature or waight of the Objects or Articles themselves For if they speake of the proposall alone they can put no difference betwixt not Fundamentall and Fundamentall Points seing no man can belieue either kind of those Points till they be sufficiently proposed as Potter Pag 246. expresly sayth Sufficient proposition of revealed Truths is required before a man can be convinced For if they be not propounded to me in respect of me it is all one as if they were not revealed And for want of this he excuses the Apostles who believed not the Resurrection which is a Fundamentall Point of Faith and therfore sufficient proposall is necessary in Fundamentall Articles What then will Protestants finally answer If they disagree in Fundamentall Points they differ in the substance of Faith and in things necessary to salvation If they differ in Points not Fundamentall yet sufficiently proposed they differ also in things which Potter affirmes to be Fundamentall to a Christians Faith and necessary for salvation What then remaynes but that they cannot be of the same substance of Faith howsoever they answer 3. We see then how vaine false disadvantagious and contradictory to Protestants themselves this distinction is as they apply it seing they must say as we haue proved that errour in Points not Fundamentall is against the substance of Faith and destructiue of salvation and yet that it is not such in regard they affirme that all of them may be saved notwithstanding their errours in Points not Fundamentall which they cannot imagine to be possible if an errour in such Points be damnable as we haue heard Potter confesse it to be and you also acknowledg the same in a hundred places of your Booke 4. Yet for the present let vs haue the patience to heare them say that they agree in Fundamentall Points and therfore in the substance of Faith But then every one who desires satisfaction in this matter and hath no minde to be fed or rather fooled with an emptie sound of words in the ayre cannot chuse but instantly demand what those Fundamentall Points are in particular 5. For it cannot be discerned whether all Protestants or a few or any agree with others or the same man at different tymes with himself in Fundamentall Points vnless it be knowen what those Points be What would it availe a sicke person to tell him that there are some infallible remedyes for his disease if you cannot tell him what they are Catholikes haue often and earnestly vpon most just and necessary causes vrged Protestants to exhibite a Catalogue of Fundamentall Points and learned Protestants haue endeavoured to give it but with so great disagreement among themselves and ill successe for their purpose that their paines proved advantagious to vs Catholikes alone and shewed that no such thing could be done as appeares by their disagreeing Catalogues set downe at large and in particular by Cha Ma Part ◠Chap 3. N. 19. yourself Pag 408. N. 35 say Protestants do not agree touching what Points are Fundamentall 6. But in the meane tyme what is your opinion Or how do you defend Protestants and yourself In a very strang manner Either by contradicting them and plainly confessing that no such Catalogue can possibly be given or else by contradicting yourself somtyme saying that one can be given somtimes that it cannot Sure I am you giue vs none though certainly it is a thing very necessary to be done in the way of Protestants Pag 201. N. 19. you teach that to giue a Catalogue of Fundamentalls because to some more is Fundamentall to others lesse to others nothing at all is impossible And Pag 166. N. 59. We know not precisely just how much is Fundamentall And Pag 134. N. 13. that may be Fundamentall and necessary to one which to another is not so Which variety of circumstances makes it impossible to set downe an exact Catalogue of Fundamentalls and proves your request as reasonable as if you should desire vs to make a coate for the moone in all her changes And Pag 23. N. 27. He that will go about to distinguish what was written because it was profitable from what was written because necessary shall find an intricate peece of business of it and almost impossible that he should be certaine he hath done it when he hath done it And then it is apparently vnnecessary to go about it Are you not an excellent Advocate for the Protastants cause Whos 's both sayings and doings or endeavours to set downe a Catalogue of Fundamentall Points you contradict and make good in fact while you giue vs no such Catalogue and affirme in express words that it is not possible for them to do it They endeavoured and could not You both by reason and experience of their fruitless paines will not seeme to endeavour it Their endeavours shewed their judgment of the great importance
a materiall object of our Faith to belieue that Scripture is the word of God and that men are not obliged to receaue it for such yea and that they may reject it This supposed it followes that I am not obliged yea that I cannot belieue the contents of Scripture as divine Truths whether they be Fundamentall or not Fundamentall And therfore by believing all that is evident in Scripture I can in no wise be assured to believe all Fundamentall Truths Besides according to Protestants men can know by Scripture only that there are any such things as Fundamentall Points of Faith as yourself teach Pag 149. N. 37. In these words Protestants ground their belief that such and such things only are Fundamentalls only vpon Scripture and go about to proue their Assertion true only by Scripture Seing therfore you hold that men are not obliged to belieue Scripture it followes that you are not obliged to embrace that meanes by which alone you can attaine the knowledg of Points either Fundamentall or not Fundamentall and consequently de facto the meanes to know all Fundamentall Poynts cannot be to know and belieue all that is evidently contained in Scripture 16. Eightly and chiefly I haue proved that all Points necessary to be belieued are not evidently contained in Scripture and therfore by only believing all that is evident in Scripture a man is not sure to attaine yea he is sure not to attaine the knowledg and belief of all necessary Points But let vs now see what you can object against vs. 17. Object 1. You say Pag 134. N. 13. That As Charity Maintayned Chap 3. N. 19. Being engaged to giue a Catologue of Fundamentalls insteed therof tells vâ— only in generall that all is Fundamentall and not to be disbelieved vnder payne of damnation which the Church hath defined without setting downe a compleat Catalogue of all things which in any Age the Church has defined so in reason we might thinke it enough for Protestants to say in generall that it is sufficient for any mans salvation to belieue that the Scripture is true and containes all things necessary for salvâ—tion and to do his best endeavour to find and belieue the true sense of it without delivering any particular Catalogue of the Fundamentalls of Faith 18. Answer 1. Charity Maintayned was not any way engaged to giue a particular Catalogue of Fundamentall Points as Protestants are for the reasons which I haue given because without it they cannot possibly know whether themselves or their Brethren or any Church at all belieue all Articles necessary to salvation Yet voluntarily Charity Maintayned gaue such a generall Catalogue as could not faile in bringing vs to the knowledg of all particulars in all occasions For this cause he sayd do here deliver a Catalogue wherin are comprised all Pâ—nâ—s by vs taught to be necessary to salvation c Which is most true and puts a manifest difference between you and vs concerning the necessity of every mans being able to giue a distinct Catalogue ofneâ—essary Points For seing we belieue an infallible Living Judg who can and infallibly will propose divine Truths and declare himself in all occasions for what is necessary we are assured that we shall in due tyme be informed of all that is necessary and much more if we be so happy as to submitt to such Information and Instruction If I had one alwayes at hand who would and could yeaÌ„ could not but certainly instruct me what I were to belieue or say or doe were not all these actions in my power no lesse than if I did not depend vpon any such prompter Charity Maintayned had then reason to say that in the Catalogue which he gaue all necessary Points were comprised and this in a way no less easy intelligible and certaine then if we had before our eyes a Catalogue of all particular Points For our soule being disposed by this submission and the Object proposed by such a Guide we shall alwayes find a Catalogue made to our hands by the Goodness of God and Ministery of the Church For the contrary reason of not submitting to any Living Judg of Controversyes Protestants cannot possibly be assured whether or no they belieue all Fundamentall Points which yourself confess cannot be done except by knowing all evident Texts of Scripture to which taske no man can be obliged To say nothing that Scripture containes not all necessary Points nor is sufficient to declare itself Of which considerations I haue spoken hertofore And by this is answered what you object Pag 160 and Pag 161. N. 53. Where you pretend to assigne some generall Catalogues but such as by meanes of them it is impossible to know particulars as we may by that generall one which Charity Maintayned gaue Thus also is answered the Objection which you make Pag 158. N. 51. and Pag 22. N. 27. Where you demand of vs a Catalogue of all the Definitions of the Church For we haue told you that it is sufficient for vs to be most certaine that the Church will not faile to instruct vs of all her Definitions Decrees and whatsoever els is necessary as occasion shall require according to the severall degrees of Articles more or lesse necessary in different Circumstances which Scripture alone cannot do as hath bene demonstrated 19. Object 2. Pag 159. N. 52. You say touching the necessity of Repentance from dead workes and Faith in Christ Iesus the Son of God and Saviour of the World all Protestants agree And therfore we cannot deny but that they agree about all that is simply necessary 20. Answer What Haue we now a Catalogue of All that is simply necessary and yet a Catalogue of necessary or Fundamentall points cannot be given 2. If these be All the Points which are simply necessary why do you so often exclaime against Charity Maintayned for saying that confessedly the Church of Rome believes all that is simply necessary For you grant Pag 34. N. 5. and els where that we belieue those Points 21. 3. I desire you to consider that Fundamentall Points are those which we are bound to belieue actually and expressly and as Potter sayth Pag 243. are so absolutely necessary to all Christians for attaining the End of our Faith that is the salvation of our soules that a Christian may loose himself not only by a positiue erring in them but by a pure ignorance or nescience or not knowing of them Now if one cannot be saved without explicite and actuall knowledg of these Points he cannot haue true Repentance without actuall dereliction of the contrary errours and express belief of such Points in which Ignorance cannot excuse aÌ„d you say Pag 15. N. 29. Errour against a Truth must needs presuppose a nescience of it And that Errour and â—gnorance must be inseparable Therfore whosoever erres in such Points looses himselfe by such an Errour seing even a pure ignorance cannot excuse him and consequently he cannot be saved without actually relinquishing such an
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
whole company hath for essentiall Notes the true preaching of Gods Word and due administration of Sacraments This instance convinces ad hominem and vpon supposition that you will make good your owne inference which indeed is in it selfe of no force in regard that to sin or erre is not assentiall to every part of the Church as preaching of the word is essentiall to every particular and consequently to the whole Church and therfore God may giue his assistance to keepe men from sin and errour as he shall be pleased and having promised that the gates of Hell shall not prevaile against the whole Church and not having made any such generall promise to private persons which neither are nor do represent the whole Church you cannot inferr that the whole Church or a Generall Councell may fall into Errour because every particular private person taken apart may be deceived Your parity also between sin and errour is vnworthy of a Divine Faith externally professed or the exteriour profession of Faith is necessary to constitute one a member of the Church but justifying grace or sanctity or Charity is not Yourselfe grant that Errour in Fundamentall Points destroyes a Church and that every particular person ceases to be a member of the Church by every such errour I hope you will not say the same of every or any grievous sin You grant Pag 274. N. 57. that corruptions in manners yield no just cause to forsake a Church and yet you excuse your leaving the Communion of our Church vpon pretence of corruptions in Her doctrine even in Points not Fundamentall of themselves It appeares then that errours in Faith though not Fundamentall preponderate any or all most grievous corruptions in manners in order to the maintayning or breaking the Communion of the Church Do you not expressly say Pag 255. N. 6. Many members of the Visible Church haue no Charity Which could not happen if Charity were as necessary as Faith to constitute one a member of the Church This is also the Doctrine of other Protestants Field Of the Church Lib 2. Cap 2. saith Entire profession of those supernaturall verityes which God hath revealed in Christ is essentiall to the Church Fulke Joan 14. Not 5. The true Church of Christ can never fall into Heresy It is an impudent slander to say we say so Whitaker Contron 2. Quest 5. Cap 17. The Church cannot hold any hereticall doctrine and yet be a Church mark heere also that the and a are applied to the same Church Dr. Lawd Sect 10. Pag 36. Whatsoever is Fundamentall to Faith is Fundamentall to the Church which is one by vnity of Faith It is then apparent that there is great difference between Faith and charity for as much as concernes the constituting one a member of the Church and the contrary is of dangerous consequence as if by deadly sin every Bishop Prelate Pastour Priest Prince c. must necessarily cease to be members of Christs Church 86. But here I must obserue two things First If entire profession of those supernaturall verityes which God hath revealed in Christ be essentiall to the Church If the true Church cannot fall into Heresy and that it is an impudent slander to affirme that Protestants say so if the Church cannot hold any Hereticall Doctrine and yet be a Church as we haue heard out of Dr. Lawd Whitaker Fulke and Field respectivè it followes that the Church cannot fall into errour against any Truth sufficiently propounded as revealed by God whether it be of itselfe Fundamētall or not because every such errour is Heresy as contrarily we exercise a true Act of Faith by believing a Truth because it is testifyed by God though the thing of itselfe might seeme never so small And Pag 101. N. 127. you speake to this very purpose saying Heresy is nothing but a manifest deviation from and an oppōsition to the Faith And Potter Pag 97. saith The Catholique Church is carefull to ground all her declarations in matters of Faith vpon the Divine Authority of Gods written Word And therfore whosoever willfully opposeth a judgment so well grounded is justly esteemed an Heretik◠not properly because he disobeyes the Church but because he yields not to Scripture sufficiently propounded or cleared vnto him And Pag 250. Where the revealed will or word of God is sufficiently propounded there he that opposeth is convinced of errour and he who is thus convinced is an Heretike And Pag 247. If a man by reading the Scriptures or hearing them read be convinced of the truth of any such Conclusion This is a sufficient proposition to proue him that gain-saieth any such truth to be an Heretike and obstinate opposer of the Faith Field Lib 2. of the Church Cap 3. sayth freedome from Fundament all errour may be found among Heretiks From whence it followes that errour against any Point of Faith though not Fundamentall is Heresy and yourselfe Pag 23. N. 27. say There is as matters now stand as great necessity of believing those Truths of Scripture which are not Fundamentall as those that are If then every errour against any Truth sufficiently propounded as revealed by God be Heresy and that according to Fulke the true Church of Christ can never fall into Heresy and that as Whitaker saith the Church cannot hold any Hereticall doctrine and yet be a Church it followes that either the Church cannot fall into any errour even not Fundamentall and so Protestants are Schismatiks for leaving Her vpon pretence of errours or that it is no impudent slander to say that Protestants say the Church may fall into Heresy as Fulke affirmes it to be seing she may fall into errours against Faith and all such errours are Heresyes Besides seing we haue heard Potter confesse Pag 97. that the Catholique Church is carefull to ground all Her declarations in matters of Faith vpon the Divine Authority of Gods written word how can they avoide the Note of Heresy by opposing Her Declarations or of Schisme by leaving Her Communion By all which it is manifest that Heretiks haue no constancy in their doctrine but are forced to affirme and deny and by perpetuall contradictions overthrow their owne grounds and Assertions Howsoever for our present purpose we haue proved even out of Protestants themselves that your parity between errours against Faith and sins against Charity is repugnant to all Divinity seing externall profession of Faith is necessary to constitute one a member of the Church but Charity is not and chiefly I inferr that the Catholique Church is not subject to any errour though not Fundamentall since it is confessed that shee cannot fall into Heresy and every errour against any revealed Truth is Heresy 87. The second thing I was to obserue breifly is this Charity Maintayned speaking expressly of errours in Faith which are incompatible with the being of a true Church you to disguise the matter aske why errour may not consist with the holyness of this Church as well as many
and salvation Neither can they be accused of any least imprudence in erring if it were possible with the vniversall Church 2. Since she is vnder paine of eternall damnation to be believed in some things wherin consessedly she is indued with infallibility I cannot in wisdome suspect her credit in matters of less moment 3. Since we are obliged not to forsake the Church in Fundamentall Points and that there is no Rule to know precisely what and how many those Fundamentall Points be I cannot without hazard of my soule leaue her in any one Point least perhaps that Proue to be Fundamentall and necessary to salvation 4. That Visible Church even that Church which confessedly cannot erre in Points Fundamentall doth without distinction propound all her desinitions concerning matters of Faith to be believed vnder Anathemas or Curses holding it as a Point necessary to salvation that we belieue she cannot erre wherin if she speake true then to deny any one Point in particular which she defineth or to affirme in generall that she may erre puts a man in state of damnation wheras to belieue her in sch Points as are not necessary to salvation cannot endanger our salvation as likwise to remayne in her communion can bring no great harme because she cannot maintayne any damnable errour or practise but to be divided from her she being Christs Catholique Church is most certainly damnable 5. The true Church being in lawfull and certaine possession of Superiority and Power to command and require obedience from all Christians in some things I cannot without grievous sin withdraw my obedience in any one vnless I know evidently that the thing commanded comes not within the compasse of those things to which her Power extendeth And who can better informe me how far Gods Church can proceed then Gods Church herselfe Or to what Doctour can the children and Schollers with greater reason and security fly for direction than to the Mother and appointed Teacher of all Christians In following her I shall sooner be excused than in cleaving to any particular Sect or Person or applying Scriptures against Her Doctrine or interpretation 6. The fearfull examples of innumerable Persons who forsaking the Church vpon pretence of her errours haue fayled even in Fundamentall Points and suffered shipwrack of their salvation ought to deterr all Christians from opposing her in any Doctrine or practise As to omit other both ancient and moderne heresyes we see that divers chiefe Protestants pretending to reforme the corruptions of the Church are come to affirme that for many Ages shee erred to death and wholy perished which Dr. Potter cannot deny to be a Fundamentall errour against that Article of our Creed I belieue the Catholike Church as he affirmeth it of the Donatists because they confined the vniversall Church within Africa or some other small tract of soile Least therfore I may fall into some Fundamentall errour it is most safe for me to believe all the decrees of the Church which cannot erre Fundamentally especially if we add that according to the Doctrine of Catholique Divines One errour in Faith whether it be for the matter itselfe great or small destroyes Faith and consequently to accuse the Church of any one errour is to affirme that she lost all Faith and erred damnably which very saying is damnable because it leaves Christ no Visible Church on earth 125. These are the reasons of Charity Maintayned in the sayd N. 20. which I wish you had set downe as you found them that the Reader might haue judged how much they ought to weigh with every one who hath a serious care to saue his soule Sure I am they are growne stronger by your Objections as will appeare to any indifferent Reader 126. Your chiefest and as I may call it Fundamentall Answer is That I begg the Question in supposing that any Church of one denomination is infallible in Fundamentall Points and that Protestants when they say the Church is infallible in fundamentall Points vnderstand only That there shall be alwayes a Church to the very being wherof it is repugnant that it should erre in Fundamentalls But I haue shewed hertofore that you wrong even your pretended Brethren the Protestants in fastening on them so ridiculous an interpretation of the Churches infallibility in Fundamentall Points and therfore I must still insist vppon that ground in the sense which Protestants grant and which I haue proved to be true Which truth being supposed yourselfe are forced to favour vs so farr as to say Pag 163. N. 55. We never annexed this Priviledge of not erring in Fundamentalls to any one Church of any one Denomination as the Greeke or the Roman Church which if we had done and set vp some setled certaine Society of Christians distinguishable from all others by adhering to such a Bishop for our guide in Fundamentalls then indeed and then only might you with some colour though with no certainty haue concluded that we could not in wisdome forsake this Church in any Point for feare of forsaking it in a necessary Point And in the next N. 56. you say First we confesse no such thing thas the Church of Rome was then this Church vnerring in Fundamentalls when Luther arose but only a Part of it Secondly that if by adhering to the Church we could haue beene thus far secured this argumēt had some shew of Reason And P 150. N. 39. If the Church were an infallible director in Fundamentall thē must we not only learne Fundamētalls of her but also learne of her what is Fundamentall and take all for Fundamentall which she delivers to be such In the performance wherof if I knew any one Church to he Infallible I would quickly be of that Church Eternally be Gods Infinite Goodness blessed who hath made vs Catholikes members of that infallible Church But in the meane tyme you grant as much as will serue to overthrow all your owne Arguments in granting that if the Church be infallible in Fundamentall Points we haue all reason not to forsake Her And you giue that very Reason which is alledged by Charity Maintayned to wit for feare of forsaking it in a necessary point so that you make good both his Assertion and reason therof and further you are ready to seale your Doctrine with your practise by being quickly of that Church Heere I beseech you remember your owne words Pag 280. N. 95. May not a man of judgment continue in the Communion of a Church confessedly corrupted as well as in a Church supposed to be corrupted And then suppose such a Church should erre in Points not Fundamentall what would you doe The same reason of not erring in Fundamentalls for which you would quickly joyne yourselfe to her would also oblige you nor to forsake her and then you must find some Answer to all those Objections which you make against the Reasons of Charity Maintayned alledged by him to proue that if once I belieue the Church to be infallible in
Protestants teach that the Roman Church doth not erre in any Point Fundamentall or necessary to salvation and this you say diverse tymes is not true 147. Answer I will not say as you Pag. 76. N. 63. speake to Charity Maintayned I feare you will repent the tyme that ever you vrged this Point against Charity Maintayned but contrarily I hope that the Reader if he be not a Protestant will find just occasion to prayse God that the Answer to this your Objection will demonstrate to him in how safe a way we Catholikes are even by the confession of our Adversaryes and how much it imports him to place his soule in the like safety 148. I haue already vpon severall occasions mentioned some passages wherin you and Dr. Potter confesse that the Roman Church wants nothing necessary to salvation Now I will doe it more at large Potter Pag 63. saith The most necessary and fundamentall Truths which constitute a Church are on both sides vnquestioned And for that reason learned Protestants yield them Romanisis as he calls vs the name and substance of a Christian Church Where we see that he saith in generall learued Protestants yield them c. In proofe wherof he cites in his margent Junius D. Reinolds and sayes See the juagment of many other writers in the Advertisement annexed to the Old Religion by the Reverend Bishop of Exeter and adds The very Anabaotists grant it Fr. Ichnson in his Christian plea Pa 123. So that with this one Testimony of Potter we haue many other even of our greatest Adversaryes And I desire the reader to obserue well that here P 62 he saith To those twelue Articles which the Apostles in their Creed esteâ—med a sufficient Summary of wholsome Doctrine they Catholikes haue added many more Such are for instance their Apocryphall Scriptures and vnwrâ—ten dogmaticall Traditions their Transsubstantiation and dry Communion their Purgatory Invocation of Saints Worship of Images Latine service trafficke of Indulgences and shortly the other new Doctrines and Decrees canonized in their late Synode of Trent Vpon these and the like new Articles is all the contestation between the Romanists and Protestants And then he adds the words which we haue cited The most necessary and Fundamentall truths which constatute a Church are on both sides vnquestioned and for that c. Where we see he grants we belieue the twelue Articles of the Apostles Creed which he teaches at large to containe all Fundamentall Points of Faith and that we hold all the most necessary and Fundamentall truths which constitute a Church Therfore those Points of our Doctrine which he giues for instance are no Fundementall errours nor the contrary Articles necessary and Fundamentall truths and yet he names all the Chiefest Points controverted betweene vs and Protestants even transubstantiation Communion in one kind and Latine Service which are the things they are wont most to oppose yea he comprises all the Doctrines and Decrees of the Councell of Trent Therfore we are free from fundamentall errours by the confession of our Adversaryes Pag 59. The Protestants never intended to erect a new Church but to purge the Old The Reformation did not change the substance of Religion but only clensed it from corrupt and impure qualityes If the Protestants erected not a new Church then ours is still the Old Church and if it were only clensed from corrupt qualityes without change of the substance the substance must be still the same that it was and that which was must be the same with that which is Pag 61. The things which the Protestants belieue on their part and wherin they judge the life and substance of Religion to be comprized are most if not all of them so evidently and indisputably true that their Adversaryes themselves do avow and receaue them as well as they Therfore we Catolikes haue the life and substance of Religion Pag 60. In the prime grounds of Principles or Christian Religion wee haue not forsaken the Church of Rome Therfore you grant that we haue the prime grounds or Fundamentall Articles of Religion Pag 11. For those Catholique Verityes which she the Roman Church retaines we yield her a member of the Catholike though one of the most vnsound and corrupt members In this sense the Romanists may be called Catholikes Behold we are members of the Catholike Church which could not be if we erred in any one fundamentall Point By the way If the Romanists may be called Catholikes why may not the Roman Church be termed Catholique And yet this is that Argument which Protestants are wont to vrge against vs and Potter in particular in this very place not considering that he impugnes himselfe while he speakes against vs nor distinguishing between vniversall as Logicians speake of it which signifyes one common thing abstracting or abstracted from all particulars and Catholique as it is taken in true Divinity for the Church spred over the whole world that is all Churches which agree with the Roman and vpon that vaine conceit telling his vnlearned Reader that vniversall and particular are termes repugnant and consequently one cannot be affirmed of the other that is say I Catholique cannot be affirmed of Dr. Potter nor Dr. Potter sayd to be a Catholike because a particular cannot be sayd to be vniversall or an vniversall Pag 75. To depart from the Church of RomeÌ„ in some doctrines and practises there might be just and necessary cause though the Church of Rome wanted nothing necessary to salvation P 70. They the Roman Doctours confess that setting aside all matters controverted the maine positiue truths wherin all agree are abundantly sufficient to every good Christian both for his knowledge and for his practise teaching him what to belieue and how to liue so as he may be saved His saying that the Roman Doctours confesse that setting a side all matters controverted c. is very vntrue it being manifest that Catholikes belieue Protestants to erre damnably both in matters of Faith and practise yet his words convince ad hominem that we haue all that is necessary yea and abundantly sufficient both for knowledg and practise for vs to be saved And then he discoursing of the Doctrines wherin we differ from Protestants saith Pag 74. If the mistaker will suppose his Roman Church and Religion purged from these and the like confessed excesses and noveltyes he shall find in that which remaines little difference of importance betweene vs. Therfore de facto we belieue all things of importance which Protestants belieue After these words without any interruption he goes forward and sayes Pag 75. But by this discourse the Mistaker happily may belieue his cause to be advantaged and may reply If Rome want nothing essentiall to Religion or to a Church how then can the Reformers justify their separation from that Church or free themselves from damnable Schisme Doth not this discourse proue and the Objection which he rayses from it suppose that we want nothing essentiall to Religion Otherwise
our freeing you from damnable Heresy and yielding you salvation neither Dr. Potter nor any other Protestant is guilty of it Seing you say that By the confession of both sides we agree in much more than is simply and indispensably necessary to salvation If we belieue much more then is necessary to salvation by what Logicke will you deduce that we belieue not as much as is necessary 150. These so many and so cleare words of Dr. Potter and yourselfe may justly make any man wonder with what pretence of truth or modesty you could say Pag 280. N. 95. As for your pretence that your errours are confessed not to be Fundamentall it is an affected mistake as I haue often told you And Pag 308. 108. As for your obtruding vpon vs that we belieue the Points of difference not Fundamentall or necessary you haue been often told it is a calumny The oftner the worse it being a saying voyd of all truth and a shamefull calumny in you 151. To these testimonyes of Potter and Chillingworth many other might be allelged out of other Protestants as we haue seene diverse other alledged by Potter Dr. Lawd Pag 299 saith I do aknowledge a Possibility of salvation in the Roman Church But so as that which I grant to Romanists is not as they are Romanists but as they are Christians that is as they beleeve the Creed and hold the foundation Christ himselfe Behold not only a possibility of saluation but also the reason therof because we belieue the Creed c which is the very reason for which Protestants hold that they themselues may be saved though they differ in many Points from one another This I say is the reason of Dr. Lawd which other Protestants must approue though in true Divinity it be of no force at all for though one belieue the Creed and hold the foundation Christ himselfe that is that he is God and Saviour of the world yet if he deny any point evidently delivered in Scripture or otherwise sufficiently propounded as revealed by God he cannot be saved even according to Protestants who therfore doe in this as in many other things speake inconsequently and contradict themselves Pag 376. he sayth The Religion of the Protestants and the Romanists Religion is the same nor do the Church of Rome and the Protestants set vp a different Religion for the Christian ReligioÌ„ is the same to both but they differ in the same Religion Therfore say I we hold no Fundamentall errours wherin whosoever differ cannot be of the same but must be of a different Religion And Pag. 129. The Protestants haue not left the Church of Rome in her Essence not in the things which constitute a Church And P 282. he saith The possibility of salvation in the Roman Church I thinke cannot be denyed aÌ„d in proofe hereof P 281. he alledges Luther Field Jos Hall Geo Abbot Hooker Mornaeus Prideaux Calvin And Dr. Jer Taylor in his Liberty of Prophecying Pag 251. Sect â—0 teaches that we keepe the foundation and belieue many more truths than can be proved to be of simple and originall necessity to Salvation And therfore all the wisest Personages of the adverse party allowed to them possibility of Salvation whilst their errours are not faults of their will but weaknesses and deceptions of the vnderstanding which as I sayd may easily be believed of vs Catholikes who suffer so much for our Religion so that there is nothing in the foundation of Faith that can reasonably hinder them to be permitted The foundation of Faith stands secure enough for all their vaine and vnhandsome superstructures And in particular he shewes that Prayer for the dead and the Doctrine of transubstantiation are not Fundamentall errours and also saieth these two be in stead of the rest Yea he affirmes Pag 258. that there is implied as great difficulty in the Mystery of the B. Trinity as in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and shewes that we are not in any danger of sinning by idolatry in adoring the Sacrament For further satisfaction in this matter the Reader will find the words of learned Protestants in Brierley Tract 2. Sect 14. As That we are of the Church That we are of the family of Iesus Christ a part of the house of God That it was evill done of them who first vrged a separation That we are the Church of God That the Catholike and Reformed make not two but one same Religion agreeing in all principall points of Religion necessary for Salvation That Catholikes and Hugonots are of one Faith and Religion That they are Domestikâ— of Faith and branches of the same viâ—e And Tract 1. Sect 6. Subdiv 1. That Those who live and dy in the Church of Rome may notwithstanding be saved and they are charged by very learned Protestants of ignorance and absurdity who are of the contrary opinion 132. I hope now it appeares that even in the judgment of learned Protestants Catholikes do not erre in points Fundamentall or necessary to salvation and therfore that Luther could not be excused from Schisme in dividing himselfe from all Churches for matters which do not exclude vs from eternall happynesse especially seing they who forsooke vs maintayne errours at least not Fundamentall as Potter Pag 67. plainly confesses and appeares manifestly by the disagreement of Protestants amongst themselves and the agreement of diverse of them with vs even in diverse of those points in which Luther pretended the Church to be corrupted as appeares by what we haue demonstrated heretofore Yet to leaue nothing vntouched I will goe forward not so much because indeed there remaines any Objection of moment against vs as to take away all pretence of cavills as also to take occasion of delivering some Considerations of importance against our Adversaryes 153. Object 15. Although the errours of the Roman Church be not fundamentall in themselves yet they are against Gods Revelation and Command not to deny any least truth testifyed by that supreme Uerity and consequently such errours are damnable and for which the Roman Church might be forsaken 154. Answer First This Objection is not only against the whole Church of Christ which you pretend to haue been corrupted with such errours but also against the Reformers therof seing of Protestants holding contradictoryes some de facto must be in errour wherof Grotius Rivetiani Apologetici Discu P 15. saith Protestantium Confessiones in multis rebus ita dissident vt conciliari nullo modo possint Uidentur autem Genevenses cum Harmoniam Confessionum edidere ita credidisse Harmoniam esse dissidentes Confessiones in vnum Uolumen compingere The Confessions of Faith of Protestants do so disagree that it is impossible they can be reconciled It seemes that they of Geneua when they sett forth the Harmonie of Confessions were of opinion that the Harmonie or agreement of Confessions did consist only in bindeing vp in one Uolume disagreeing Confessions Nay Protestants do further teach that it cannot be otherwise
vpon prudent reasons and extrinsecall considerations which not to be wanting in our case appeares by reflecting That for the points controverted we haue the judgment and Authority of the Churches existent when Luther appeared that is of the vniversall Catholique Church if God had any Church on Earth as you grant he alwayes had And even yourselfe speaking of Councells say Pag 200. N. 18. I willingly confess the judgment of a Councell though not infallible is yet so farr directiue and obliging that without apparent reason to the contrary it may be sin to reject it at least not to affoard it an outward submission for publike peace-sake Potter also Pag 165. Speaks fully in these words We say that such Generall Councells as are lawfully called and proceed orderly are great and awfull representations of the Church Catholique that they are the highest externall Tribunall which the Church hath on earth that their Authority is immediatly derived and delegated from Christ that no Christian is exempted from their censures and jurisdiction that their decrees bind all persons to externall Obedience and may not be questioned but vpon evident reason nor reversed but by an equall Authority that if they be carefull and diligent in the vse of all good meanes for finding out the truth it is very probable the good Spirit will so direct them that they shall not erre at least not Fundamentally Behold Councells are not only directiue but obliging they cannot be rejected Their Decrees bind to externall Obedience and may not so much as be questioned but vpon apparent and evident reason nor reversed but by an equall Authority if they be carefull and deligent in the vse of all good meanes for finding the truth it is very probable the good Spirit will so direct them that they shall not erre at least Fundamentally that their Authority is immediatly derived and delegated from Christ 161. Here it is reason I make a pause and obserue some points out of our very Adversaryes First The vniversall Church according to Potter and other chiefe Protestants is infallible in fundamentall points and even according to â—hillingworth is infallible as long as she exists which he saith hath been from the beginning and shall last to the worlds end and so de facto she is infallible that is he is as sure that she shall not erre in any fundamentall point as he is sure that Christ shall alwaies haue a Church on earth which ought to be a great inducement not to reject her Authority without evident reason Yea seing he holds Councells to be fallible in fundamentall points aÌ„d yet that they oblige men to an outward submission much more he should say so of the Church which is confessed to be infallible in all Fundamentalls 162. Secondly seing Potter Chilling and Dr. Lawd whom I cited aboue teach that we are bound vnder sin to affoard outward obedience to Generall Councells and that we cannot do this in matters of Faith vnless we belieue as we professe we must belieue them to be infallible in all things least either we sin against Obedience due to them or against our Conscience professe what we do not belieue 163. Thirdly seing their Authority is immediatly derived and delegated from Christ their right to be obeyed is de jure Divino of which they were in possession when Luther arose and therfore it is a grievous sin not to obey them vnless it can be demonstrated with evidence that they teach or command somthing clearly repugnant to the law or word of Christ 164. Fourthly seing their Decrees cannot be questioned but vpon evident reason it followes that the reasons are not first purposely to be sought and then found because people prepossessed by passion haue a mind to breake with the Church as it happens in all Schismatiks and Heretikes but their Arguments must be so pressing and irresistible by ceason of their evidence that the vnderstanding cannot by any meanes of contrary reason or command of the will forbeare to assent which to any judicious man must needs appeare to be a strange and no better than an imaginaty kind of evidence and indeed impossible in objects of Faith which are obscure and exceed the naturall light of all humane reason 165. Fiftly Since they cannot be reversed but by an equall Authority and Dr. Lawd delivers the same Doctrine as we haue seene aboue we are assured that the Decrees of Councells before Luther could not be reversed by Luther or any other private person nor by all Protestants Who never could pretend to haue a Generall Councell and in those Colloquiums or Conferences or particular Synods which they held could never establish any vniversall Vnion among themselves but only declared to the world that they had no possible meanes of Vnion and Concord And indeed who should call such a Generall Councell Or who should preside therin Or if they would haue recourse to secular Princes it would make little to their purpose seing absolute Princes are no more subject one to another than different Sects of Protestants will confesse any mutuall subordination 166. Sixtly Seing if they be carefull in the vse of all good meanes for finding the Truth it is very probable the good spirit will direct them that they shall not erre at least fundamentally they could not be opposed except by reason more than probable but men were to presume that they did not erre Neither should you say if they be carefull c. it is very probable the good spirit will direct them that they shall not erre which may be said of any two or three gathered togeather in Christs name if they be carefull in the vse of all good meanes for finding the truth yea the same may be sayd of every particular person but contrarily seing you confesse them to be derived from Christ and that they are the highest externall Tribunall which the Church hath on Earth and that all are obliged to obey them which none could be in errours against Faith you should say because they cannot erre God will not faile to affoard his effectuall Grace that they be carefull in the vse of all good meanes for finding the truth For accordingly as God hath decreed to bring vs to an End He will not faile to moue vs effectually to apply all those Meanes which on our behalf are necessary for such an End And it were but a most rash vncharitable foolish and false imagination to thinke that Generall Councells before Luther replenished with men of learning sanctity and zeale of the Truth were not carefull in the vâ—â— of all good meanes for finding the Truth and therfore they could not but be assisted by God to find it nor Luther excused from Schisme and Heresy by opposing them and it 167. These things considered it cannot but appeare to any judicious vnpartiall man how impossible it is that any such evidence should offer itselfe against the Faith and decrees of the Church or Generall Councells as can force the
other must be true Indeed Sir I know nor how to reconcile those two sayings of Charity Maintayned because I cannot see how possibly they could ever fall out or be at variance For what disagreement can be imagined in these Propositions Some errours are not Fundamentall as not being repugnant to Fundamentall truths and every Fundamentall errours must haue a contrary Fundamentall truth or rather haue they not a most cleare connexion and parity that as an errour not Fundamentall is opposite only to a truht not fundamentall so a fundamentall errour is opposite to a fundamentall Truth And the reason of this is given by Ch Ma in that very place which you cited because according to Philosophy the privation is measured by the forme to which it is repugnant 172. Thus vpon the whole matter it appeares That your affirming our falsely supposed errours to be damnable and so to yield sufficient cause of deserting our Church is turned against all Protestants who confessedly de facto maintayne damnable errours That although our errours were never so damnable in themselves yet they could not be so to vs who are excused by invincible ignorance That Potter and you contradict yourselves in talking of pardon for that which is no sin and That you overthrow your distinction of errours which you say are damnable but not Fundamentall while in the meane tyme you make all damnable errours to be fundamentall and which for that cause if you will speake with consequence must destroy the vnity of Faith and Church and hope of saluation And therfore seing you grant that there was a Church when Luther arose it followes that indeed she was not guilty of any errour even not Fundamentall and that Luther and his followers were formall Schismatiks in leaving her communion vpon a false and impossible supposition or pretence of errours 173. Object 16. Pag 260. N. 22. you speake thus to Charity Maintayned wheras you say That all Divines define Schisme a Division from the true Church and from thence collect that there must be a knowne Church from which it is poâ—sible for men to deparâ— I might very justly question your Antecedent and dâ—sâ—â—e you to consider whether Schisme be not rather or at least be not as well aâ—d vision of the Church as from it A separation not of a Part from the Wâ—ole but of some Parts from the other And if you liked not this Definition I might desire you to informe me in those many Schismes which haue happened in the Church of Rome which of the Parts was the Church and which was divided from it And Pag 271. N. 51. You define Schisme A causeless separation of one Part of the Church from another 174. Answer I haue already sayd enough against this Definition of yours yet because you add an Objection about Schismes in the Church of Rome and because I shall haue also occasion to add somthing to what I sayd aboue I thinke best to answer this Objection here also though by the same occasion it will cost me the labour of repeating some of those things which I haue already delivered If then 175. You haue no certainty in favour of your new Definition but only say why not rather or at least as well c why are you not content with the old one And then why do you object thâ—t which your selfe must answer for the old one But there lyes a snake vnder this smooth grasse and covertly you reach poyson vnder colour of milke Socinians make small account of the Church and Her Authority and would haue such an equality as might giue freedome for every one to follow his one fancy and begin a new Church and when all is done to say They divided not from the Church but one part from another and they themselves being one Part may as well as the other be called the Church and the other be as truly sayd to be divided from them as they from the Church and in a word all must come to be Substantives and independents in matters of Faith and Religion Thus your definition comes to be well connected with your saying That Luther and his fellowes departed not from the Church because still they remained a part of it and they departed not from themselves Thus also you would avoide that vnanswerable Argument of Charity Maint Part 1. Chap 5. N. 35. That seing there was a Division between Luther and that Church which was visible when he arose and that that Church cannot be sayd to haue divided herselfe from him before whose tyme she was and in comparison of whom she was a Whole and he but a part we must say that he divided himselfe and went out of Her Which is to be a Schismatike or Heretique or both Thus you may taxe S. John 2. Jo 19. saying they went out from vs and aske why rather from vs that is from the Church than that they made a Division of the Church dividing one part from another But indeed your glosse cannot agree to S. Johns text For these words They went out of vs do not only signify that there was a Division but that one part went out of a whole and not the contrary And the same Objection you may make against the Text Act 45.24 Some went out from vs. And Act 20.30 Out of you shall arise men speaking perverse things But as I sayd you may easily be confuted by the same reflection which I made vpon S. Johns words These Texts are vrged by Chaâ—ity Maintayned Part 1. Pag 251. to proue that separation from the vniversall Church is a marke of Heresy which he also proves out of Vincentius saying Lib Adversus Haer Cap 34. Who ever began Heresyes who did not first separate himselfe from the vniversality antiquity and consent of the Catholique Church Obserue that he saith from the vniversality of the Church and not a separation or Division of one part of the Church from another The same he proves out of S. Prosper Dimid temp Cap. 5. a Christian communicating with the vniversall Church is a Catholike and he who is divided from Her is an Heretike and Antichrist Behold still a separation from the Church and not a Division of one part of the Church from another And S Ciprian saith Lib de Vâ—â—t Eccles Not we departed from them but they from vs and since Heresyes and Schismes are bredd afterwards while they make to themselves diverse conventicles they haue forsaken the head and origen of truth Doth not this Saint clearly declare that Heretikes and Schismatiks depart from the Church and gives the reason because they haue their beginning after the Church and so the Church departs not from them but they from the Church which is the Argument even now cited out of Charity Maintayned Chap. 5. N. 35. S. Thomas 22. Quest â—9 Ar. Corp defines Schismatiks to be those who willingly and wittingly divide themselves ab vnitate Ecclesiae from the vnity of the Church S Hierome vpon those words Tit
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
a small than in a great matter as your selfe here affirme expressly that Gods Revelation is an equall Motiue to induce vs to belieue all Objects revealed by him But you say this sense is impertinent which you must giue me leaue to deny For if it be alike damnable to reject Gods testimony whether the matter be in itselfe great or small it followes that whosoever dissents from the least Point sufficiently propounded to be revealed by God sins damnably and is not capable of salvation without repentance so that of two dissenting in an Object knowne to be a divine truth one of them cannot be saved without repentance And it is strang that still you will be altering the state of the Question notwithstanding that Cha Ma expressly declared that we speake of persons to whom the Divine Revelation is sufficiently propounded for such Where now are the false Propositions the disorder of forme the inconsequence of the Conclusion which you so contemptuously objected to Cha ma But chiefly where shall we find in all these your diversions and tergiversations a direct Answer to the discourse of Cha ma that the Essence and vnity or diuersity of Faith is chiefly to be attended in order to the Formall object which is Divine Revelation and not in respect of the matter of Fundamentall or not Fundamentall Points and consequently that it is impossible that when two disagree in matters sufficiently declared to them to be divine truths both can be saved Your N. 25. hath beene answered at large hertofore 27. For the answer which in your N. 26 you giue to the N. 9.10.11 of Ch Ma if the Reader will take the paines to peruse those numbers in Ch Ma he will find that there is a great difference to take things from the Originall itselfe and to receaue them from a Coppy drawne by a partiall hand of an vnsincere Adversary Cha Ma proves the Church Catholique to be vniversally infallible because otherwise she might either propose things contrary to divine Revelation or els propose for a revealed Truth that which is not such which were a damnable sin and Dr. Potter confesses that the Church cannot erre damnably 28. To this you answer that the Church may do these things by Ignorance or mistake and so without damnable sin But this answer is confuted by what hath beene sayd hertofore For if it be evident in Scripture that the Church may erre in some Points she cannot but know that she exposes Herselfe to danger of errour against the divine Testimony and consequently sins damnable vnless she hath evident Scripture for what she proposes which cannot happen when she proposes a falshood If it be not evident in Scripture that she may erre in some Points then you who take Scripture for the sole Rule of Faith cannot be sure that she may erre especially if we reflect that Scripture assures vs as Protestants grant that she is Infallible in some namely in Fundamentall Points and doth not tell vs what those Points in particular be Besides you teach Pag 277. N. 61. that there is promised to the Church not only an assistance not to erre in things absolutely necessary but a farther assistance is conditionally promised even such an Assistance as shall lead vs if we be not wanting to it and ourselves into all not only necessary but very profitable truth and guarde vs from all not only destructiue but also hurtfull errours And therfore to Char Maint saying that a Church not erring in Fundamentalls doth as much as our Saviour exacts at her hands as much as lyes in her power to doe you answer This is manifestly vntrue For Gods assistance is alwayes ready to promote Her farther It is ready I say but on condition the Church does implore it on condit on that when it is offered in the Divine directions of Scripture and reason the Church be not negligent to follow it Which words do not well agree with your answer that the Church may erre by Ignorance or Mistake and so without damnable sin seing on the one side every errour against Divine Revelation is of itselfe a damnable sin and on the other the Church wants not sufficient assistance not to erre and in fact shall be sure not to erre if she be not negligent to follow Gods Assistance when it is offered in the divine directions of Scriptuae and reason and therfore her Errours must needs be culpable as proceeding only from her owne negligence In this very N. 26. which I confute yourselfe assirme that she cannot be excused from headlong and pernicious temerity in proposing Points not Fundamentall to be believed by Christians as matters of Faith if it be vnderstood of such vnfundamentall Points as she is not warranted to propose by euident Text of Scripture Indeed if she propose such as matters of Faith certainly true she may well be questioned quo warranto She builds without a foundation and says Thus saith the Lord whâ—n the Lord doth not say so which cannot be excused froÌ„ rashnesse and high presumption But though she may erre in some pointe not Fundamentall yet may she haue certainty enough in proposing others evidently and vndeniably set downe in Scripture and consequently may be without all rashnesse proposed by the Church as certaine divine revelatioÌ„s These be your words which clearly overthrow your owne Answer For I argue thus If the Church proceed vpon evident Scripture she cannot erre in those things If not she always exposes herselfe to danger of errour for the matter which may proue false and to certaine actuall errour for the manner by proposing as a Point of Faith certainly true which yet is always vncertaine if she in such things may be deceaved as you say she may whensoever she is not warranted by evident Text of Scripture Thus by your owne grounds the Church is either certaine that she errs not as relying vpon evident Scripture or if she haue not such evidence she is certaine that she exposes herselfe and others to errour against Divine Revelation which cannot be excused from a great sin of rashnesse and high presumption And then when will your excuse of ignorance or mistake haue place which cannot happen when she hath evidence of Scripture and will not excuse when she wants such evidence And so there is no meane betweene certainty that she errs not and committing a sin by exposinge Herselfe to a knowne danger of errour against the Divine Revelation 29. By the way I would know how your Doctrine That God hath promised to the Church such an assistance as shall lead vs into all not only necessary but very prositable truth if we be not wanting to it agree with what you say in your Answer to the Direction N. 32. It is not absolutely necessary that God should assist his Church any farther then to bring her to salvation Is it not necessary that God keepe his promise And how do you find fault with Cha. Ma. for saying that if the Church
be sure that they attaine the true sense of Scripture vnless they first know what points in particular be Fundamentall because in other they may erte as they say the Church may Besides it hath bene shewed that in the Principles of Protestants it cannot be convinced that Scripture is infallible except only in fundamentall Points and so men cannot rely on Scripture vnless first they be sure what points be Fundamentall Neither is there the same reason for vnderstanding not the bare words but the sense of Scripture intended by the Holy Ghost as there is for vnderstanding som plain place in Aristotle or conceyving some evident naturall truths which are connaturall to humane reason and are not capable of different senses as the words of Scripture are Which may be proved even by the Examples which you bring as evident as I haue shewed hertofore that they are not so Neither can any Protestants learne them from Scripture alone with such certainty as is necessary to an Act of Faith which according to all good Christians must be infallible and therfore you say only Protestants may be certain enough of the Truth and certainty of one of the places which you alledg as evident but your enough is not enough for the absolute certainty of Divine Faith And therfore Charity Maintayned did you no wrong at all and much less a palpable injury as you speak in saying you cannot with certainty learne of Scripture fundamentall Points of Faith which is manifest by the examples which you say are Truths Fundamentall because they are necessary parts of the Gospell and yet it is evident that Protestents cannot agree about their meaning as I haue demonstrated about these sentences God is and is a rewarder of them that seek him that there is no salvation but by Faith in Christ That by Repentance and Faith in Christ Remission of sinnes may be obtained That there shall be a Resurrection of the Body Which are the Instances which here you giue as Truths both Fundamentall and evident 63. Your N. 51. hath bene answered in severall occasions And all that you say N. 52. is directly nothing to the purpose but passes from objects considered in themselves wherof Protestants confess some to be Fundamentall others not to accidentall circumstances as if Protestants did differ not in Fundamentall points or in assigning a particular Catalogue of them but only in accidentall circumstances of ignorance repentance and the like But of this I haue spoken hertofore as also I haue confuted your similitude about a medicine of twenty ingredients c which therfore I think needless to repeete 64. Your N. 53. I haue answered in diverse places Your N. 54. is nothing but a long digression to which the particular Answer would require a whole Booke or volume directly against the scope of this Work which is only to treate in generall of the Church and Scripture and you know very well that Catholik Writers haue fully answered all your Demands as also you know how many doubts might be proposed to Protestants abovt Scripture which to them is the only rule of Faith if I had a mynd to digrees Your N. 55.56.57.58.59.60.61.62.63.64.65 haue bene answered at large 95. I desire the Reader to peruse the N. 21. of Charity Maintayned and he will finde that you make an argument as his which is nothing like his discourse He saieth not as you N. 66. cited him in these words We may not depart from the Church absolutely and in all things Therfore we may not depart fram it in any thing which you call an Argument à dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid The Argument of Ch. Ma. is Dr. Potter teacheth Pag 75. That there neither was nor can be any just cause to depart from the Church of Christ no more than from Christ himself But if the Church could erre in any points of Faith they may and must forsake her in those and if such errours should fall out to be concerning the Churches Lyturgie Sacraments c. they must leaue her externall Communion which being essentiall to the Church they must divide themselves from her in that which isessentiall to make one a member of the same Church which I hope is more than to argue ad dictum secundum quid For what greater separation can there be from the Church than in that which is essentiall to make one be vnited to her Your saying that a man may leaue the vice of his friend or brother and yet not leaue his friend or brother is impertinent seing vices are not essentiall to men as externall Communion is to make one a member of the Church 66. You object what Dr. Potter saieth of the Catholique Church P. 75. he extends presently after to euery true though never so corrupted part of it And why do you not conclude from hence that no particular Church according to his judgement can fall into any ertour and call this a demonstration too 67. Answer If the Doctour will not contradict himself according to his judgment the Catholique Church cannot fall into errour against any Truth necessary to salvation as a particular Church may and therefore this may but that can never be forsaken or if he will affirme that no particular Church can be forsaken he must say that no such Church can erre in any point necessary to salvation For if she did so erre her Communion must be forsaken and I haue shewed externall Communion to be essentiall to the members of the Church Whereby is answered your N. 67. where you grant that we may not cease to be of the Church nor forsake it absolutely and totally no more than Christ himselfe Since therefore they absolutely forsake the Church who disagree from Her in profession of Faith and divide themselves from her externall Communion you must grant that they can no more doe so than they can divide themselves from Christ I know not to what purpose or vpon what occasion you say to Ch Ma In other places you confes his doctrine to be that even the Catholique Church may erre in Points not fundamentall which you do not pretend that he ever imputed to Christ himself 68. Your manner of alledging the words of Charity Maintayned in your N. 68. gives me still occasion to wish you had alledged them as you found them You make Charity Maintayned speak thus Dr. Potter either contradicts himself or els must grant the Church infallible because he saies if we did not differ from the Roman we could not agree with the Catholique which saying supposes the Catholique Church cannot erre And then you say with your vsuall modesty This Argument to giue it the right name is an obscure and intriate nothing I confess that reading the words which you impute to Charity Maintayned I found difficulty to penetrate the force of his Argument But the words of Charity Main are these If saith Dr. Potter we did not dissent in some opinions from the present Roman Church we could
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
that Protestants are fâ—rre more bold to disagree even in matters of Faith than Catholique Divines in Questions meerely Philosophicall or not determined by the Church But Charity Maintayned had good reason For wheras Catholiques haue an infallible meanes to know what Points belong to Faith they are Religiously carefull and circumspect not to broach any thing which may in any remote way cross any least Article of Christian Religion as contrarily Protestants having no certaine Rule for interpreting Scripture must needs be subject to innumerable and endless diversityes of opinions which therfore they will esteeme to be no more than indifferent matters and so you say in your answer to the Direction N. 30. that the disputes of Protestants are touching such controverted Questions of Religion as may with probability be disputed on both sides And what is this except to dispute of probabilityes as men do in Philosophy For this cause I haue shewed heretofore that learned Protestants speaking of the points wherin they differ call them small matters Things indifferent Matters of no great moment No great matters Matters of nothing Matters not to be much respected No parte of Faith but curious nicities Which shewes that Protestants speak and proceede with greater liberty in matters concerning Faith than Catholiques doe in Philosophy call Questions which they would never handle if they esteemed them to be things so contemptible as Protestants declare the matters in which they differ to be Besides this Catholiques in Questions of Philosophy bejond the Direction of Faith to which all Philosophy ought to submitt haue also the light of Reason and evident Principles of demonstrations for their guide whereas the Mysteryes of Faith being sublime and obscure and Protestants having no infallible meanes not to erre in the interpretation of Scripture they are left to their owne freedom or rather fancy incomparably more than Catholiques are left to themselves in Philosophicall disputes wherin they are restrayned and kept within compass both by Divine Faith and Human Reason subjected to Faith It is true when they will defend their defection and Schisme from all Churches extant when Luther appeared they will seeme to make great account of all points though they be not Fundamentall but this very thing doth indeed giue them greater freedom to multiply opinyons and increase dissentions not only with vs but amongst themselves vpon pretence of piety and necessity to forsake all errours either of Catholiques or Protestants I know not to what purpose you say Is there not as great repugnancy betweene your assent and dissent your affirmation and negation your Est Est Non Non as there is betweene theyrs For this is not the Question but whether we doe or haue the freedom to dissent as much as Protestants doe and haue liberty to disagree both from vs and amongst themselves and I haue proved that we haue not and then I hope there is not as great repugnancy betwene our Est Est as betwene the Est and Non Est of Protestants The rest of this Number makes nothing against what I haue saied and therfore I Let it pass though there want not some points which you could not easily defend 42. To your N. 51.52 I answer Ch. Ma. saied truly that while Protestants stand only vpon Fundamentall Articles they do by their owne confession destroy the Church which is the House of God For the fundation alone of a house is not a house nor can they in such an imaginary Church any more expect salvation than the Fundation alone of a house is sitt to affoard a man habitation To this you say to Charity Maintayned I hope you will not be difficult in granting that that is a house which hath all the necessary parts belonging to a house Now by Fundamentall Articles we meane all those which are necessary Vnless you will say that more is necessary than that which is necessary 43. Answer It is impossible that yourself can be satisfied with this your answer seing you know Charity Maintayned disputes in that place expressly against Protestants who pretend to Brotherhood Vnity of Faith and Hope of salvation in vertue of their agreement in Fundamentall Articles though they differ in many other Points of Faith This state of the Question being supposed and evidently true 〈◊〉 you meane for you speak very confusedly in saying only By Fundamentall Artitles we meane all those which are necessary If I say you meane that Fundamentall and necessary points are the same and that all points sufficiently proposed as revealed by God are necessary to be believed and consequently Fundamentall you fight for Charity Maintayned and grant that Protestants disagreeing in points revealed differ in necessary and Fundamentall points and cannot be of the same Church nor hope for salvation For you must giue me leaue to say I hope you will not be difficult in granting that it is not a house or a Church which hath not all the necessary things belonging to a house or church If you say that no Points are necessary but such as are Fundamentall of their owne nature and are to be believed explicitely then also you grant that which Charity Maintayned affirmed that the Church or house of Protestants consists only in the foundation seing they may differ in other Points not fundamentall and yet remaine a Church But then how can this agree with your Doctrine that every errour against any revealed Truth is of itself damnable Can it be a house of God which opposes Gods Testimony and is not capable of salvation without repentance of its damnable errours Haue we not often cited Dr. Potter teaching Pag 212. that whatsoever is revealed in Scripture is in some sense Fundamentall that is such as may not be denied without infidelity And Pag 250. he saies plainly It is Fundamentall to a Christians Faith and necessary for his salvation that he belieue all revealed Truths of God wherof he may be convinced that they are from God Do not these words declare that though Protestants were supposed to belieue all Points fundamentall of their owne nature yet they are guilty of infidelity according to Dr. Potter and want something Fundamentall to a Christians Faith and necessary for salvation as long as they differ in any point sufficiently propounded as revealed by God Finally what will you resolue If errours in points not fundamentall may stand with the substance of the same Faith Church and hope of salvation in those who agree in Fundamentall Articles then you must yeald to Charity Maintayned saying that the Church of protestants is a House builded by the foundation only and yet you pretend to take in ill parte this saying of his If you affirme that for constituting the Church or house of God there is also required agreement in points not Fundamentall you overthrow the maine tenet of Protestants that they are Brethren and haue the same substance of Faith though they differ in such vn-fundamentall points and if you turne about to agree with them
that men may be of the same Church and hope for salvation for the only belief of fundamentall points though they differ in non-fundamentalls you contradict yourself and Dr. Potter who saieth it is infidelity and damnable and a Fundamentall error to disbelieve any point sufficiently propounded as revealed by God So that vpon the whole matter you perforce stand for Charity Maintayned whom you impugne and overthrow Potter Yourself and Protestants whom you vndertake to defend To all this I add that Charity Maintayned might haue saied not only that as the foundation of a House is not a House so the belief of only fundamentall points cannot make a Church but also that seing it is fundamentall to a Christians Faith not to deny any point revealed by God as we haue seene in Potters assertion it followes that they who disagree in such points want the foundation of Faith and of a Church and so cannot pretend to so much in order to a Church as a foundation is in respect of a House You say that Ch. Ma. Pag 131. takes notice that Dr. Potter by Fundamentall Articles meanes all those which are necessary But by your leaue in this you falsify both the Doctor and Ch. Ma. who cited the words of Potter as you acknowledg he doth that by fundamentall doctrines we vnderstand such as are necessary in ordinary course to be distinctly believed by every Christian that will be saved In which words you see the Doctor saieth not that all necessary Articles are fundamentall but only that all fundamentall Articles are necessary to be believed distinctly and explicitely and so he speaks Pag 213. Fundamentall properly is that which Christians are obliged to belieue by an express and actuall Faith Now I hope Protestants will not deny that it is necessary to belieue every Text of Scripture and yet will not affirme that every Text of Scripture is a Fundamentall point to be believed by an express and actuall Faith Therefore necessary and Fundamentall according to the explication of the Doctor doe not signify the same thing nor are of the same extent 44. In your N. 53.54.55.56.57.58.59.60.61.62.63 you shew so much choler bitterness and ill language that the best answer will be to apply my selfe only to the matter desiring the Reader to consider the points which I shall set downe and he will finde your objections answered by only applying my considerations to them as they come in order 45. First Before you can refer any considering man as you speake to the Scripture for his satisfaction you must assure him that it is the word of God which you confesse we can only learne from the Church and then if he be indeed a considering man it will instantly inferr that the Church must be infallible or else that he cannot be infallibly true that Scripture is the word of God nor of any one truth contained therin and as you say he may know that the Church holds such bookes to be canonicall so by the like Tradition he may know what she holds in points of Doctrine and either belieue her in them or not belieue her in delivering the canon of Scripture Besides of whom shall he learne the sense of Scripture or who will oblige him even to reade Scripture Seing in the principles of Protestants he cannot learne any such precept except from Scripture itselfe and he cannot be obliged to finde that precept in Scripture vnless aforehand he knowes independently of Scripture that there is such a precept which as I sayd is against the principles of Protestants Moreover yourself teach that the Scripture is a necessary introduction to Faith and therfor a man must first learne the Church and of the Church before you can in wisdome refer him to the Scripture Which is also conforme to Dr. Potters assertions if he will not contradict himselfe For Pag 139. he teaches that the Church works powerfully and probably as the highest humane Testimony and you say Faith is but probable in the highest degree and consequently the Church Works powerfully enough to settle an Act of your kinde of Faith vpon Nouices and we speake of such weakelings and doubters in the Faith to instruct and confirme them till they may acquaint themselves with and vnderstand the Scripture Therfore men must first be referred to the Church and not to the Scripture as Potter in the same place saieth expressly The Testimony of the present Church though it be not the last resolution of our Faith yet it is the first externall motiue to it 46. Secondly you say to Charity Maintayned To the next question cannot Generall Councells erre You pretend he answers § 19. they may erre damnably Let the Reader see the place and he shall find damnably is your addition 47. Answer Amongst the Errata or faults of the Print Charity Maintayned notes this in the Pag 136. Lin. 22. Damnably Corrige damnably I meane it ought not to be in a different or Curciffe letter because it is not Dr. Potters word though it follow out of his doctrine All this saieth Charity Maintayned in the correction of the Errata where you see he was scrupulous not to adde one word which was not expressly the Doctors though it be most true that it doth not only follow out of his doctrine as Ch Ma saieth but his words in this very place at which you carp signify no lesse yea more For Ch Ma cites these words out of Potter Pag 167. Generall Councells may weakely or wilfully misapply or misvnderstand or neglect Scripture and so erre Now what difference is there to say a generall Councell may erre by wilfully misapplying or misvnderstanding or neglecting Scripture and a Councell may erre damnably Is it not damnable wilfully to misapply or misvnderstand or neglect Scripture Nay wilfully expresses more then damnably because one may erre damnably if his errour be culpable by reason of some weakeness which D. Potter distinguisheth from wilfullnes or for sloath humane respects of hope feare c. and yet not be so culpable as when it proceeds from wilfulness and therfor Charity Maintayned might haue sayd that in the doctrine of Potter Generall Councells may erre more than damnably Haue we not heard the Doctours words Pag. 212. whatsoever is Revealed in Scripture is such as can not be denied or Contradicted without infidelity And shall not a wilfull misapplying or neglect of Gods Word be damnable and more then simply damnable even infidelity The Doctour teaches that the vniversall Church cannot erre fundamentally but he neither doth nor can say according to the doctrine of Protestants that Councells cannot erre fundamentally and if Fundamentally surely damnably But why doe I spend tyme in this Yourselfe here N. 53. confesse that to say Prelats of Gods Church meeting in a Lawfull Councell may erre damnably is not false for the matter but only it is false that Dr. Potters sayes it A great wrong to say the Doctour speakes a truth which he himselfe teaches and so finally Charity
Maintayned sayd not so much as he might haue sayd of Potters assertion and therfor was far enough from doing him any wrong 48. Thirdly Seing that one must not at first be referred to Scripture as we haue proved nor to Generall Councells which Dr. Potter says may erre weakely and so be deceaved and wilfully and so deceaue nor that he can consult with the whole Church collectiuè or all togeather as you grant the Doctour sayes what remaines but that he must deale a parte with every particular member of the Church Which being also impossible as is clear of it selfe and when you seeke to proue it you labour for your Adversary who sayeth the very same thing it remaines that all the wayes which Potter can propose to a man desirous to saue his soule are not only ineffectuall but impossible also and only chalke out a way to desperation and that He and other Protestants must haue patience to be told this truth that they must not wonder if contradictories be deduced from their Assertions which they must often vary even against their wills Ch Ma never intended to make or not make a difference betweene the vniversall Church and the whole Church militant but only Pag. 137. cites the Doctours words as he findes them and proves that they cannot serue for the effect of quieting an afflicted soule not regarding whether those different words which he vseth signifie any different thing or noe 49. Fourthly Seing in pursuit of some good and infallible ground wheron to settle Divine Faith Potter can admit none but the Scripture or the vniversall Church and that Scripture cannot instruct vs with certainty independently of the Church as we haue demonstrated nor that the whole Church can be consulted it remaines only that he must wish one to finde out some who believes all fundameÌ„tall points and follow him and that then the first question to passe betweene them should be to know whether he knows all such points and if this cannot be knowne it is cleare the Doctour can giue no satisfaction to any considering man desirous to know the truth It is pretty that you tell vs the Doctour in all his Booke gives no such Answer as this procure to know whether he belieue all fundamentall points of Faith as if Ch Ma had pretended to relate a history and not only to tell the Reader what Potter must be forced to answer according to his grounds Though I grant he will by doing so be necessitated to contradict both Truth and Himselfe And you will never be able to shew but that Potter must make such answers as Ch ma exprest if the Doctor will be faithfull to his owne grounds Your discourse about probabilities and even wagers is impertinent both because we deny that indeed Dr. Potters opinion about the Creed hath any probability at all and because Ch Ma speakes only of probabilities and even wagers which is a good comparison seing a thing very probable doth not hinder but that the contradictory may be very probable and so be eaven or equall one to an other aÌ„d your talking of probability in the highest degree is your owne addition or fiction and not the Doctors Assertion as may be seene in his Pag. 241. and yourself expresly confess N. 4. and 5. Pag. 194. that he affirmed it only to be very probable that the Creed containes all necessary points of those which you call Credenda What you write so often about the vncertainty that one is a Pope hath been answered at large 50. Fiftly Who can deny but that whosoever desires to be saved and knowes that to obtaine salvation it is necessary to belieue explicitly all fundamentall points will instantly judge it necessary to know what those points be as de facto Ch. Mist vrged to haue a Catalogue of them Now if to satisfy this demand Dr. Potter gives vs no other answer but only some Definitions and Descriptions or Explications of the name Fundamentall without specifying what they are in particular and so not satisfy at all the desire of any wise man what can I helpe that Or who can blame Ch Ma for having sayd as much as Dr. Potters Booke could enable him to say Neither hath he patched vp any thing out of the Doctours Booke which he the Doctor is not obliged to grant according to his owne grounds as I haue sayd 51. Sixthly Seing every article contained in the Creed is not Fundamentall it would be demanded with Ch. Ma. How shall one know which in particular be and which be not fundamentall You say Dr. Potter would haue answered it is a vaine question belieue all and you shall be sure to belieue all that is Fundamentall But by your leaue this businesse cannot be dispatched to soone For by occasion of your Answer I must make some demands whether every one is obliged to belieue or know explicitly those points of the Creed which are not fundâ—mentall To say every one is bound were to make them properly Fundamentall For we haue heard Potter saying Fundamentall properly is that which Christians are obliged to belieue by an expresse and actuall Faith If one be not obliged to belieue explicitely those points of the Creed which are not fundamentall then I am not bound to know the Creed that I may know them Perhaps some may say I am obliged to know the Creed because it containes fundamentall points which I am bound to know expresly and so I shall at least per accidens and by consequence be obliged to know all points contained in the Creed as well not Fundamentall as Fundamentall This Answer must suppose that I am obliged vnder damnation to know that Symbol which we call the Creed of the Apostles and seing Protestants professe that all things necessary to Salvation are contained in Scripture alone they must shew out of some expresse evident text of Scripture such a command which you know is impossible to be done since Scripture never mentions any such thing as the Apostles Creed and therfor one cannot be obliged to know points not Fundamentall in vertue of a precept to know the Creed seing Protestants cannot belieue any command obliging men to know the Creed c. Besides All the Arguments which proue that the Creed was composed by the Apostles or that it containes all fundamentall points must be grounded vpon the Authority of the Church which according to Potter and other Protestants may erre in points not fundamentall and none of them affirmes that it is a fundamentall point which all vnder damnation are bound explicitely to belieue that the Apostles composed the Creed or that it containes all fundamentall points and then men cannot be sure that all points contained in it are true and much lesse can they be obliged to belieue explicitly by an act of Faith every Article therof according to the grounds of Protestants Moreover suppose one were perswaded that all the Articles contained in the Creed were true yet the arguments which Potter brings
this one article of the Church is too short for a Creed or abridgment of Faith and must haue been enlarged by some Creed Cathecisme c. And as Potter and you limited the promise of our Saviour to the Church that the gates of Hell shall not prevaile against it to fundamentall points or to a sufficient but not a certainly effectuall assistance or some other way the same would you haue done though he had specified the Roman Church 78. Your last N. 84. containes nothing in effect besides what you and Potter haue saied and hath been confuted already We deny not but that the Creed containes all fundamentall points in the sense which I haue declared more then once aÌ„d which Catholick Writers intend when they say it containes all fuch articles and the Reader will receaue further satisfaction by perusing the N. 26. of Ch Ma. as it is delivered by himselfe as also he will finde that you haue omitted some points of importance which Ch. Ma. hath set downe N. 27. as in particular That the very councell of Nice which sayth Whitgâ—ft in his defense Pag. 3â—0 is of all wise and learned men reverenced esteemed and imbraced next vnto the Scriptures themselves decreed that to those that were chosen to the ministery vnmarried it was not lawfull to take any wife afterward is affirmed by Protestants Lastly in answer to the direction N. 33. you vndoe all that Dr. Potter and you haue done in labouring to proue that the Creed containes all necessary articles of simple Belief For thus you speak The granting of this principle that all things necessary to sâ—lvation are evidently contained in Scripture plainly renders the whole disppute touching the Creed vnnecessary For if all necessary things of all sorts whether of simple belief or practice be confessed to be cleerly contained in Scripture what imports it whether those of one sort be contained in the Creed CHAP XIV THE ANSWER TO HIS FIFTH CHAPTER ABOVT SCHISME 1. OMitting to say any thing by way of preface and introduction your N. 1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9 haue been answered particularly and at large in my Chapter 7. The cavills which N. 10.11.12 you vse in avoyding the Authorities of some Fathers which Ch Ma alledged N. 8. to proue that it can never be Lawfull to separate from the Church doe proue more and more the impossibility of deciding controversies by Scripture or any one writing Whosoever considers the place cited by Ch. Ma. out of S. Austin Cont Parmen L. 2. C. 11. Ther is no just necessity to divide vnity will finde that those words must be vniversall and serue for the Major Proposition to proue that the Donatists could haue no necessity to divide theÌ„selves from the Church of which division he saieth that it appeares non esse quicquaÌ„ gravius Sacrilegio Schismatis And if S. Austins proposition be not vniversall his argument had been but Petitio princicipij taking for granted that which was in controversie namely whether the Donatists had just cause to depart from the Church So that indeed those words of S. Austin There is no just necessity to divide vnity must suppsose that the Church cannot erre nor that men can receaue any spirituall hurt by her doctrine and that she can neither doe nor approue ill All which hath been declared hertofore both for the matter itselfe and for the meaning of S. Austin in divers other sayings of his But it seemes you wanted better matter when you tell vs of want of diligence in quoting the 62. Ch. of that booke of S. Austine which hath but 23. in it And when you say that the words which are indeed in the 11. Chapter are not inferred out of any such promises as Ch. Ma. pretends For as lately you did persecute the printer for that which Ch. Ma. had put amongst the Errata so here you note that which Ch. Ma. himselfe cited right N. 21. as every one may see Neither is it any better then ridiculous for you to say that the words of S. Austin are not inferred out of any such premisses as Ch. Ma. pretends seing he neither pretends nor mentions any other premisses besides that which he in the immediatly precedent Number had sayd out of the Holy Fathers that Schisme was a grievous sinne and I beseech you from whence can S. Austin inferr that ther can be no just necessity to divide vnity except from a supposition that Schisme is a grievous sinne or as he speakes here non esse quicquaÌ„ gravius Sacrilegio Schismatis But it is a signe you are sinking when you are glad to take hold of any thing be it never so weake 2. The same answer serves for your evasion to the words of S. Irenaeus cont heraet Lib. 4. Cap. 6â— They cannot make any so important reformaâ—ion as the â—ll of the Schisme is pernâ—â—ous which must suppose that the Church cannot erre in matters of faith whether they be great or little in their owne nature and therfor he sayth expresly God will judge all those who are out of truth that is who are out of the Church Iudicabit omnes eos quisunt extra veritatem id est qui sunt extra Ecclesiam And therfore much more will he judge men if for small matters they should part from the Church And you see he supposes all to be out of the Truth who are out of the Church which were not true if the Church could deliver fals Doctrine For so one might be in the Church and not in the Truth The example of the Quartodecimani who by the ancient Fathers are reckoned among Hereticks makes directly against yourselfe Neither doth it import that the controversie about keeping Easter may seeme to be only concerning a circumstance of time and not immediatly and expresly of a revealed Truth For indeed to say it was necessary to keepe Easter as the Jewes did for the circumstance of time was a formall pernicious heresy no lesse then to bring in a necessity of observing othr rites of the Jewish Law and so the words which you alleadge out of Petavius make nothing for you against vs. For this cause the observation of Easter at a certaine time might be tolerated as some rites of the Jewes were till they were affirmed to be necessary after which time they were to be reputed not only dead but deadly and so would that custome of keeping Easter haue been after it was pretended to be kept as necessary Of which point and of the excommunication inflicted by holy Pope Uictor Ch. Ma. hath spoken sufficiently in his 2. part 3. Your answer to the words of S. Denis of Alexandria is evidently a meere shift For to say as he doth apud Eusebium Hist Eccles L. 6. Cap. 25. All things should rather be endured then to consent to the division of the Church of God must necessarily suppose that it can never be lawfull to part from the Church and if it were lawfull to doe soe it could not vniversally be a
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
she proposes you would not haue wanted evasions by saying we should belieue her as far as she agreed with Scripture or in Fundamentall points only as now Protestants say of the vniversall Church 16. Ch Ma Pag 251. N. 18. sayth The Holy Scriptures and ancient Fathers assigne separation from the visible Church as a marke of Heresy which he proves by some textes of Scripture as 1. Joan 2.19 They went out from vs And Actor 15.24 Some went out from vs and Actor 20.30 Out of you shall arise men speaking perverse things This say you is certainly a strange and vnheard of straine of Logick vnless we will say that euery text whe in it is sayd that some body goes out from some body affoards an argument for this purpos and yet you confesse that Hereticks doe alwayes separate from the visible Church but that they who doe soe are not alwayes Heretiks Now if all Heretiks separate from the visible Church ād yet doe not separate from every some body for they doe not separate from themselves and their owne Associates it is a signe that their is great difference betwixt some some body and orhers some body betweene separating from the Church or the Congregation of the Faithfull and frō every other some body But if I proue these propositions every Heretik separates from the Church and every one that separates from the Church is an Heretik to be convertible you will yeald such a separation to be a Mark of Heresy This is easily done by taking your owne grant That Heretiks do always separate from the Church For Heresy being an error against some revealed truth if the Church also may erre against any such truth there is no necessity that an Heretik should separate from the Church but may very well agree with her in such error and so the first part of your assertion that Heretiques do alwayes separate from the Church would be false or if the Church cannot erre every one who separates from her in matters of Faith must be guilty of an errour against Faith and so be an Heretik if therfore the first part of your assertion be true you must grant that the second is false and that as every Heretik separates from the Church so conversivè every one who separates from the Church in matters of beliefe is an Heretik and then it is no wonder if Scripture and Fathers assigne a separation or going out of the Church as a mark of Heresy Which may be further declared in this manner If all Heretiks separate from the Church the reason must be because there is in the Church something incompatible with their Heresy which can be nothing but the true Doctrine and Beliefe which she holds and is opposite to the error which makes thē Heretiks and which whosoever hold are Heretiks and consequently whosoever leaves the Church by occasion of such errors are Heretiks and if they had not held such errors they had remained in the Church Therefore for the same reason for which all Heretiks forsake the Church we must necessarily inferr that whosoever forsake the Churches doctrine are Heretiks that is for the errors which they hold against the truth which the Church is supposed to belieue and if she be supposed to belieue an error an heretique may belieue the same and so goe out of her no more than she goes out of herself For this cause our Saviour saied Matth. 24.26 If therefore they shall say vnto you behold he is in the desert goe you not forth Of which words Henoch Clapham in his souveraigne remedy against Schisme Pag 23. sayth that therby our Saviour forbids going out vnto such desert and corner Ghospells which declares that going out of the Church is Heresy or Schisme and not only that all Heretiks or Schismaticks goe out And now I hope you being convinced by Reason will be better disposed to receiue authority and the true exposition of the text alleadged aboue by Ch Ma of which you say For the first place there is no certainty that it speakes of Heretiks but no Christians and Antichrists of such as denyed Iesus to be the Christ Answer That S. John speakes of Heretiks will appeare by reading Cornelius a Lapide vpon this psace who cites holy Fathers to the same purpos See also the annotation of the Rhemes Testament vpon this Chapter of S. John Uers 18. shewing out of S. Cypriā that all who separate themselves from the Church are called without exception Antichrists Pantaleon in Epist nuncupator Chrongraph saith Tertium locum assignabimus Haereticis qui exierunt de electo Dei populo at non erant ex illo And in Osiander Epitom Histor Ecclesias cent 1. lib 3. cap 1. saith Nota Haereticiex Ecclesia progrediuntur 17. The second place say you It is certaine you must not say it speakes of Heretiks for it speakes only of some who believed and taught an error when it was yet a question and not evident and therfor according to your Doctrine no formall Heresy Answer I see no such certainty as you pretend that the text Act 15.24 Some went out from vs must not speake of Heretiks that is of persons who held an errour against a revealed truth of which some might haue been sufficiently informed before the Councell and Definition or Declaration of the Apostles and that some did proceed in a turbulent and as a man may say Hereticall manner appeares by reading the same Chapter in the Acts. And for our present purpose it is sufficient that separation from the Church is a signe at least of a materiall Heresie or Heretique since the being a formall Heretique depends vpon individuall personall and accidentall circumstances of which to judg in particular is the part of prudence not of Faith though if once the partie know that his opinyon is contrary to the Doctrine of the Church and will yet persist therin and rather leaue the Church than forsake it he cannot be excused from pride singularity and Heresie 18. You say The third sayes indeed that of the Professours of Christianity some shall arise that shall teach Heresy But not one of them all that sayes or intimates that whosoever separates from the visible Church in what state soever is certainly an Heretique Answer we haue shewed that as you say all that are Heretiques goe out of the Church so you must grant that whosoever separates for matter of Doctrine from the visible Church is an Heretique And holy Scripture mentioning so particularly and frequently going out or separation doth clearly put a particular emphasis and force therin as a mark of fals believers and seducers And this to be the sense of the Holy Fathers Ch Ma. hath proved and now we will make good his Proofes by confuting your evasions to the contrary And I must intreate the Reader to consider the words of the Fathers as they are cited in Charity Maintayned with the Inferences which he deduces from them and not as they are interpreted by you 19.
perswasion or opinion that our Churches doctrine is true Or if you grant it your perswasion why is it not the perswasion of men and in respect of the subjest of it an humane perswasion You desire also to know what sense there is in pretending that our perswasion is not inregard of the object only and cause of it but in nature and essence of it supernaturall 57. Answer we belieue with certainty that the Churches doctrine is true because such our belief depends vpon infallible and certaine grounds as hath bene shewed heretofore and we are certaine that every Act of Faith necessary for salvation is supernaturall in essence not by sensible experience and naturall reason on which you are still harping but by infallible principles of Faith because the particular assistance of the Holy Ghost is vniversally and in all occasions necessary for vs to belieue as I proved in the Introduction which demonstrates that the essence of Faith is supernaturall Your saying that if it be our perswasion why is it not the perswasion of men and in respect of the subject of it an humane perswasion deserves no answer Is not even the Beatificall vision in men as in the subject thereof And yet I hope you will not call it a meere humane Act and much less an humane perswasion besides our Faith being absolutely certaine cannot be called only a perswasion 58. Your N. 75. containes nothing which is not answered by former Grounds and in particular by your owne Doctrine that every culpable error against any revealed truth is damnable yea and repugnant to some fundamentall necessary Article from whence it must follow that of two dissenting in revealed Truths he who culpably erres sinnes damnably and cannot be saved without repentance Your gloss of S. Chrysostome is plainly against his words seing he speakes expresly of small errours which he saieth destroie all Faith as we haue heard the famous Protestant Sclusselburg saying of this very place of S. Chrysostome Most truly wrote Chrsiostome in 1. Galat. He corrupteth the whole Doctrin who subverteth it in the least article CHAP XVI THE ANSWER TO HIS SEAVENTH CHAPTER That Protestants are not bound by the CHARITY WHICH THEY OWE TO THEMSELUES to re-unite themselves to the ROMAN CHVRCH 1. I May well begin my Answer to this Chapter with your owne words delivered in the beginning of your answer to the preface of Ch Ma where you say If beginnings be ominous as they say they are C Ma hath cause to looke for great store of vningenuous dealing from you the very first words you speak of him vz. That the first foure Paragraphs of his seaventh Chapter are wholly spent in an vnecessary introduction vnto a truth which I presume never was nor will be by any man in his wits either denied or questioned and that is That every man in wisdome and Charity to himself is to take the safest way to his eternall Salvation being a most vnjust and immodest imputation For the first three Paragraphs of Ch Ma are employed in delivering such Doctrines as Divines esteeme necessary to be knowne and for that cause treate of them at large and I belieue if the Reader peruse those paragraphs he will Judge them not vnnecessary and which heere is chiefly considered it is very vntrue that they are spent to proue that every man in wisdom and Charity to himself is to take the safest way to his eternall Salvation which Ch Ma never affirmed and is in itself euidently false Otherwise every one were obliged in all occasions to embrace the best and not be content with that which is good to liue according to the Evangelicall Counsells and not judg the keeping of the commandements to be sufficiēt for salvation which were to turne all Counsells or things not of obligation in themselves to commands and could produce only scruples perplexities and perhaps might end in despaire What then did Ch Ma teach He having N. 3. declared at large two kinds of things necessary to salvation necessitate tantum praecepti or also necessitate medij delivers these words N. 4. Out of the foresaid difference followeth an other that generally speaking in things necessary only because they are commanded it is sufficient for avoiding sinne that we procede prudently and by the conduct of some probable opinion maturely weighed and approved by men of vertue learning and wisdom Neither are we alwaies obliged to follow the most strict and severe or secure part as long as the Doctrine which we imbrace proceeds vpon such reasons as may warrant it to be truly probable and prudent though the contrary part want not also probable grounds For in humane affaires and discourse evidence and certainty cannot be alwaies expected But when we treate not precisely of avoyding sin but moreover of procuring some thing without which I cannot be saved I am obliged by the Law and Order of Charity to procure as great certainty as morally I am able and am not to follow every probâble opinion or dictamen but tutiorem partem the safer part because if my probabilitie proue falc I shall not probably but certainly come short of salvation Nay in such case I shall incurre a new sinne against the vertue of Charity to wards myself which obligeth every one not to expose his soule to the hazard of eternall perdition when it is in his power with the assisstance of Gods Grace to make the matter sure Thus saied Ch Ma which may be confirmed out of S. Austine Lib. 1. de Baptismo Cap. 3. graviter peccaret in rebus ad salutem animae pertinentibus vel eo solo quod certis in certa praeponeret He speakes of Baptisme which the world knowes he held to be necessary to salvation And what say you now Is this to say vniversally that every one is obliged to take the safest way to his salvation Is it not to say the direct contrary that not in all kinds of things one is bound to take the safest parte as shall be further explicated hereafter 2. I desire the Reader so see what Ch Ma saieth N. 7.8.9.10 11. and he will find you could not answer so briefly as N. 3. you pretend you could doe For I haue proved that by your owne confession we erre not fundamentally and you grant that Protestants erre damnably which we deny of Catholiques therfore we are more safe thā you seing both of vs consent that you erre damnably and we absolutely denie that we doe so 3. I was glad to heare you confess perforce N. 2. that in the Arguments which Ch Ma delivers N. 12. there is something that has some probability to perswade some Protestants to forsake some of their opinions or others to leaue their commumion For this is to grant that according to a probable and consequently a prudent opinion some Protestants your pretended Brethren are Heretiques and that the rest sinne grievously in not forsaking the communion of those other which vpon the matter is to yeald that all
what hath bene saied heretofore and also by Cha Ma Part 2. Chap 4. N. 4. which you were willing to conceale In your N. 27. you say as S. Austine saies that Catholiques approue the Doctrine of Donatists but abhorre their Heresy of Rebaptization c But you should say in stead of Doctrine Baptisme as Cha Ma hath it For how can S. Austine approue the Doctrine of Donatists and yet hold that they taught an Heresy of Rebaptization 20. In your N. 29. you say to Cha Ma I conceiue you were led into errour by mâ—â—â—aking a supposition of a confession for a confession a Rhetoricall concession of the Doctors for a positiue assertion He saies indeed of your errors Though of themselves they be not damnable to them which belieue as they profess yeâ— for vs to profess what we belieue not were without question damnable But to say though your errors be not damnable we may not profess them is not to say your errors are not damnable but only though they be not As if you should say though the Church erre in points not fundamentall yet you may not separate from it Or though we do erre â—in believing Christ really present yet our errour frees vs from Idolatry or as if a Protestant should say Though you do not commit Idolatry in adoring the Host yet being vncertaine of the Priests intention to consecrate at least you expose yourself to the danger of it I presume you would not think it fairely done if any man should interpret either this last speach as an acknowledgment that you do not commit idolatry or the former as confessions that you doe erre in points not fundamentall that you do erre in believing the reall presence And therefore you ought not so to haue mistaken D. Potters words as if he had confessed the errors of your Church not daÌ„nable when he saies no more but this Though they be so or suppose or put the case they be so yet being errors we that know theÌ„ may not profess the to be divine truths 21. Answer is It possible that a man should speak so correctingly aÌ„d magisterially as you doe in this place aÌ„d yet be so palpably mistakeÌ„ as you are you say Dr. Potter saies of our errors Though of themselves they be not damnable to them which belieue as they profess yet for vs to profess c. vpon which words you ground your whole discourse and yet both you and the Doctor disclaime from these words though of themselves they be not damnable and put them among the errata of the Printer in both your Books to be corrected thus though in the issue they be not damnable so as you obtrude to vs the fault of the Print for the words of Dr. Potter and will needs haue Ch Ma partaker of your gross mistake in a point vpon which you say a great part of his Book is grounded Now then the print being corrected in this manner though in the issue they be not damnable to them which belieue as they profess I beseech you doth not though signifie that indeed they are not damnable to them which belieue as they profess And is not this the constant doctrine of Dr. Potter and yourself that Catholiques who in simplicity of hart belieue as they profess may be saved And therefore your owne correction and this very place of the Doctor so corrected returnes vpon yourself and proves that he spoke not as vpon a supposition of a confession but vpon a confession concession and positiue assertion and that you should haue vnderstood it so though it had bene as He and you cite it though of themselves they be not damnable And who is ignorant That the word though joynd with a verb of the present tense implies a thing existent in truth and if you will express only a supposition you must vse an other Tense and say though your errors were not damnable in themselves yet c or though your errors were supposed not to be damnable c and your declaring Though they be so by suppose or put the case they be so is against the common sense of all that vnderstand English Neither will any Catholique say though the Church erre in points not fundamentall yet you may not separate from her but though the Church did erre in points not fundamentall or suppose the Church did erre in such points yet you may not separate from her For betwene the Present and Preter-imperfect-tense in our case there is as great difference as betwene a positiue Affirmation and a meere suppositioÌ„ which as Phiosophers speak nihil ponit in esse The like I say of your other exaÌ„ple though we do erre in believing Christ really present yet that whosoever did speak in that manner could not be excused from denying the reast presence and the same is evident in your other examples which therefore still returne against yourself If one should say though Christian Religion be superstitious and fals yet many Christian men lead a morall life would any Christian take such a speach in any other sense than that Christian Religion is fals Or if one should say Though Mr. Chilling worth deny the blessed Trinity the Incarnation of the Sonne of God originall sinne c yet he pretends to be a Protestant and to defend their cause against Ch Ma who would not vnderstand that speach as an assertion and not only as a Supposition that you deny the Trinity Or if one should say to an other though thou be a knaue and my enemy yet I will pray for the were this a meere supposition And heere it may seeme some what strange that the Doctor both in the first and second Edition of his Book should haue though of themselves they be not damnable and you also in your first Edition for I haue not the second and therfore cannot examine it should haue the same yea and ground your discourse against Ch Ma vpon it and yet in the correction of the Errata both of you haue in the issue neither can I see any reason hereof except because that strength of truth and coherence with some Principles of Protestants made you say that our errours are not damnable of themselves and yet vpon further advise finding this confession also disadvantagious you though best to turne of themselves into in the issue But the truth is that in these matters of damnable fundamentall not fundamentall errours of the infallibility of the vniversall Church of the nature of Heresie and the like Protestants haue no settled grounds but must say and vnsay as they are prest by different or contrary occasions as hath bene noted els where and therefore it imports litle what you cite out of Potter against vs seing that can only shew that he is forced to contradict himself as also other Protestants are Now how full the Doctor yourself and other chiefest Protestants are in favour of vs and our salvation hath bene proved heretofore at large out of their owne
any thing contrary to any Verity reuealed in the Word of God though neuer so improhable or incomprehensible to Naturall Reason For if his Faith be to his vnderstanding only probable how can he in prudence prefer it before the contrary therof which to his vnderstanding seemes euident and certaine Or how can an assent which I judge to be only probable enable me to belieue that which I judg to be euidently improbable And it is in vayne for him to tell vs of the certainty of Gods Reuelation since we do not compare Naturall Reason with Gods Reuelation but with those Motiues for which we belieue the diuine Reuelation which being to him only probable and esteemed such and no more must yeald to appearance of certainty of the contrary and therfor he must either confess that he contradicts him selfe or yield that Faith is infallible ād more certaine thā naturall reasō 30. To speake truth if we consider well this Socinian Faith can haue no other vse or effect except only to damne men by contenting themselues with a faith of probability when they may and ought to attaine a certainty He himselfe Pag. 36. N. 9. doubts not but that the spirit of God being implored by deuout and humble prayer and sincere obedience may and will by degrees aduance his seruants higher and giue them a certainty of adherence beyond theyr certainty of euidence And those that belieue and liue according to their faith he giues by degree the spirit of obsignation and confirmation which makes them know though how they know not what they did but belieue And to be as fully and resolutely assured of the Gospell of Christ as those which heard it from Christ himselfe with their eares which looked vpon it and whose hands handled the word of life Now if some men may arriue to so absolute an assurance why may not others why must not all Are not all bound to liue according to their Faith and to obserue the lawes of charity and obedience which doing you say they shall arriue to a full and resolute assurance euen aboue that which you call faith You say Pag. 227. N. 61. Gods assistance is alwayes ready to promote the Church farther on condition she does implore it And Pag. 175. N. 75. You grant the spirit of truth shall be giuen and will abide with those that loue God and keepe his Commandements Yea since true Faith is alwayes the Gift of God raysing vs vp by Grace aboue the strength of nature And that euery one is obliged ro haue true Christian Faith it is consequent that de facto all are bound to beleiue with a Faith produced by Grace aboue the forces of nature and consequently infallibly certaine For heere that excellent saying of S. Leo Serm. 16. de Pass Domini hath place Iustè Deus instat praecepto quia praecurrit auxilio He may well exact of vs an infallible Act of Faith seing he giues vs sufficient Grace to performe what he exacts And Pag. 34. N 6. you say The essentiall character of Charity is to judg and hope the best by which you are obliged to judg and hope vnless the contrary be manifest that euery one liues according to his belief by obseruing the Commandements and so in fact is arriued to a certaine and infallible Faith Since therfore you grant that the faith of those who liue according to their Belief is not to be regulated by the Lawes of Logicke and formes of Syllogismes with what shaddow of reason would you make men belieue that the Faith of all Christians necessary to saluation which is a speciall infused Gift of God must be subject to such Rules as if it were a meere Conclusion following only the weaker of the Premises and not measured by the speciall Grace and Motion of the Holy Ghost aboue all Logick Thus all your Objections against the infallible Faith of Christians must be answered by your self as false and sophisticall and consequently all Christians may and ought in despight of such paralogismes to assert and belieue the necessity of an infallible Faith And as I sayd the contrary doctrine can serue only to delude and damne those vnhappy soules who will be harkninge to such noueltyes I say to damne soules euen though it were falsely supposed that his doctrine were true For all Christians beside this man and such as hee sirmely belieuing Christian Faith necessary to saluation to be infallibly true and he acknowledging all poynts of Christian Faith to be but probable and surely he will not be so shamlesse as to say he belieues this particular fancy wherin he disagrees both from Catholiques and Protestants to be more certaine than all other Articles of Faith it cannot be denyed but that men are bound to belieue with an infallible Assent because as I sayd◠in matters absolutely necessary to saluation we are bound by the Law of God and Charity to our selues to embrace the safer way by meanes of an infallible Faith which he confesses may be obtained by prayer and obedience to Gods commandements And so vpon one account or other all are obliged vnder payne of damnation to belieue with an infallible Faith 31. As it is very true that there is no greater nor more foolish sinne than the sinne of Desperation irreuocably bringing damnation which might haue been auoided by Hope for which Gods Grace is neuer wanting if we cooperate so we may say that this fallible Faith infallibly dispatches men to Hell which mischief all may auoide by endeauouring to rayse their faith to certainty as he confesses they may doe by obeying and praying which endeauours the Grace of God puts in their power and will and if they reject it to none more justly then to this infortunate man and his fellowes may be applyd these words of the Prophet Ezechiel C. 18. V. 31.32 Why will yee dy returne and liue Which that they may doe either with more ease or become inexcusable if they doe it not we will more and more confute that Ground on which he doth in a manner wholy relie That the Conclusion following the weaker of the Premises one of which is in our case but probable the Conclusion can be no more than probable 32. For First I would for disputation sake aske of him whether he meane that the Conclusion doth so follow the weaker of the Premises that it receyues no strength or perfection from the fellowship of a better Premise than it selfe is If he answer that it receyues no strength then one will infer that one Premise contayning the Testimony or Reuelation of God an other the testimony of men could produce no stronger conclusion than if both Premises did containe only the testimony of men and so he must confess that de facto he belieues the Articles of Christian Faith no more than if by probable arguments they were proued to be testifyed by men alone If he answer that rhe stronger Premise may eleuate the weaker to produce a Conclusion stronger than
doth this proue that Faith common to all Christians is sufficient to saluation though it be but probable and not certaine I beseech you consider what you say In the matter of which the Apostle speakes the comparison was not betweene a strong and weake faith or belief of the same thing as our case goes but the question was of contrary perswasions one part judging that to be lawfull which the other held to be vnlawfull And therfor if you will haue your Objection rightly applyed or not to be clearly impertinent a man weake in Faith must be he who belieues Christian Faith not to be true nor the practise of it lawfull And doe you belieue such a weake Faith to be sufficient to saluation or that the Apostle will haue vs receyue them who are weake in Faith in that sense that is who belieue errours contrary to Christian Faith Your passing from Faith necessary to saluation to Faith of Miracles was an inpertinency but this your substituting to Christian Faith errours contrary to it hath too much of the Impious 51. Object 3. Pag. 326. N. 4. You goe forward in impugning the infallibility of Faith in this manner If this doctrine were true then seing not any the least doubting can consist with a most infallible certainty it will follow that euery least doubting in any matter of Faith though resisted and inuoluntary is a damnable sinne absolu tely destructiue so long as it lasts of all true and sauing Faith which you are so farr from granting that you make it no sinne at all but only an occasion of merit 52. Answer First Your selfe must answer this objection In those whom Pag. 36. N. 9. you say Gods spirit may and will aduance beyond the certainty of euidence to the spirit of obsignation and confirmation which makes them know what they did not belieue And to be as fully and resolutely assured of the Gospell of Christ as those which heard it from Christ him selfe with their eares c. In the Apostles to whom you grant P. 329. N. 7. an absolute Certainty in respect of the things of which they were eye-witnesses In those who belieue as you Pag. 330. N. 8. pretend to do that it is infallibly Certaine that we are firmety to belieue the truth of Christian Religion In those who haue an absolute Certainty of this Thesis All which God reueales for truth is true which Pag. 36. N. 8. You say is a proposition euidently demonstrable or rather euident of it selfe In those who denying Christian Faith to be certaine yet pretend to be certaine that it is probable as you and your fellowe Socinians doe In all these Certaintyes I say you must answer what you object against vs. For seing as you say not any the least doubting can consist with Certainty it will follow that euery least doubting in the rehearsed truthes all which concerne matter of Faith though resisted and involuntary is a damnable sinne absolutely destructiue so long as it lasts of the belief of the Gospell and particularly of that part of which the Apostles were eye-witnesses of the certainty that it is infallibly certaine that we are firmiâ—y to belieue the truth of Christan Religion of the assent to this truth All which God reueales for truth is true which is a most fundamentall article of Faith of certainty that Christian Religion is probable all which I conceyue you will be farr from granting seing that euen according to the Doctrine of Socinians there can be no actuall sinnes meerly involuntary 53. But this is not all It must follow by your argument that euery Doubt taken properly though resisted and involuntary is a damnable sinne absolutely destructiue so long as it lasts euen of the Probability of Christian Faith which being destroyed there remaynes no belief at all either certaine or probable of Christian Religion I sayd every doubt taken properly which is when our vnderstanding finding not sufficient reason to belieue one side more than another can only doubt of both without a positive assent to either as contrarily it happens in a probableact which assents determinatly to one part though not without feare that the contrary is true For it is cleare that such a doubt which abstracts from a positiue assent to either part is absolutely incompossible with a probable perswasion which positiuely determines to one side it being a manifest contradiction for the same act to abstract from both parts and yet to determine vs to one and so every such Doubt must be as you sayd against vs a Deadly sinne But why do I seeke after other instances than this most obvious and common to all Christians euen to Socinians You pretend to belieue that Christian Religion is true and consequently cannot judg at the same tyme that it is false Therfor this judgment Christian Religion is false though resisted and involuntary is a damnable sinne absolutely destructiue so long as it lasts of all faith where by you belieue Christian Religion to be true And so in vaine you sayd no least Doubt could consist with the contrary certainty as if your objection did touch only our infallibility of Faith wheras it ouerthrowes euen your belief that Christian Faith is true I do therfore end as I began and say you yea all Christians must answer your objection 54. Secondly directly to your Objection of a doubt resisted and involuntary and yet destructiue of infallible Faith because any the least Doubting caÌ„not consist with certainty I answer If he who doubts conceiue his doubt to be against that which he belieues by Faith and yet doth not resist such a doubt is voluntary and destroyes true Faith but makes nothing for your purpose who speake of a doubt resisted and not voluntary If he resist then he rejects the Doubt and so doubts not but retaines his former vndoubted assent with advantage of a new victory against the temptation to doubt and it is non-sense or implicatio in adjecto to talke of doubting and resisting at the same tyme. For if it be resisted it is not accepted nor is it a doubtfull assent or secunda operatio intellectus which affirmes or denyes by way of judgment but is a meere apprehensio or prima operatio of our vnderstanding representing to our mynd a doubt which by resistance is stopt from passing to a judgment as when Dauid sayd Psalm 52.1 The foolish man sayd in his hart there is no God these words there is no God affirmed by the foolish man were in respect of the Prophet represented only by way of apprehension and not of judgment or affirmation that it was so And Aristotle teaches that men may perhaps think they belieue express contradictions when indeed they only apprehend them without any assent or belief How easy then is it to conceyue that a doubt offered but resisted neither is nor can be destructiue of infallible Faith seing the resistance is cause that we do not doubt But now if we suppose that such a doubt
particular motion of Grace which irresistably drawes it Therfor from certainty of Faith we cannot inferr a necessary cooperation of the will or perfection of Charity You preâ—â—â—d to belieue or know wit◠〈…〉 to be obayed in all things and coâ—â—â—equently that the woâ—â—d 〈…〉 ouercome you may know with certainty that the morall 〈…〉 â—ments forbidding Actions repugnant to the light and law of naturaâ—â—eason are to be kept You cannot but know certainly in generall that all sinne is to be auoyded You teach that men euen by euidence of reason are to belieue with infallible certainty that they are firmely to belieue the truth of Christian Religion and consequently that all the commands of that Religion are to be obserued These things I say you belieue or know with certainty and yet I hope you will not grant that you cannot but obey God in all things and so ouercome the world that you cannot but keepe all the morall commandements that you cannot but auoyde all sinne that you cannot but obserue what is commanded in Christian Religion Therfore you must yield that certainty in the vnderstanding doth not inferr a necessity in the will and so still be forced to answer your owne argument 65. In the meane tyme I cannot but note how many damnable Heresyes you here ioyne togeather though contrary one to an other and euen to your selfe For example of Pelagianisme that the will may performe whatsoeuer the vnderstanding certainly iudgeth ought to be done which takes away the necessity of Grace or motion of the Holy Ghost I sayd that the will may performe but wheras you teach further that it must of necessity do so you fall from Pelagianisme to a contrary extreme by taking away Freewill which the very Socinians defend so farr that to make men free they make themselues sacrilegious in denying that God can see the future free Acts of our will 〈◊〉 you take it away in a worse manner than Caluinists doe who conceaue it to be taken away by supernaturall efficacious Grace or by infused justifying Faith but your doctrine must take it away by euery certaine knowledg though it be but naturall or by Historicall fallible Faith and historicall Faith according to Caluinists is common to all Christians And yet in another respect you fall into the very quintessence of Caluinisme and puritanisme that Faith once had can neuer be lost which is against moderate Protestants and yourselfe with Socinians For if Faith necessarily giue vs perfect Charity and the victory ouer the world and sinne Faith it selfe which cannot be lost without sinne is absolutely secured 66. Neither can you answer that your Objection goes not against all Faith but only impugneth an infallible Faith For you grant certainty of faith to diuerse as we haue obserued aboue concerning them who are aduanced to certainty and spirit of obsignation or Confirmation which are as many according to you who liue as they belieue as also 〈…〉 â—postles and those who heard our Sauiour preaching or 〈…〉 miracles yea whosoeuer only belieues or knowes with certainty that there is a God and that he is to be obeyed must of necessity worke according to his knowledg which if he doe he cannot loose the belief of God nor euer become an Atheist which I feare is too much against experieÌ„ce You must also agree with Calvinists in their Doctrine that only Faith justifyes seing as they so you teach that it necessarily brings with it charity and good works And to this same purpose I still vrge your owne assertio concerning those to whom you granta Certainty in Faith and I suppose you will not grant that such men are justifyed by faith only and other Christians by some other meanes V. g. justifyng inherent Grace or with Faith Hope and Charity and therfor you must deny that perfect Charity must necessarily flow from an fallible Faith 67. Sixtly you speake very imperfectly in saying Charing is the effect of Faith if therfor the cause Were terfect the effect would be perfect For the Habit of Charity being infused immediatly by the Holy Ghost is not the effect of Faith or of any Acts of our will no nor of the Acts of Charity it selfe But if you speake of the Acts of Charity they proceede from the Habit of Charity from the particular helpe and assistance of the Holy Ghost and from our will eleuated by such assistance which is freely offered by God and freely accepted by the will but in no wise proceeds necessarily from Faith whose office is only to direct and shew the object without any necessitating influence S. Paule sayth 1. Cor 13.13 The greater of these is Charity and who euer heard that the effect can be more perfect than the cause Or if you say that Faith is not the totall but only a partiall cause of Charity which therfor may be more noble than Faith it selfe then by what logike can you infer that Charity must be perfect because it is the effect of a partiall cause lesse perfect than it selfe Rather according to your discourse joyned with the words of S. Paule that Faith is less perfect than Chatity we must say thus Charity is the effect of Faith and therfor feing the cause is imperfect the effect must be imperfect which is directly opposite to your inference and intent Besides from what Philosophy can you learne that when some cause or condition concurrs to the production of an effect not by it selfe but necessarily requires the company and cooperation of other causes that such a cause or condition can by it selfe alone produce such an effect But let vs suppose Faith to be the cause of Charity and by it selfe alone sufficient for mouing our will to Acts of Charity doth it follow that it must do so irresistibly and in such manner as that it remaine not in the power of our will either to exercise no act at all or to produce a more or lesse perfect one Remember your owne distinction and words to Char Maintayned in your Pag 172. N. 71. That a man mâ—y fall into some errour euen contrary to the truth which is taught him if it be taught him only sufficiently and not irr-sistibly so that he may learne it if be will not so that he must and shall vhâ—ther he will or no. Nâ—w who can a sertaine me that the spirits teaching is not of this nature Or how can you poâ—â—â—y 〈…〉 it with your dâ—â—trâ—ne of free wâ—ll in betiâ—uing if it be â—ot of 〈◊〉 nature And you hauing endeauoured to proue this out of diuerse places of Scripture conclude God may teach and the Church not learne God may lead and the Church be resrachry and not follow 68. Now I retort this Argument and aske why a man may not fall into some errour contrary to the truth which he was taught and which once he belieued and committ some sinne which Faith dictates not to be committed if Faith teach him only sufficiently and not irresistibly and who can
or liuing as we ought is the cause of faith and as faith is the cause of Charity to which all being obliged they are by consequence obliged to procure the cause therof which you say is faith Wherfor vpon the whole matter your probable faith remaines only to such as keepe not the Commandements nor liue as they belieue which if they did God would rayse them higher to a certainty For thus you say Pag 37. N. 9. God will accept of the weakest and lowest degree of faith if it be truing and effectuall to true obedience and rhat for sincere obedience God may and will rayse men higher to a Certainty Therfor a primo ad vltimum the weakest Faith if it be effectuall to obedience will bring men to certainty Therfore none de facto want such a certainty except they whose faith is not liuing nor effectuall to obedience And further seing you confess yours not to be certaine it must follow that it is not effectuall to true obedience otherwise it would be improued to a Certainty 73. But this is not all that occurrs to be sayd in this poynt Remember your doctrine Pag 379. N. 70. and elswhere that repentance necessary to saluation requires effectuall dereliction and mortification of all viâ—es and the effectuall practise of all Christian vâ—rtues which whosoever performes exercises very perfect obedience and shall not fayle of being raysed higher to a Certainty of faith Therfor your fallible faith will remaine only in sinners For if one either giue himselfe to sincere obedience and so fall not into great sinne or truly repent by your kind of repentance he must passe to a certainty of Faith and so all in state of saluation both Saints that is who haue not sinned mortally and repentant sinners cannot want the spirit of Obsignation as you call it and certaine Faith Why then do you deceiue the world and delude poore soules with a fallible faith or perswasion and not absolutely proclaime to the world that infallible Faith is necessary since euen according to your grounds it is necessary for all sorts of people 74. Now all your Objections and my Answers being vnpartially considered let any man judge whether your Arguments deserue such epithetons as you giue them of demonstratiue conuincing inuincible cleare and the like and what reason you had to say P. 326. N. 4. These you see are strang and portentuous consequences and yet the deduction of them from your doctrine is cleare and apparent which shewes this doctrine of yours which you would fame haue true that there might be some necessity of your Churches infallibility to be indeed plainly repugnant not only to Truth but euen to all Religion and Piety sit for nothing but to make men negligent of making any progress in faith or Charity And therfor I must intreat and adjure you either to discouer vnto me which I take God to witness I cannot perceaue some fallacy in my reasons against it or neuer herafter to open your mouth in defence of it 75. I answer S. Paule had good reason to say Scientia inflat 1. Cor 8.1 Knowledg puffeth vp it is a poysonous quality making the person swell his Arguments and all that he does or sayes swell and emptyness appeare greatness it is a multiplying glasse that stirrs vp in mens fancyes strang and huge apparitions from nothing But Sir remeber that your ObjectioÌ„s make no more against Vs Catholikes than PictestaÌ„ts who profess ChristiaÌ„ Religion to be infallible and I belieue will not belieue your bare word that these consequences are cleare Christian Historicall Faith is infallibly true Therfor it must be lost by any least doubting though resisted that is by a no-doubt as I haue shewed it must be incompatible with any deliberate sinne it must bring with it Charity so perfect that we can make no progress therin For my part I do in no wise vnderstand such deductions nor how any man of vnderstanding should take them for good as I haue shewed more than sufficiently though yet I must add that though the consequences which you pretend to deduce from our doctrine be strange and portentuous in themselues yet to you they ought not to seeme so or at least ought not to be publikly avouched by you for such For besides that the very same consequences which you deduce from our doctrine follow from your owne assertions as I haue proued answer I beseech you these few Demands 1. Whether it be more convenient that true Diuine Faith should be inconsistent with an involuntary Doubt which you inferr against vs as a great absurdity or that it should be compatible with a voluntary sinfull damnable not only Doubt but positiue assertive Errour as you teach Pag. 368. N. 49. and call the contrary doctrine a vaine and groundless fancy as I observed aboue or that it may stand with an assent that probably it may be false or with a preparation of mynd to forsake it if seeming better reasons offer themselves against it thaÌ„ you conceive your selfe to haue for it which for ought you know may happen as I shewed above 2. Whether it be worse that all should of necessity be perfect in charity by an Infallible Faith or that none can be perfect as it ineuitably followes out of your Tenets put togeather That Faith is only probable and fallible and yet that the measure of our victory over the world and of our charity must be taken from Faith which you say is the cause of charity and the effect cannot be more perfect than the cause Besides your brethren the Calvinists believe that men are justifyed by a sirme and certaine Faith that they are just and that charity and good works are inseparable from such a Faith and then seing according to your owne words if the cause be perfect the effect must be perfect and that the cause of charity is in their opinion perfect that is a sirme and certaine Faith it followes that their charity must of necessity be perfect and that no just man can make any progress therin 3. Whether it be more absurd to hold an impossibility of committing any deliberate sinne or to belieue that all our best actions are deadly sinnes Or whether it be worse to teach that one cannot breake the commandements which you against all truth impute to vs Or that he cannot keepe them euen with the assistance of Gods grace which is the common doctrine of Protestants Thus then it is not our doctrine but the errours of you and your brethren that must in many respects make men negligent of making any progress in Faith or charity And what a Paradoxe is this A weake and fallible Faith makes men diligent in making Progress in charity and a strong infallible Faith is fit for nothing but to make men negligent of making any progress in Faith or Charity as yon are pleased strangly to speake directly against the admonition of S. Peter 1. Pet 5. cui resistite fortes in Fide whom
the vnderstanding dres all and the will nothing And yet that it is Necessitated is a cleare truth since you professe to believe with no more certainty than is evidently deduced from evident Premises and the vnderstanding is no less necessitated to give assent to a probable conclusion draweÌ„ evideÌ„tly from knowen probable Premises than it is forced to an assent of a certaine Conclusion deduced from demonstratiue Premises Pag 331. N. 8. having sett downe some Principles which you judg to be evident and certaine you conclude thus From all these Premises this Conclusion evidently follows that it is infallibly certaine that we are firmly to believe the truth of Christian Religion And in the same Pag. 331. N. 9. There is an abundance of Arguments exceedingly credible inducing men to believe the truth of Christianity I say so credible that though they cannot make vs evidently see what we believe yet they evidently convince that in true wisdome and prudence the Articles of it deserue credit and ought so be accepted as things revealed by God therfor there is convincing evidence for the truth of Christian Articles as farr as you believe them And Pag 36. N. 9. you affirme that God requires of all that their Faith should be proportionable to the motiues and Reasons enforcing to it If the Reasons enforce to the Conclusion how is it not necessitated Therfor your Faith is both free according to your owne words and necessitated according to truth in your grounds which is also convinced by your saying that certainty cannot be without evidence And therfor the Faith of your choise elevated people which you say is certaine must be evident and consequently not free But our Faith raysing vs above the evident Arguments of Credibility remaines free and is in no sense necessitated 86. II. For your epithetons of being certaine and vncertaine we profess and believe nothing more certainly than that our Faith is certaine and not capable either of falshood or vncertainty But your Booke is Chiefly imployed to prove your Faith not to be certaine and we are well content it be so Yet if you remember what you say of your choysest persons and best Believers that they have a certainty beyond evidence and yet expressly teach that certainty cannot be greater than the evidence of the Object as I shewed above it followes clearly that you give them a certainty which your self hold impossible fot any to have and so you give them certainty and not certainty that is a meere contradiction or nothing 87. III. For the denominations of Evident Obscure They agree not to our Faith which we believe to be Obscure not evident as I have explicated elswhere But for your Faith according to your grounds it must be both evident and obscure Evident because you believe with no greater assent than you receyve by evident Arguments and accordingly you say Pag 329. N. 7. Nothing is more repugnant than that a man should be required to give most certaine credit vnto that which cannot be made appeare most certainly credible And if it appeare to him to be so then it is not obscure that it is so According to which we must say that nothing is more vnreasonable than that a man should be required to give probable credit vnto that which cannot be made appeare probably credible and if it appeare to him to be so then it is not obscure that it is so Therfore in your grounds you must believe nothing to be true but according to the evidence which you have therof And therfor Pag. 330. N. 7. you say in express termes That I should believe the truth of any thing the truth wherof cannot be made evident with an evidence proportionable to the degree of Faith required of me this I say for any man to be bound to is vnjust and vnreasonable because to do it is impossible Therfor your Faith is evident in respect of the truth which you believe according to the measure of your belief therof If you did believe with certainty a truth for which you haue only probable arguments such a truth I grant were not evident in proportion to your assent but since you believe the truth of Christian Religion only with a probable assent and that you have evidence of those Reasons which cause your assent to such a truth it is cleare that your Faith is evident to you as farr as your belief goes And yet you must hold it to be obscure otherwise it could not be capable of obedience as you pretend it to be because you say there can be no obedience where the vnderstanding doe all and the will nothing 88 Fourthly You say our Faith is prudent and foolish That our Faith is prudent and yours imprudent Charity Maintayned hath proved Chap. 6. and yet since you will say that yours is prudent it will remayne imprudent indeed and prudent in your words And indeed none but an enemy to Christianity can affirme our Faith and Religion to be imprudent if he consider well what a deadly wound he gives to Christian Religion by saying so For take from vs the Marks of a true Religion which are conspicuous in our Church only you deprivâ— Christianity of Motives or Arguments of Credibility sufficient to move or oblige men to embrace it where I pray except in our Church can be found Antiquity perpetuall Existence and Visibility Vniversality of Tyme and Place Succession of Pastours Vnity and effectuall meanes to conserve it Sanctity Miracles Efficacy in the conversion of Gentils which the Ancient Fathers vrge as a strong argument to prove the truth of Christian Religion against the Iewes Amplitude and Glory of Christs Kingdome fortold by the Prophets The very name Catholike with other Notes of the true Church which evidently agree to Our Church and are manifestly wanting to Protestants vnless they begg or vsurpe them from vs as the carefull Reader must confesse if he do but severally reflect on them While therfor you blaspheme the Faith of our Church to be foolish you do in fact lay the same imputation on Christian Religion Seing then you cannot without prejudice to Christian Religion affirme our Faith to be imprudent and foolish you must in good consequence be content that your owne beare that denomination Besides Pag. 331. N. 10. you say Charity maintayned was mistaken in making prudence not only a commendation of a believer and a justification of his Faith but also essentiall to it and part of the definition of it and did as if one being to say what a man is should define him a reasonable creature that hath skill in Astronomy For as all Astronomers are men but all men are not Astrâ—nomers and therfor Astronomy ought not to be put into the definition of men where nothing should have place but what agrees to all men So though all that are truly wise that is wise for eternity will believe aright yet many may beleeve aright which are not wise By which words you give vs to
evident he might perhaps haue fayled in some necessary poynt if the text had proved to be evident and yet vnknown to him for want of such examination Neither can it be answered that if a text be evident it will appeare to be such For a thing vpon due examination and study may appeare evident or obscure which at first sight did not seeme to be such And for this same reason every one must learne to reade the bible or at least procure that every text therof be read to him that so he may be sure to know all evident and consequently all necessary texts of scripture it being cleare that he cannot haue sufficient assurance that he knowes every particular text only by hearing sermons or ordinary casvall discourses or the like And this care every one shall be obliged to vse even for those books of scripture which are receyved by some Protestants and rejected by others least if indeed they be Canonicall and he remayne ignorant of any one poynt evidently contayned in them he put himself in danger of wanting the knowledg of some thing necessary to be believed You teach Pag 23. N. 27. that to make a catalogue of fundamentall points had been to no purpose there being as matters now stand as great necessity of believing those truths of scripture which are not fundamentall as thâ—se that are But it is necessary for every one learned or vnlearned to know explicitly all fundamentall truths Therfor it is necessary for every one to know explicitly all truths though not fundamentall Now who sees not that these are ridiculous vnreasonable and intolerable precepts and burthens imposed vpon mens consciences without any ground except an obstinate resolution to defend your opinion that all things necessary are evident in scripture And yet I do not perceiue how Protestants can avoyd these sequeles if they will stand to those principles For whosoeuer is obliged to attaine an End is obliged to vse that meanes which is necessary for that End Your self Pag 194. N. 4. hold it for an absurdity that it should be a damnable sin in any learned man and I may say much more in any vnlearned person actually to disbelieue any one particular Historicall verity contayned in Scripture or to belieue the contradiction of it though be know it not to be there conâ—â—â—ed Now I say according to this your Doctrine every one must know every truth in scripture and not only not contradict it but he must explicitly know it least otherwise he may chance to omitt the belief of some poynt necessary to be expressiy believed Which is a greater absurdity than only to say every one is obliged not to contradict any truth contayned in scripture though he know it not to be there contayned And as for our present purpose you clearly suppose that every man though he be learned is not obliged to know every truth contayned in Scripture and therfor your Doctrine which necessarily infers this obligation must be absurd and contradictory to yourself 27. Fourthly in Holy scripture two things are to be considered The words and sense or meaning of them The words are cleare in scripture as in other bookes to such as vnderstand the language But for the sense it may be affirmed with much truth that abstracting from extrinsecall helpe or autority euen in matters of greatest moment proper to Christian religion it is hard to fynd any one poynt so cleare of it self as to convince that it must needs be vnderstood in this or thar determinate sense For though the words may seeme clearly to signify such a thing in objects proportionate to our naturall reason yet the hardness and height of Christian belief is apt to withdraw our vnderstanding from yeilding a firme assent to points which truly are aboue and in shew seeme to be against reason For this I will alledg your selfe who Pag 215. N. 46. speake thus They which doe captivate their vnderstandings to the belief of those things which to their vnderstanding seeme irreconsiable Contradictions may as well believe reall contraditions Since then no man can belieue reall contradictions appearing such it followes according to your owne assertion that none can belieue those poynts which to his vnderstanding seeme contradictions and then he will be seeking some other by-sense of such words as taken in the obvious common signification may seeme in his way of vnderstanding to imply contradiction Which yet appeares more clearly out of other words of yours Pag 216.217 N. 46. where having sett downe divers contradictions as you vntruly apprehend in our catholique doctrine concerning the B. Sacrament of the Eucharist you conclude that if Char Maintayned cannot compose their repugnance and that after an intelligible manner then we must giue him leaue to belieue that either we do not belieue Transubstantiation or else that it is no contradiction that men should subjugate their vnderstandings to the belief of contradictions Which words declare how willing a mans vnderstanding or reason is to be at peace with it self and to belieue nothing wherin it cannot Compose all repugnance and that after an intelligible manner Seing then all Christians must belieue the words of scripture to be true and yet find difficulty in composing all repugnance to reason after an intelligible manner they are easily drawne to entertayne some interpretation agreeable to their vnderstanding though contrary to the signifitation which the words of themselves do clearly import and perhaps was intended by the Holy Ghost 28. From this fountaine arise so many and so different and contrary heresies concerning the chiefest articles of Christian Faith the difficulty of the objects and disproportion to our naturall reason first diverting and then averting our vnderstanding from that which it sees not cleared after an intelligible manner and the loss of the first evidence and vsuall signification of the words bringing men to a loss in the pursuite of the true sense of them For this cause the particular Grace of the Holy Ghost is necessary to belieue as we ought insomuch as Fulk against Rhem Testam in 2 Petr 3. Pag 821. saith As concerning the Argument and matter of the Scripture we confess that for the most and chiefest matters it is not only hard but impossible to be vnderstood of the naturall man Besides which difficulty arising from the Objects or Mysteryes in themselves there is another proceeding from the subject or Believer when one hath already taken a Point for true and for that cause will be willing to seeke and glad to fynd some sense of Scripture agreeable to his foreconceyved opinion though not without violence to the letter or words 29. And yet to these dissicultyes flowing from the Object and Sabject we may add another ex Adjunctis when one place of Scripture seeming cleare enough of it self growes to be hard by being compared with the obvious sense of that other Text as we haue heard out of Chilling Pag 41. N. 13. that Scripture may with so great
amongst themselves nor vvith vs Catholikes Socinians goe further and deny Baptisme to be a Sacrament and teach that all are not obliged to receaue it but that some may be enrolled amongst the number of Christians without it That the church may either leaue it of or at least can compell none to receyue it and in a vvord that it is a thing adiaphorous or indifferent (b) Volkel Lib. 6. Cap. 14. The Eucharist also they hold not to be a SacrameÌ„t (c) Volkel Lib. 4. C 22. that it may be administred by lay persons (d) Ibidem and receyved by such as are not baptized (e) Lib. 7. Cap. 14. Other Protestants do not agree about the necessity of Baptisme 40. As for the Matter and Forme of those tvvo Sacraments vvhich they admit Divers of them expressly teach that vvater is not absolutely necessary in Baptisme but that some other liquid thing may serue and yet the scripture sayth Joan 3. V. 5. Vnless a man be borne againe of vvater and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter the Kingdome of God And Ephes 5.25.26 Christ loved the church and delivered himself for it that he might sanctify it cleansing it by the laver in the vvord of life And for the Forme there vvant not that teach those vvords In the name of the Father c. not to be necessary About the Forme of the Eucharist they agree not some requiring no vvords at all other requiring vvords but in a farr different manner and meaning one from another as may be seene in Bellarm. Lib. 4. de Sacrament Eucharistiae Cap. 12. And for the Matter some Protestants as Beza Tilenus Bucanus Hommius teach that neither bread nor vvine is necessary for the Eucharist though it be evident in scripture that our Sauiour consecrated in bread and vvine As also Beza Lib Quest Respons Vol 3. Theol Pag 364. saith that it is naevus in Ecclesijs c. A blemish in those Churches which vse vnleavened bread rather than leavened and savours of Iudaâ—sme and yet he affirmes that Christ first blessed vnleavened bread and instituted this supper at that tyme when it was not lawfull for the Iewes to vse any but vnleavened bread And Sadeel ad Artic 56. abjurat Pag 511. saith Christ indeed vsed vnleavened bread Did Christ that vvhich savours of Judaisme Christ did institute the Sacraments at supper By what authority then do they alter these things if we must stand to scriprure alone without the churches tradition and authority What evident Text can they bring for these and the like alterations as not first washing feete c. And Volkel Lib 4. C. 22. affirmes that if one cannot drinke wine he may vse water without changing the substance of the Lord's supper as he speakes Montague the pretended Bishop first of Chichester then of Norwich in the articles of visitation Ann 1631. Tit. Articles concerning Divine service and administration of the Sacraments N. 9. sayth thus Is the wine as it should be representing bloud not sacke whyte wine water or some other liquor but yet for the further satisfaction of the Reader I think sitt to transcribe the words of Brereley who Tract 2. Cap. 2. Sect. 10. subdivis 7. doth to this purpose cite punctually the opinions of divers learned Protestants in these words Concerning the forme of words requisite to a Sacrament Luther (a) To 2 Wittenberg Lib de Captivit Babilon Cap de Baptis Fol 75. affirmes Baptisme to be good with whatsoever words it be ministred so the same be not in the name of man but of God Yea he sayth I doubt not but if one receyue Baptisme in the name of God although the wicked Minister giue it not in the name of God he is truly baptised in the name of God Also Brentius (b) In Catheches Cap de Bap and Zwinglius (c) To 2. Lib de vera falsa Religione Cap de Baptism sub finem Fol. 202. And see Zuinglius more plainly To 2. Lib. de Baptis Fol 66 affirme that no prescript forme of words is necessary in Baptisme to omitt that Bullinger (d) in his Decads Decad. 5. Ser 6. Pag. 969. paulo post med and 975. and 976. and 974. doth discourse at large against the necessity of any forme of words to be pronounced And that Bucer in Matth. C. 26 teacheth recitall of Christ's words in the Sacrament of the Eucharist not to be necessary one of their owne martyrs Iohn Lassells in his letter Apologeticall recorded for the supposed worth therof by M. Fox in his Acts and monâ— Pag 678.679 affirmes ehat S. Paul durst not take vpon him to say Hoc est Corpus meum This is my body but omitted those words affirming yet further that The Lord Iesus sayd it once for all Whervpon he maketh the necessity to consist not in any words pronounced but in the breaking and giving of bread Wherevnto might be added the agreeable doctrine of Muscolus (e) in Lo comm C. de Caen Dom Pag 336. circa med post medium and the like answerable practise of the reformed Church in Scotland f As appeares in the booke of the vsage of the kirk of Scotland printed at Rochell 1596. Pag. 189.190.191.192.193 41. The same I may say of the Forme Matter and Manner to be vsed in the Ordination of Bishops Priests and others Degrees in the church All which poynts being of great importance in Gods church which cannot consist without true Governours and Sacraments and yet not being determinable by scripture alone as is manifest both by the thing it self and by the different and contrary Opinions of learned Protestants concerning them we must infer that all things necessary are not evidently contayned in scripture 42. Which is so manifest a truth that Dr. Field one of the greatest Clerks amongst English Protestants L. 4. C. 20. summeth togeather divers traditions not contayned in scripture saying we admit first the Bookes of Canonicall Scriptue as delivered by tradition what more fundameÌ„tall article than this to Protestants who profess to haue no Faith but by scripture which this man acknowledges to be receyved and believed by traditions Secondly the chief heads of Christian Doctrine and distinct explication of many things somwhat obscurely contayned in Scripture Mark that a poynt contayned obscurely in scripture may become evident by explication of the church as I sayd in the beginning of this chapter and mark that he specifyes the chief heads of christian Doctrine Fourthly the continued practise of such things as are not expressed in scripture Fiftly such observations as are not particularly commanded in scripture Amongst which and the former he numbreth the Fast of Lent the Baptisme of infants of which he sayes it is not expressly delivered in scripture that the Apostles did baptize Infants nor any express precept there found that they should do so and observation of our Lords day and afterward he confesseth that many other things there are which
the Apostles doubtiess delivered by Tradition Covell in his Answer to Iohn Burges Pag 139. affirmes the moderate vse of the Crosse to be an Apostolicall Constitution and in his Examination against the Plea of the innocent Cap. 9 Pag. 104. referreth the termes of Archishops vnto Apostolicall Ordination And VVhitgift in his Defence c affirmeth and proveth the Apostles Tradition of Easter And Oecolampadiuâ— affirms the Baptisme of infants not to be taught in scripture in liâ— Epiâ—tolarum Zuâ—nglâ—i Occolampaâ—â— Pag 101. and 363. and so likewise doth Zuinglius To 1. Lib de Bapt. Fol. 96. These men therefore must either confess the authority of Gods church and her infallible Traditions or yield to the pernicious Doctrine of Anabaptists Dr. Taylor in is Defence of Episcopacy is so full to our purpose for the necessity of Traditions that I thought sit to transcribe his words as they ly § 19. which are these Pag 100. Although we had not proved the immediate Divine institution of Episcopall power over Presbyters and the whole flock yet Episcopacy is not lesse then an Apostolicall ordinance and delivered to vs by the same authority that the observation of the Lords day is For for that in the new Testament we haue no precept and nothing but the example of the Primitiue Disciples meeting in their Synaxes vpon that day and so also they did on the saturday in the Jewish Synagogues but yet however that at Geneva they were once in meditation to haue changed it into a Thursday meeting to haue showne their Christian liberty we should thinke strangely of those men that called the Sunday Festivall lesse then an Aposticall ordinance and necessary now to be kept holy with such observances as the Church hath appointed Baptisme of infants is most certainly a holy and charitable ordinance and of ordinary necessity to all that ever cryed and yet the Church hath founded this rite vpon the tradition of the Apostles and wise men do easily obserue that the Anabaptists can by the same probability of scripture inforce a necessity of communicating infants vpon vs as we doe of baptizing infants vpon them if we speak of immediate Divine institution or of practise Apostolicall recorded in scripture and therfore a great Master of Geneva in a book he writ against the Anabaptists was forced to fly to Apostolicall traditiue ordination and therfor the institution of Bishops must be served first as having fairer plea and clearer evidence in scripture then the baptizing of infants and yet they that deny this are by the just anathema of the Catholick Church confidently condemned for Hereticks Of the same consideration are diverse other things in Christianity as the Presbyters consecrating the Eucharist for if the Apostles in the first institution did represent the whole Church Clergy and Laity when Christ sayd Hoc facite Doe this then why may not every Christian man there represented doe that which the Apostles in the name of all were commanded to doe If the Apostles did not represent the whole Church why then doe all communicate Or what place or intimation of Christes saying is there in all the foure Gospells limiting Hoc facite id est benedicite to the Clergy and extending Hoc facite id est accipite manducate to the Laity This also rests vpon the practise Apostolicall and traditive interpretation of H Church and yet cannot be denyed that so it ought to be by any man that would not haue his Christendome suspected To these I adde the Communion of Women the distinction of bookes Apocryphall from Canonicall that such books were written by such Evangelists and Apostles the whole tradition of scripture it selfe the Apostles Creed the feast of Easter which amongst all men that cry vp the Sunday-Festivall for a Divine institution must needs prevaile as Caput institutionis it being that for which the Sunday is commemorated These and diverse others of greater consequence which I dare not specify for feare of being misunderstood rely but vpon equall faith with this of Episcopacy though I should waue all the arguments for immediate Divine ordinance and therfore it is but reasonable it should be ranked amongst the Credenda of Christianity which the Church hath entertained vpon the confidence of that which we call the Faith of a Christian whose Master is truth it selfe Thus farr the Doctour in whom beside other divers points for our purpose it is remarkable that he affirmes the deniall of the baptizing of infants to be an Heresy and yet that the contrary truth is not contained in scripture which therfore cannot be sayd to containe all necessary points of Faith 43. Seaventhly it is a prodigious kind of thing that Protestants would make men belieue that all necessary poynts are evident in scripture and yet for vnderstanding scripture prescribe certaine necessary Rules or Meanes which it is evident few can possibly obserue and no lesse evident by the confession of our adversaryes that being observed they are not sufficient and consequently even by those Meanes assigned for vnderstanding scripture we know that scripture is not evident in all necessary things which is a poynt well to be noted Sanchius de sacra scriptura Col 409. saith The Holy scripture in those things which are necessary to be knowne for salvation is so cleare that it may easily he vnderstood of all those who are indued with Gods spirit and who reade it attentively and dayly and vnderstand the words and phrases therof Easily Doth not this contradict all the former words which require knowledg hard to be gotten and paynes not easy to be taken The scripture sayth this Protestant is cleare in all necessary poynts to all that are indued with the spirit of God But if they be indued with the spirit of God they are presupposed to haue true Faith for points necessary to be knowen and then I aske fromwhence had they that Faith without which scripture is not cleare Not from scripture because it is prerequired to the vnderstanding of scripture Therfore from some other meanes which certainly can be no other but the Church and tradition Besides this that is beside the spirit of God yea aÌ„d true Faith they must reade scripture daily and attentively and must penetrate the words and phrases which is so farr from being easy to be done that he assignes no fewer thaÌ„ nineteene Rules for doeing it wherof one is that we interpret scripture juxta analogiam Fidei and by the Scriptures themselves by diligent conferring of places like to one an other Is this easy And yet we must not forget that he speaks of poynts necessary to de believed Scharphius assignes twenty Rules in cursu Theologico de scrip controvers 8. Pag 44. which vnless they be kept we cannot but erre But perhaps all these Rules are easy Iudg of the rest by these To know originall languages also to discusse the words phrases and Hebraismes to conferr the places which are like and vnlike to one another to aske advise
not for poynts only profitable and if you answer affirmatively then you wil be obliged to informe vs how we may be able to distinguish so evidently between very profitable and only profitable things as that we may certainly know what must be clearly contayned in scripture what not But it is impossible for you to giue any such intelligible solid practicall distinction and therfore you cannot affirme that all very profitable poynts are evident in scripture but not things only profitable Since then you cannot say that al profitable things are evident in scripture for that were to affirme that all scripture is cleare there being nothing revealed by God which is not profitable and yet who will deny but that the scripture is obscure in some poynts you must be content to conclude that all very profitable things are not evidently contayned in scripture And further wheras you joyne togeather things necessary and things very profitable and assigne the selfsame meanes for ending all controversies concerning those two kinds of things which is really and sincerely to submitt their judgments to scripture and that only seing this means will not serue for ending all controversies in things very profitable as I haue shewed it followes that it is not sufficient to end all controversies concerning things necessary And if in things profitable and very profitable that may seeme evident to one which to another may seeme obscure or even vntrue the same also may happen in things necessary in regard that all the Rules and industryes which Protestants assigne for finding the true sense of scripture are no less fallible in things necessary than in things very profitable But whatsoever your opinion be concerning things very profitable or profitable I take thence a strong argument and say 73. 13 Not only for things necessary but for things profitable also there cannot be wanting in Gods Church some meanes to end controversies touching them by declaring them with certainty and infallibility For although if things profitable be taken in particular and severally every one is no more than profitable yet speaking of a Community or a great Misticall body especially such a body as the Church of Christ is instituted by an infinite wisdome and ordayned to the sublime End of Eternall Happyness toward the attayning wherof every little advantage and help is not to be litle esteemed and the privation and want therof or euery errour therin is to be in like proportion avoyded things profitable taken as it were in generall ought in morall consideration to be judged necessary in such a body which otherwise would looke like a man conceyved with his Essence only devested of all accidents and integrant parts or like to his body indued with necessary parts only for example hart and braine without feete hāds eares eyes and other senses And therfor it cannot be imagined but that God hath left meanes in his Church for declaring truths and determining Controversyes in profitable poynts as occasion shall require The scripture of it self is most sacred and effectuall to the conversion of sinners and convincing of Heretikes if it be redd with sobriety and interpreted with submission of our vnderstanding to Gods Church Otherwise Experience shewes that men from it by the fault of men not of it take occasion of implacable and endless contentions without any possibility of remedy till they submitt their judgments and will to some infallible Living Guide For this cause also their Faith and Religion is sterill and barren as being deprived of Gods blessing for the conversion of nations to Christ fortold by the Prophets as a Priviledge of the true Church Thus the very name of Christ preached by some who were out of the Church was not efficacious to the casting out of divells Act. 19.15 yea contrarily the divell so prevayled against them that they fled out of that house naked and wounded V. 16. Even so the scripture out of the Church is neither effectuall for concord among Christians nor for the conversion of Infidels to Christ 74. 14. What I haue sayd about the necessity of profitable things considered as it were in generall and consequently of some meanes to determine controversyes concerning them may be confirmed by a discourse of yours Pag. 9. N. 6. where you say VVe are bound by the loue of God and loue of Truth to be Zealous in the defence of all Truths that are any way profitable Mark any way and not only Very profitable though not simply necessary to salvation Or as if any good man could satisfy his conscience without being so affected and resolved Our Saviour himself having assured vs Matth. 5.19 That he that shall break one of his least Commandements some wherof you pretend are concerning veniall sinnes and consequently the keeping of them not necessary to salvation and shall so teach men shal be called the least in the kingdome of Heaven And Pag 277. N. 61. you teach that God hath promised such an assistance as shall lead vs if we be not wanting to it and ourselves into all not only necessary but very profitable Truth and guard vs from all not only destructiue but also hurtfull errours Which words are directly against yourself whom we haue heard saying That if controversyes touching things not necessary or not very profitable were continued or increased it were no matter Wheras here you say of things any way profitable that by the loue of God and loue of Truth and obligation of conscience and vnder payne of being the least in the kingdome of Heaven that is of being excluded from the kingdome of Heauen according to S. Chrysostome and Theophylact who interpret minimus the least to signify nullus none at all we are bound to be zealous in the defence of them A great zeale indeed to maintayne that if debates concerning them could not be ended but continued or increased it were no matter Do you not through your whole Booke teach that all errours against revealed truths are breaches of Gods command and are in themselves damnable and will effectually proue such if ignorance do not excuse or a generall Repentance do not obtaine pardon for them How then is it no matter if they remayne vndecided or that there be no meanes to decide them Is it no matter whether one by breaking one of Gods commandements be least in the kingdome of Heaven As for your Parenthesis that we pretend some of the commandements to be concerning veniall sins the keeping wherof is not necessary to salvation I say it is either vntrue or impertinent For if you meane that we pretend some errour against any least revealed Truth sufficiently proposed to be a veniall sin it is very vntrue You know that Cha Ma doth teach the contrary through his whole work and theron grounds the maine scope of his Booke That of two disagreeing in Poynts of Faith or Objects revealed by God and sufficiently propounded one committs a deadly sin and without repentance cannot be saved If you meane
only excused by ignorāce or pardonable by repētance How thē can you say that errours against profitable points are not damnable in themselves and yet that the errours of the Roman Church are such But why do I dispute against you by Argument Heare I pray you your owne words Pag 290. N. 88. where you say Fundamentall errours may signify either such as are repugnant to Gods command and so in their owne nature damnable though to those which out of invincible ignorance practise them not vnpardonable or such as are not only meritoriously but remedilessely pernicious and destructiue of salvation c Behold the reason for which errours are in their nature damnable namely because they are repugnant to Gods command which certainly is common to all errours against Divine Revelation sufficiently proposed whether the matter be in it self great or small Besides it is manifest that scarcely in any matter of moment Protestants do so vnanimously disagree from vs as that divers of them do not hold with vs against their pretended Brethren and therfor if our errours as you call them which are indeed Catholique verities be damnable in themselves their 's also must be such if they be considered in themselves which yourselfe do not deny Pag 306. N. 106. saying For our continuing in their Communion you speake of Protestants erring in some Poynt of Faith notwithstanding their errours the justification hereof is not so much that their errours are not damnable as that they require not the belief and profession of these errours among the conditions of their Communion Wherfor I must returne to conclude that in affirming our errours to be damnable in themselves and so worse than those of Protestants you manifestly contradict yourself and truth even though we should falsely suppose our Church to be stayned with errours And heer I aske how you can say Pag 278. N. 61. without impiety and contrariety to yourselfe that Heresyes not fundamentall do of themselves and immediately damne no man seing you very often profess that to oppose a thing revealed by God and sufficiently proposed for such is a damnable sinne 81. I will end this Poynt with noting an egregious falsification of yours about a passage of Ch Mayntayned in these your words Pag 306. N. 106. directed to Ch Ma A sift falshood is that we daily doe this favour for Protestants you must meane if you speake consequently to judg they haue no errours because we judg they haue none damnable Which the world knowes to be most vntrue Thus you But Ch Ma never sayd nor dreamed that Protestants did judg that their Brethren had no errours because they had none damnahle but his words are these Part 1. Chap. 5. N. 41. Pag 206. If you grant your conscience to be erroneous in judging that you connot be saved in the Roman Church by reason of her errours there is no other remedy but that you must rectify your erring conscience by your other judgment that her errours are not fundamentall nor damnable And this is no more charity then you daily afford to such other Protestants as you terme Brethren whom you cannot deny to be in some errours vnless you will hold that of contradictory propositions both may be true and yet you do not judg it damnable to liue in their communion because you hold their errours not to be fundamentall Thus Ch. Ma And now doth he not expressly suppose affirme and speak oferring Protestants With what modesty then can you say that Char. Ma. would haue them judged to haue no errours and not to separate from their pretended Brethren for such errours as are supposed not to be fundamentall Yea He spoke so clearly of some Protestants their communicating with other of their Brethren notwithstanding their errours that you answer as aboue I haue cited you saying For our continuing in their communion notwithstanding their errours the justification hereof is not so much that their errours are not damnable as that they require not the belief and profession of these errours among the conditions of their communion 82. No less inexcusably do you falsify His words in the same Pag. 306. N. 105. While you alledg as His these words If you erred in thinking that our Church holds errours this errour or erroneous conscience might be rectifyed and deposed by judginge those errours not damnable Which indeed if he had spoken were non-sense but his words are those which I haue cited If you grant your conscience to be erroneous in judging that you cannot be saved in the Roman Church by reason of her errours there it no remedy but that you must rectify your erring conscience by your other judgment that her errours are not fundamentall nor damnable Is this to say that Protestants must judg that our Church hath no errours because the errours are not fundamentall Or is it not directly contrary that though they did suppose her to haue errours yet even that supposition standing they might judg that they might be saved in her communion because her errours are supposed not to be damnable 83. In the meane tyme it is no small comfort to Catholiques that Protestants confess they belieue errours damnable in themselves wheras we Catholikes are infallibly certaine that our Church is not subject to any errour in matter of Faith and though she were yet even by their confession we may be saved by the same meanes by which they can hope for salvation that is Repentance or Ignorance as you every where confess And in particular of our learned men who one would think could not pretend to be excused by ignorance you expressly say heer Pag 305. N. 105. To think that all the learned men of your side are actually convinced of errours in your Church and will not forsake the profession of them this is so great an vncharitableness that I verily belieue Dr. Potter abhors it If our learned men may be excused much more vnlearned persons are very safe and sure to be excused and so all sorts of men in our Church may be saved even by the Principles and Confession of our Adversaryes 84. But now although it ought not to be to my purpose in this occasion to answer at large the particular Instances which you brought to proue that our falfly supposed errours in things profitable may be occasion of danger and damnation Yet least perhaps some vnlearned person may apprehend them to contayne some great difficulty I will touch them briefly The Doctrine of Indulengces say you Pag 9. N. 7. may take away the feare of Purgatory and the Doctrine of Purgatory the feare of Hell But first how can you object to vs as an inconvenience that the doctrine of Indulgences takes away the feare of Purgatory since Protestants denying Purgatory do much more take away all feare of it 2. What harme is there in diminishing in our soule the feare of Purgatory by solid and true meanes approved by Gods Church as fasting prayer pennance Indulgences c Doth not the
to our owne conjectures may be alledged contrary wayes as for example you say that the doctrine of indulgences is dangerous because it may take away the feare of Purgatory And why may not I say that the denying of Indulgences besides the Heresy which is of it selfe damnable is dangerous for the sequeles because the want of that devotion and omission of very many works of many vertues as repentance pennance Charity c to which a desire and endeavour to gaine Indulgences would moue vs would very probably hinder the salvation of many which otherwise might haue bene saved as you say of hearing the publike Offices celebrated in a toung not vnderstood by all Concerning which instances I say That if the doctrine of Protestants in this matter be false as most certainly it is then not very probably as you threaten vs but certainly they shall be damned who in this particular oppose their judgment and Practise against the Belief and Practise of the Catholique Church spread over the world before Luther appeared Nay I say morè that though we did suppose which we can never grant the Church to erre is this Poynt yet godly Laymen as you speake who in simplicity of hart and out of Ignorance obey the Church by this their Obedience oblige as I may say Allmighty God never to permit that their goodness and godliness proue to them an occasion of perdition Rather according to your manner of arguing and according to truth the defect of Obedience Religion and of other vertues which they exercise in hearing those Offices would hinder the salvatien of many which otherwise might haue bene saved Besides if the want of devotion which the frequent hearing the Offices vnderslood might happily beget may very probably binder the salvation of many which otherwise might haue bene saved why shall not Protestants be obliged in all their Churches to more frequent Service daily and howerly and be still receyving their Sacrament least for want of devotion which that frequency might happily beget the salvation of many be hindered which otherwise would haue bene saved In the Vniversityes they haue for most dayes in the weeke their publike Service in Latine which divers Lay men who may be present cannot vnderstand and so be deprived of that devotion the want wherof may hinder the salvation of many which otherwise might haue bene saved But seing many Catholique Writers haue handled this Poynt of publike Prayers in Latine both copiously and learnedly it is enough for me to haue answered and retorted your Objections vpon yourself and your Brethren and it is a great foolery to depriue men as you doe of their liberty by imaginary conditionall effects which without end may be turned on all sides 87. Your last Example deserves no other Answer than that it is grounded on a wicked supposition that to belieue the Vicar of Christ to be infallible in his Definitions could be a congruous disposition to belieue Antichrist or that Antichrist could get into that See as you impiously speake There is no malice comparable to the malice and blindness of Heresy But it is tyme for mee to returne from this necessary digression and to go forward in confuting the doctrine of the sole-sufficiency of Scripture And therfor 88. 15. From Protestants themselves I argue in this manner Most Protestants hold that we know Scripture to be the word of God by the private spirit or some quality inherent or internall to Scripture it self and think it so evident that to aske how we can know Scripture to be the word of God Calvin Lib. 1. Inst Cap. 7. sayth is all one as to aske whence we may learne how to discerne light from darkness white from blacke sweet from soure And the Scottish Minister Baron in Apodixi Tract 9 Q 4. Pag. 630. and Q. 6. Pag 663 Sect 2. saith The Scripture doth sufficiently manifest its devineness by its owne internall light majesty and efficacy Amesius de Circulo Pontificio saith We belieue that the Scriptures do shine by their owne light Whitaker De Scriptura Q. 3. Cap 3. ad 3. They who haue the Holy Ghost can know Gods voyce even as a frend is wont to know by the voyce his friend with whom he hath conversed most familiarly a long tyme. Potter sayth Pag 141. That Scripture is of divine authority the believer sees by that glorious beame of divine light which shines in Scripture and by many internall arguments found in the letter it self Which words while Chill interprets to signify only that men are strengthned in their belief by that beame of light which shines in Scripture he leaves no meanes for his client Potter to belieue with certainty the Scripture For he saith expressly in the same place that the Church only presents disposes and prepares which supposed there is saieth he in the Scripture it self light sufficient which though blind and sensuall men see not yet the eye of reason cleared by grace and assisted by the many motives which the church vseth for enforcing of her instructions one may discover to be divine descended from the Father and fountaine of light But how come you M. Chilling worth to know Scripture to be the word of God We take it from your owne words Pag 69. N. 46. where you say to your adversary The conclusiō of your tenth § is that the divinity of a writing cannot be knowen from it self alone but by some extrinsecall authority which you need not prove for no wise man denyes it But then this authority is that of vniversall traditiō not of your church Behold the agreemēt of protestāts in this maine poynt on which their whole religion depēds According to Potter Chill is a blind ād sesuall mā who sees not that glorious beame of divine light which shines in Scripture And Potter Calvin Baron ād other Protestants deny that which in Chilling worths judgment no wise man denyes Out of which premises of protestants it is easy to conclude That seing so many of them imagine a cleare light to shine in Scripture which others affirme no wise man can imagine which is very true for if there be such a light evidently shining in Scripture how is it possible that they can disagree about the Canon of Scripture or how could some books haue once been questioned which now are receyved for canonicall We must affirme that much more a particular text may to one seeme evidētly to signify that which to an other doth no way appeare but perhaps directly the contrary And therfor although we haue heard Calvin saying that it is as easy to discerne which be true scriptures as to distinguish betweē white ād blacke yet it appeares by what he writes L 4 Inst C. 9. N. 13. that for the interpreting of scripture more labour ād industry is required as is also cleare by the many ād hard rules which protestants require for interpretation therof as we haue seene aboue and therfor it is cleare evē frō the doctrines of
protestāts that they haue no certaine meanes to judg whē scripture is evidēt ād consequētly it alone is not sufficiēt to judg evidētly of all poynts necessary to be believed Nay seing they haue no evident Ground to know that scripture is the word of God they cannot be certaine of any one text of scripture though we did suppose that the sense therof were very cleare 89. 16. It is a maine ground with Heretikes that a living judg was necessary till the whole canon of scripture was perfited which being done they say the scripture alone is sufficient But even from this principle of theirs I argue thus seeing they belieue nothing which cannot be proved out of scripture they are obliged to proue out of scripture this very Ground that the necessity of a living judg did expire as soone as scripture was written This is impossible for them to do because no such text is to be found in the whole bible Therfor they cannot hold it even according to their owne principles See what I haue sayd in my nynth reason N. 59 to proue that according to their grounds on text will serue their turne for our presēt purpose vnless it be the last book or text because they teach that scripture alone was not sufficient till the whole Canon was perfited and yet who will vndertake that such a last booke or text hath evidently this Proposition After the Canon of scripture was perfited the necessity of a living judg did cease To say nothing that it is not certaine what part of Holy scripture was written last as also that Protestants do not agree whether some of those scriptures which were the last or among the last be Canonical or no as I sayd aboue 90. 17. I take an argument from the confession of Protestants themselves that the Ancient Fathers stand for vs against them and that therfor the Fathers erred Which could never haue happened to Persons so holy wise learned sincere laborious dispassionate and whom all Christians acknowledg to haue wrought miracles on earth and to be glorious Saints in heauen if the scriptures were so express and evident as our adversaryes pretend Or if they will needs haue scripture to be so cleare every man of Conscience and discretion will stand for the anciēt Fathers ād vs who are acknowledged to agree with them Now that the Fathers are confessed by Protestants to haue taught the same doctrines which we at this day maintayne is diligētly demonstrated by that judicious exact and Faithfull Author of the Protestants Apology for the Roman Church concerning divers poynts which the Reader to be assured of the truth and for the Eternall good of his soule may find in the Alphabeticall Table Verb. Fathers and then examine them vnpartially as the Reall Presence Transsubstantiation Reservation of the Sacrament Masse and Sacrifice Sacrifice according to the order of Melchisedech Propitiatory Sacrifice euen for the dead Purgatory Free-will the possibility of keeping the commandements justification and Merit of works invocation of Saints Translation of Saints Reliques and their worship Pilgrimage to holy places Grace conferd by Baptisme necessity of Baptisme Chrisme and Confirmation Confession of sinnes injoyned pennance or satisfaction Absolution the Fast of Lent other sett Fasting daves Fasting from certaine meates vnwritten Traditions Hallowing of Alters Churches Water Oyle Bread Candles c More Sacraments than two that Antichrist shal be but one man the great vertue of the signe of the Crosse the worshipping of it Lights in the Church in the day-tyme Images in the Church their Worship S. Peters Primacy ouer the Apostles the Popes Primacy aboue other Bishops Vowed Chastity monasteryes of vowed virgins their consecration their religious habit Mòks that priests might not marry that Bigamus may not be priest the inferiour orders of deacons subdeacons acolyts exorcists c In so much as in regard of these and many mo like premises many of the learned Protestants do deale plainly in making generall disclaime in the Fathers as may be seene in Brierley tract 1. Subdiv 14. where beside other Protestants he names Whitaker Iacobus Acontius Napper Fulk Downham Melancthon Peter Martyr Beza Caelivs Secundus Curio Sebastianus Francus c Besides it cannot be denyed but that learned Protestants do taxe the Fathers of divers errours as is notorious and may be particularly seene in Brierly ibid wherin although they manifestly wrong those Holy and Ancient Doctours yet these their Accusers ought to gather from thence that scripture is not evident since men indued with all ornaments and helps for attayning the true meaning therof were so much mistaken as our sectaryes pretend 91. The same is also clearly demonstrated by reflecting that very many of the most learned Protestāts agree with vs in many points against their Protestant brethren as Brierley Tract 3. Sect 7. lit M. exactly demonstrates For example the Reall presence of Christs body in the Sacrament that Sacraments do not only signify but also conferr grace that Christ after his corporall death did descend in soule into Hell that the Church must continue visible concerning Evangelicall Councells Viz. that a man may do more than he is commanded concerning the vniversality of Grace and that Christ dyed for all that men are not certaine of their election and that he who is in state of Grace may finally fall that in case of divorce vpon adultery the innocent party may not marry againe that to children of the Faithfull dying vnbaptized salvation is not promised Freewill That in regard of Christs Passion and promise our good works proceeding from Faith are meritorious Temporall punishment reserved by God in justice for sin remitted The impugning of the civill Magistrates headship though but of a particular Church Intercession of Angels Intercession of Saints invocation of Saints vowed chastity voluntary Poverty Chastity and Obedience prayer for the dead purgatory Limbus Patrum Images in the Church worship of Images Reverence and bowing at the name of Jesus the power of priests not only to pronounce but to giue remission of sinnes private confession of sins to a priest distinction of mortall and veniall sin in one and the same person the indifferency of communion vnder one or both kinds sacrifice of the New Testament according to the order of Mechisadech that first motions of our concupiscence without our concent therto are not sinnes that the commandements are not impossible Transubstantiation that the Sacraments of the old Testament were not in working and effect equall with ours The visible signe of imposition of hands in confirmation with the grace therby conferred The like visible signe and grace given in Orders yea expressly counted a Sacrament An indeleble character imprinted by certaine Sacraments The baptisme of women and lay persons in case of necessity The knowen intention of the church needfull to the administration of Sacraments Seaven Sacraments implicite Faith that Antichrist is yet to come the patronage and protection of certaine Angels over certaine countries and Kingdomes
of exercising humility in our selves and obedience to Gods Church and to our Saviour himself who sayd Luke 10.16 He that heares you heares me and Matth. 18.17 If he heare not the Church let him be vnto thee as a Heathen or Publican together with a dependence of one man vpon another as it was sayd to S. Paul even in that great vision Act. 9. V. 7. Goe into the citty And it shal be told thee what thou art to doe and to him who was cured of the leprosy Matth. 8.4 Goe shew thy self to the Priest As also for procuring peace and vnity in Religion which cannot be conserved if all controversyes must be tryed by scripture alone that being in effect to leaue every man to his owne witte will and wayes as we see by constant experience in all those who reject the Authority of a Living Judg. 148. But what you cannot evince by reason you endeavour to proue by an example in these words Suppose Xaverius had bene to write the Gospell of Christ for the Indians think you he would haue left out any fundamentall Doctrine of it 149. Answer Are these Arguments taken from evident Texts of scripture as yours against vs ought to be in this poynt which is the only foundation of Protestantisme If you tell vs what you meane in this particular Objection by the Gospell of Christ yourself may easily answer for vs out of what hath beene sayd already We haue heard you saying By the Gospell of Christ I vnderstand not the whole History of Christ but all that makes vp the covenant between God and man Now then to your example I Answer that if S. Xaverivs had intended to write the Gospell as it signifyes the History of Christ he had not bene obliged to write all necessary Points as neither the Evangelists who wrote the Gospell were obliged to do ād it is strāge that we denying it of them you would seek to proue it only by changing the person as if any would attribute more to S. Xaverius than to the Evāgelists But if S. Xauerius had purposed to write not the History of our B. Saviour as the Evangelists did but a Catechisme or summe of Christian doctrine or the Gospell as it signifyes to vse your words all that makes vp the Covenant between God and man which the Evangelists did not intend then what you say or imagine of S. Xaverius cannot be applyed to the Evangelists seeing in that case their ends in writing had bene very different Nevertheless even vpon this supposition that S. Xaverius had purposed to write a Catechisme we must consider some particular circumstances before we can affirme that he was obliged to write all necessary points of Faith for example if that Saint had bene assured that in his absence and for all future tymes there would never be wanting Preachers Teachers Prelats Pastors and Apostolicall men to instruct Christians convert Infidels and supply abundantly by word of mouth and a perpetuall Succession and Tradition whatsoever was not expressed in such a Catechisme as de facto we see God in his Goodness hath furnished the Indyes with so many Pastours Preachers c. that no one Cathecisme is absolutely necessary in that case I say no man can judge that S. Xaverius had bene obliged to leaue in writing precisely every particularnecessary Point but only such as Tyme Place Persons and all other particular circumstances considered should in prudence seeme most for the purpose and such a Catechisme togeather with those other helpes had bene a most sufficient Meanes for that End which S. Xaverius had proposed to himself vpon the sayd supposition of Pastours c. Now this is our case The Evangelists were most certaine that Hell-gates could no◠prevaile against the Church Matth. 16. that there should be a perpetuall Succession of Pastours that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth 1. Timot. 3. that he gaue some Apostles and some Prophets and other some Evangelists and other some Pastours and Doctours c. that now we be not children wavering and carryed about with every winde of doctrine in the wickedness of men in craftyness to the circumvention of errour Ephesi 4. Where we see that for avoyding errours Scripture alone is not appointed as the only Meanes yea is not so much as mentioned but Apostles Pastours Doctours c. to the worlds end To which purpose ancient S. Irenaeus Lib. 3. Cap. 4. speaks very fully in these words What if the Apostles had not left Scriptures ought we not to haue followed the order ād tradition which they delivered to those to whom they committed the Churches to which order many nations yielded assent who belieue in Christ having salvation written in their harts by the spirit of God without letters or inke and diligently keeping ancient Tradition It is easy to receiue the truth from Gods Church seing the Apostles haue most fully deposited in her as in a rich storehouse all things belonging to truth It is therfor cleare that the Evangelists had no obligation to write all necessary points in particular and some may retort your example thus the Evangelists had no reason to doe so therfor neither S. Xaverivs in the like case and circumstances had been obliged therto and not argue as you doe S. Xaverius should haue bene obliged to do so therfor we must say the same of the Apostles I will not stand heer to say that although S. Xaverius had bene obliged to set downe all Points necessary to be believed by every priuate person as such yet I hope you would not haue obliged him to expresse all things necessary for the whole Church as I sayd in the beginning which yet is a most necessary thing 150. But here occurs a difficulty which will shew your example of S. Xaverius or of any other to be not only insufficient or impertinent but also impossible and chimericall and even ridiculous in your grounds of which I believe you did not reflect You teach that there cannot be given a particular Catalogue of fundamentall poynts but that men may be sure not to faile in believing all such Articles if they belieue all that is evidently found in scripture which clearly containes all necessary things in particular and many more If then S. Xaverius could not know precisely what points in particular be fundamentall how will you oblige him or any other not to omitt any one such point Neither I do vnderstand how in your principles any man can set downe all necessary points in such manner as he may be sure to omitt none except by referring them to scripture or procuring that they haue either the whole bible according to the common opinion of other Protestants or at least the Gospell of S. Luke which you hold for certaine that it contaynes all necessary points for of the other three Evangelists you are doubtfull which is a strange kind of composing a Catechisme and yet there can be no other perfect Catechisme made either
you wholy but by word of mouth and that thervpon Paul also sayd we speake wisdome amongst the perfect But the word wholy in your parenthesis is wholy your owne false glosse to make those Heretikes seeme like to vs Catholiques wheras it is plaine as we haue heard out of your owne confession that those Heretiks held scripture vnfitt to proue any truth at all and not only vnfitt to proue all necssary truths because they held it not to be the infallible word of God but to contayne falshoods and contradictions and your conscience cannot but beare witness that we do not deny the sufficiency of scripture alone and necessity of tradition vpon any such Atheistical perswasion as that was 164. This also appeares by S. Irenaeus in the first Chapter of the same Book which you cited where he sayth against those Heretiks Neither is it lawfull to say that they preached before they had receyved perfect knowledge as some presume to say boasting that they are correctours of the Apostles And this horrible Heresy he confutes because the Apostles did not preach till first they had receyved the Holy Ghost Where I beseech you remember with feare and trembling your owne doctrine that the Apostles did erre about preaching the Gospell to Gentils and in some things did not deliver divine truths but the dictates of humane reason and all this after they had receyved the Holy Ghost and then consider whether you or wee disagree from S. Irenaeus and detract from the sufficiency of scripture which if these your doctrines were true would be of no greater authority than those absurd Heritiks wickedly affirmed it to be with whom therfore you do in this perfectly agree This also appeares by the words of S. Irenaeus Lib 1. Cap 29 where he sayth of Marcion the Heretike he perswaded his disciples that his word was more to be believed than the Apostles who delivered the Gospell 165. You could not also but speak against your conscience while you liken the Tradition which Catholiks belieue to those of the sayd wicked Heretiques who indeed agreed with you in the point of denying the Traditions which we defend as is fully witnessed by S. Irenaeus in that very Chapter and Book which you alledg and therfor you are inexcusable in laying to our charge the traditions of those men For S. Irenaeus in the same Lib 3. Cap 2. having sayd that when those Heretiks are pressed with scripture they fly to tradition he adds But when we provoke them to that Tradition which comes from the Apostles and which is kept in the Churches by the Successions of Priests they oppose themselves against Tradition saying that they themselves being wiser not only than Priests but also than the Apostles haue found out the sincere truth And so it comes to passe that they assent neither to scripture nor Tradition Which is agreeable to the Title of that Chapter Quod neque scripturis c. as I sayd aboue Wherby it appeares that they rejected Catholike Traditions derived from the Apostles by succession of Pastours and therfor when they appeale to Tradition it was to certaine secret traditions of their owne men which even yourself Pag. 344. N. 28. affirme out of S. Irenaeus where you say that Catholikes alledged Tradition much more credible than that secret tradition to which those heretikes pretended against whom he S. Irenaeus wrote And Pag. 345. N. 29. You speake most clearly and effectually to your owne confutation For there you make a paraphrase of some words of S. Irenaeus and make him speake in this manner You heretiks decline a tryall of your doctrine by scripture as being corrupted and imperfect and not fit to determine Controversyes with out recourse to Tradition and insteed thereof you fly for refuge to a secret tradition which you pretend that you receaved from your Antecessours Do not these words declare both that those heretiks held scripture to be corrupted and that they relyed vpon certaine hidden and vaine traditions of their owne As contrarily it is evident out of S. Irenaeus that the Fathers were wont to convince heretiks by Tradition coming from the Apostles and which is conserved in the Churches by succession of Priests which demonstrates that there was no necessity that all necessary points should be written and you wrong S. Irenaeus alledging him to the contrary wheras it is most certaine and evident that this holy Father writes most effectually in favour of Traditions descending to vs by a continued succession of Bishops and Pastours 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
from and impugners of the same Church It is well though this also be wickedly done on your behalfe you confess that S. Austine did ransack all places for Arguments against the Donatists and yet we see he finally rested vpon the Churches authority and not vpon scripture which directly proues for vs that after all diligence vsed he comes to acknowledg that more is to be believed and practised than is contained in scripture 195. Your third Answer is delivered in these words We say he speaks not of the Roman but the Catholique Church of farr greater extent and therfor of farr greater credit and authority than the Roman Church 196. Answer This your Answer hath but two faults Falshood and Impertinency For S. Austine speakes of the visible vniversall Church And that there was no true Church which did not agree with the Roman and the Roman with it in S. Austins tyme Protestants themselves do grant while they commonly giue to the purity of the Roman Church a larger extent of yeares than from the Apostles to S. Austine And for consequent ages till Luthers tyme either you must say Christ had no true vniversall Church vpon earth or else that it was the Roman and such as agreed with her Your Answer is also no less impertinent then vntrue For our present Question is not what or which is the true Church which is a Point to be disputed a part but only in generall whether the true Church ought to be believed in delivering Objects of Faith not particularly contained in scripture and consequently whether all divine Truths be found in scripture alone 197. Your fourth Answer is He speakes of a Point not expressed but yet not contradicted by scripture wheras the errours we charge you with are contradicted by scripture 198. Answer First I am very glad to heare you confess againe that S. Austine speakes of a Point not expressed in scripture and yet it is a Point believed not only by S. Austin but also by divers learned ProtesraÌ„ts as in particular by Vrban Regius Hoffmanus Sarcerius CoÌ„fessio Augustrana and Bilson who are exactly cited by Bierly Tr 3. sect 7. vnder M. at 13. that baptisme is necessary for the salvation of Children and consequently it were a pernicious errour to hold that baptisme conferred by Heretikes is valid if indeed that Doctrine be not absolutely certaine since it were to hazard the salvation of infants and others besides that S. Austine confesses that the baptizing of Children is not grounded vpon scripture and yet he believes it as a certaine and necessary doctrine Secondly it is impertinent whether the errours you charge vs with be contradicted by scripture seing our preseÌ„t question is only whether some truth was believed by S. Austine yea and is also believed by Protestants who are not wont to rebaptize the children of Catholiques or of different Sects amongst themselves which is not expressed in scripture It being also very vntrue that any doctrine of ours is contradicted by scripture this your Answer comes as the former to be adorned with the two excellent qualityes I mentioned of falshood and Impertinency 199. Your fift Answer saith He S. Austine sayes not that Christ has recommended the Church to vs for an infallible definer of all emergent Controversyes but for a credible witnes of Ancient Tradition Whosoever therfor refuses to follow the practise of the Church vnderstand of all places and ages though he be thought to resist our Saviour what is that to vs who cast of no practises of the Church but such as are evidently post-nate to the â—yme of the Apostles and plainly contrary to the practise of former and purer tymes 200. Answer S. Austine saith not only that Ahrist hath recommended the Church as a witness of Tradition or matter of Fact but also what de jure ought to be done about rebaptizing of such as were baptized by Heretiks and therfor saith expressly If there were any wise man of whom our Saviour had given Testimony and that he should be consulted in this Question we should make no doubt to performe what he should say least we might seeme to gainsay not so much him as Christ by whose Testimony he was recommended Now Christ beareth witness to his Church Behold S. Austine speaks of the Question or Doctrine it self and not only of examples or what was practised by the Church and therfor saith we should not doubt to performe even for tyme to come what a wise man of whom our Saviour had given Testimony should advise and not only to belieue him that such a thing was or was not practised before Now S. Austine saith that Christ beares witness to the Church as vpon supposition he had done to some wise man therfor we are to belieue the Church as we would belieue such a man so recommended whom certainly we ought to belieue both for matter of Fact and Faith or Doctrine Beside if S. Austine did alledg the Church only as a witness of Tradition his Argument were of no force to establish a Point of Faith vnless he did suppose the Church could not erre in delivering what hath bene a perpetuall Tradition and that the Point delivered by such a Tradition must be true and consequently that the Doctrine delivered by the vniversall Church cannot be false It had bene a strang Argument to say it is credible but not certaine that the Church hath alwayes delivered as a perpetuall practise or tradition that persons baptized by Heretiks are not to bee rebaptized But the church may erre in that which is certaine she does practise therfor it is certaine that persons baptized by Heretiks may not be rebaptized And is it not a great injury to impute such an Argument to that learned and Holy Father If the Church may practise a thing vnlawful what neerer are we by knowing the practise of the Church for our direction in order to the imbracing or avoyding such a pactise And therfor S. Austine proposing the practise of the Church as a Rule and direction what we are to follow supposes the Church cannot erre in the Doctrine on which such a practise depends as all practise depends vpon some dictamen of the vnderstanding The same is evident by other sayings of S. Austine as Epist 118. Which of these things is to be done if the authority of Holy Scripture hath prescribed we must not doubt but that we ought to doe accordingly c as likewise if the Church through the whole world practise any of them For in that case to dispute whether such a thing be to be done is a most insolent madness How could the disputing against any practise of the vniversall Church be censured so deeply if the Church may erre in her practises especially when the Question is whether such a thing be to be believed as a Point of Faith which must rely vpon certainty And we are to obserue that S. Austine speakes of what ought to be done and not only of matter of Fact
which is cleare by his words Quod horum sit faciendum Which of those things ought be done as also because he speakes vpon a supposition if the scripture did prescribe somthing and you will not deny but in that case we were obliged to belieue not only that it was or was not practised but also that the thing in it self was lawfull and then he sayth that beside scripture we ought to imbrace and not to dispute against the vniversall practise of the church The same Holy Father teaches that the custome of baptizing childrē cannot be proved by scriptute alone and yet that it is to be believed as derived from the Apostles The custome of our Mother the Church saith he Lib 10. de Gen ad Lit Cap 23. in baptizing infants is in no wise to be contemned nor to be accounted superfluous nor is it at all to be believed vnless it were an Apostolicall Tradition 201. Ponder first how the baptizing of infants is not to be contemned or accounted a vaine or vnprofitable thing and not only that we are to belieue there is such a practise 2. That seing what the Church practises is to be believed and yet that it were not at all to be bebelieved vnless it were an Apostolicall tradition it followes that what the vniversall Church practises is an Apostolicall Tradition and consequently certaine and infallible though it be not written in scripture And Serm 14. de Verbis Apostoli Chap 18. speaking of the same Point of baptizing children he sayth This the Authority of our Mother the Church hath against this strength against this invincible wall whosoever rusheth shall be crushed in peeces Which place is so cleare for vs that the Protestants in the Conference at Ratisbone could giue no answer but this Nos ab Augustine hac in parte libere dissentimus In this we freely disagree from Augustine But of this answer you take no notice though you redd it in Charity Maintayned and seeke to answer this very place of S Austine alledged by Him And of the Quesstion of not rebaptizing c Lib. 1. Cont Crescon Cap. 32. 33. He sayth we follow indeed in this matter even the most certaine authority of canonicall scriptures But how Doth he meane that the Question is in particular evidently delivered in scripture In no wise How then Heare his words Although verily there be brought no example for this Point out of the Canonicall scriptures yet even in this Point the truth of the same scripture is held by vs while we do that which the authority of scriptures doth recommend that so because the Holy scripture cannot deceiue vs whosoever is afrayd to be deceived by the obscurity of this Question must haue recourse to the same church concerning it which without any ambiguity the holy scripture doth demonstrate to vs. Consider that we are sayd to follow scripture while we follow the church even in a thing not expressed in scripture and that he speakes not only of examples not found in scripture but of that Question Doctrine and truth it selfe affirming that the truth of scripture is held while we follow the church and that because the scripture cannot deceiue vs the way not to be deceyved is to haue recourse to that church which the same scripture recommends which certainly were no good advise or direction if the church might be deceived neither could S. Austine referr vs to the church in stead of the scripture or as if the Question were defined by the scripture it self vnless the church be infallible as scripture is And de Baptismo cont Donat. Lib 5. C. 23. he hath these remarkable words The Apostles indeed haue prescribed nothing of this about not rebaptizing c but this custome ought to be believed to be originally taken from their Tradition as are many things which the vniversall church observeth which are therfor with good reason believed to haue bene commanded by the Apostles although they be not written Could any thing haue bene spoken more clearly to shew that the vniversall church is an infallible Proposer not only of examples matters of fact or practise but also of Precepts Commands and Doctrine And the same glorious Saint saith vniversally Lib. 7. de Baptismo Cap. 53. It is safe for vs to avouch with confident and secure words that which in the Government of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is strengthned by the consent of the vniversall church 202. By what we haue sayd in confutation of this your fift answer the Reader will of himself see the weakness of your chief answeres Pag. 151. N. 42.43.44 to these and other places alledged out of S. Austine by Charity Maintayned Part 1. Chap. 3. N. 16. as also out of S. Chrysostome who treating these words 2. Thess. 2. Stand and hold the traditions which you haue learned whether by speach or by our epistle saith Homil. 4. Hence it is manifest that they delivered delivered not all things by letter but many things also without writing and these also are worthy of belief Let vs therfor account the Tradition of the church worthy of belief It is a Tradition seeke no more Which words are so plaine against Protestants that Whitaker de sacra scrip Pag 678. is as plaine with S. Chrisostome and sayes I Answer that this is an inconsiderate speech vnworthy so great a Father These words of Whitaker were alledged in the same place by Charity Maintayned but are dissembled by you who Pag. 153. N. 45.46 giue two slight answers to the sayd words of S. Chrisostome the first is like to that which in the first place you gaue to the words of S. Austine that I was to proue the Church infallible not in her Traditions but in all her decrees and difinitions of Controversyes Which answer I haue confuted already and it is directly contrary to S. Chrisostome who not only sayth that we are to belieue the church affirming such or such a thing to haue bene delivered but also that the things so delivered are worthy of belief as he sayd of things delivered by the Apostles without Writing and to be believed in such manner as we are to seek no more Therfor we are to rely on the churches Tradition as vpon a sure and certaine ground or Rule of Faith It was not without cause that Whitaker a man of so great note in England was so angry with S. Chrisosstome 203. Your second Answer is That the things Which the Apostles delivered without writing are worthy of belief if we know what they were Which is not to answer but to deride S. Chrysostome as if he spoke of a Chimera and not of any thing of vse or existent and applicable to practise and in stead of saying as he doth It is a Tradition seeke no more it is worthy of belief He should haue sayd There is no such thing as Tradition seeke it not nor belieue it Besides in this very conditionall grant that we were to belieue Tradition of
in England subscribing to the 6 of their 39 Articles That scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation in effect subscribe to nothing but may reject all those Articles whensoever they please But of the absurdity of this your doctrine herafter 5. For the present I must obserue some things delivered by you in the places which I haue cited First Pag. 66. N. 33. where you teach that scripture is an instrumentall Object of our Faith which is a strang kind of speach Philosophers tell vs of a materiall and formall Object of a totall and Partiall of an Adequate and Inadequate and some other Divisions of Objects but of an instrumentall Object I never heard Nothing can be stiled an Object of any act of our vnderstanding vnless it be apprehended by that act and nothing consequently can be called the Object of an Act of Faith vnless it be believed by an act of Faith and if it be believed by an act of Faith as a thing revealed it is a materiall Object of Faith and so your phrase of an instrumentall Object serves only to confute your owne doctrine and proue that scripture is a materiall Object of Faith Besides who ever dreamed that either the divine Revelation which is the formall Object of Faith or the things revealed which are the Materiall Objects therof can be called according to Philosophy the Instruments of an act of Faith Or who ever heard that an Instrument is divided into a Formall and Materiall Instrument 6. 2. You say in the same place All the divine Verityes which Christ revealed to the Apostles and the Apostles taught the Churches are contained in scripture Against which words I haue these just exceptions That they are against yourself who expressly teach that the Apostles declared diverse things to the Church of their tyme which declarations are not extant as also that they are against this doctrine of yours that scripture is not a materiall object of Faith For I aske whether or no the Apostles taught the Churches that the Bookes or Epistles or Prophecyes written by Canonicall Authors were the word of God If they did then the divine authority of scripture is a materiall object of our Faith as being a thing taught by the Apostles with divine infallible assistance which is the reason why we belieue that other mysteryes delivered by them are to be believed by an Act of Faith If the Apostles did not teach the Churches this Truth by what authority do you now belieue it to be the word of God Yourself speaking of the CaÌ„onicalness of some scriptures say 142. N. 28. If it were not revealed by God to the Apostles and by the Apostles to the Church then can it be no Revelation as on the other side you teach in the same place that if the Apostles delivered it it was to be believed as an article of Faith 7. 3. In your Pag 217. and 218. N. 49. which I cited aboue you say Is it not manifest to all the world that Christians of all Professions do agree with one consent in the belief of all those Bookes of scripture which were not doubted of in the Ancient Church without danger of damnation And how then say you Pag. 116. N. 159. that men might reject the scripture God requiring of vs vnder payne of damnation only to belieue the verityes therin contained and not the Divine Authority of the Books wherin they are conâ—ayned Will you make vs belieue that not to be damnable which yourself acknowledg Christians of all Professions to agree with one consent to haue bene damnable namely not to belieue all those Bookes which were not doubted of in the ancient Church Or how are not those bookes an Object of our Faith and belief in the Belief wherof Christians of all professions agree with one consent Or how can you say in the same Pag. 218. N. 49. Is it not apparent that no man at this tyme can without hypocrisy pretend to belieue in Christ but of necessity he must do so That is he must belieue all those Bookes of Scripture which were not doubted of in the Church seing he can haue no reason to belieue in Christ but he must haue the same to belieue the scripture And Pag. 116. N. 159. you say It were now very strange and vnreasonable if a man should belieue the matter of the Bookes of Scripture and not the Authority of the Bookes and therfor if a man should profess the not believing of these I should hane reason to feare he did not believe that How I say can you write in this manner who teach that scripture is not a materiall object of faith which we are bound to belieue vnder payne of damnation and yet that we are bound to belieue the verityes contained therin of which Christ is one Is there the same reason to belieue a thing revealed aÌ„d another acknowledged not to be revealed I hope your meaning is not that it is reasonable not to belieue the authority of scripture aÌ„d yet that it is resonable for the authority therof to belieue the matter of it which were not only vnreasonable but impossible also as no man can possibly assent to a Conclusion in vertue of Premises which he believes not to be true 8. But in this last place Pag 116. N. 159. you haue a subtilty expressed in these words There is not alwayes an equall necessity of the belief of those things for the belief wherof there is an equall reason We haue I belieue as great reason to belieue there was such a man as Henry the eighâ— King of England as that Iesus Christ suffered vnder Pontius Pilate yet this is necessary to be believed and that is not so So that if any man should doubt or disbelieue that it were most vnreasonably done of him yet it were no mortall sin nor no sâ—â—ne at all God having no where commanded men vnder payne of damnation to believe all which Reason induceth them to belieue Therfor as an Executor that should performe the will of the dead should fully satisfy the law though he did not belieuo that parchment to be his Written will which indeed is so so I belieue that he who believes all the particular doctrines which integrate Christianity and lives according to them should be saved though he neither believed nor knew that the Gospell were written by the Evangelists or the Epistles by the Apostles This is your discourse which deserves detestation rather then confutation Yet I must not omitt to make some reflexions on it 9. First then wheras you say There is not alwayes an equall necessity for the belief of those things for the belief wherof there is an equall reason I answer that you speake very confusedly and imperfectly and either vntruly if your words be so vnderstood as they may make any thing to our present Question or impertinently if they belong nothing to it I say therfor if the belief of one thing be necessary for the belief of another
that nothing but Gods word or Revelation can erect or qualify an Act of Faith and consequently only Gods infallible Word can be a Rule of Faith 14. But it is tyme that we come to the matter it self aÌ„d coÌ„fute this errour which in effect I haue done already by occasion of examining some sayings of yours 15 First then I oppose yourself to yourself And beside the places which I haue alledged aboue out of your Answer to your Third Motiue where you confess scripture to haue bene confirmed with those supernaturall and Divine Miracles which were wrought by our Saviour Christ and his Apostles and out of your Pag 55. N. 8. That By Scriptures not all things absolutely may be proued which are to be believed For it can never be proved by Scripture to againsayer that there is a God or that the Booke called Scripture is the word of God c In which words you ranke scriptures among those things which are to be believed which is to be a materiall Object of Faith as the existence of God is such an object besides I say the places which I haue produced already I must not omit what you say Pag 141. N. 28. where you suppose that the Apostles revealed what Books are Canonicall and that what they delivered in that kind is an Article of Faith and if an Article of Faith then it is a materiall object of Faith and Pag 142. N. 29. where you expressly say of some Bookes that if they were approâ—ed by the Apostles this 〈◊〉 hope was a sufficient definition and I hope that the definition of the Apostles is sufficient to make a thing an Object of Faith and induce an obligation for vs to belieue it Also Pag 90. N. 101. speaking in the person of an English Protestant you say Scripture evidently containeth or rather is our Religion and the sole and adequate object of our Faith If scripture be the sole and adequate object of Faith certainly it is an object of Faith or a thing believed by Faith How then do you teach that it is not an object of Faith Besides into what extremes do you fall teaching on the one syde that scripture is not a materiall object of Faith and yet affirme that it aÌ„d it only is the Object of Faith by being the sole aÌ„d adequate object therof And thus as somtyme you teach that not scripture it self but only the contents therof are the object of Faith so now you must say that not the contents but only scripture it self is the object thereof because having begun to say that scripture containeth the objects of Faith by way of correcting that speach you say it is rather the sole aÌ„d adequate object of it giving to vnderstaÌ„d that at least rather scripture then the contents therof are the object of Faith and that you had spoken more truly or more exactly if you had sayd scripture is the sole and adequate object of Faith theÌ„ in saying it containeth the objects of Faith To this I add what you write Pag 115. N. 156. Nothing can challeng our belief but what hath desceÌ„ded to vs from Christ by originall and vniversall Tradition now nothing but Scripture hath thus dâ—sceÌ„ded to vs therfore nothing but Scripture can challenge our belief Doth not this clearly declare that scripture challenges our belief You say also Pag 377. N. 58. All Christians in the world those I meane that in truth deserue this name do now aÌ„d alwayes haue believed the Scripture to be the word of God Therfor say I the belief of all Christians that in truth deserue that name is that scripture is the word of God or an object of their belief which since you deny how will men say do you deserue the name of Christian Also if meÌ„ may be saved by believing the mysteryes of ChristiaÌ„ religion though they be ignoraÌ„t of scripture yea and deny it how can you say they deserue not the name of Christians Or if they do not deserue that name surely they caÌ„not be saved And how caÌ„ you say all Christians in the world do now and aâ—wâ—yes haue believed Scripture to be the word of God since P. 116. N. 159. you affirme out of S. Irenaeus that some barbarous nations believed the doctâ—inâ— of Christ and yet belieued not the Scripture and you say expresly these barbarous people might be saved How theÌ„ is it true that all Christians haue alwayes believed scripture to be the word of God Lastly you speake home wheÌ„ P. 337. N. 19. you say The Church may yet moâ—e truly be said to perish when she Apostates from Christ absolutely or rejects even those Truths out of which her heresies may be reformed as if she should directly deny Iesus to be the Christ or the Scripture to be the word of God If the Church must perish by denying Scripture to be the word of God you must grant that the contrary Truth Scripture is the word of God must be a matter of Faith as it is a matter of Faith that Jesus is the Christ But because it is no newes for you to cotradict your self I coÌ„fute your doctrine by other argumeÌ„ts 16. Secondly it is impossible to belieue the matters contayned in Scripture to be revealed by God vpon the Authority of Scripture vnless we belieue the Authority of Scripture it self to be revealed For how can I belieue a thing because such a man affirmes it vnless I belieue both that he affirmes it and that his word deserves credit But Protestants belieue the contents of scripture for the Authority of scripture or as we haue heard Potter speaking Pag. 143. For divine revelation made in scripture Therfor they must belieue the Authority of scripture and so scripture it self is no less a materiall Object of Faith than the contents of it which are confessed to be a materiall object of Faith because they are believed 17. Thirdly If Trismegistus Plato or any other of fallible Authority had casvally delivered the same Mysteryes which Christians belieue he who should haue taken them only vpon such Authority could not haue believed by a firme infallible Divine Faith Therfor it is not sufficient to belieue the Matters contayned in scripture vnless they be believed for some firme and infallible Authority Therfor if we belieue the Mysteryes of Christian Faith for scripture we must beliue scripture itself to be of infallible Authority And Protestants in particular can haue no Faith at all who pretend to belieue all the Mysteryes of our Faith for the Authority of scripture alone if scriptur be not believed to be infallible 18. Fourtly I take an Argument from your reason to the contrary For those people of whom S. Irenaeus speakes had not bene obliged to belieue the Mysteryes of Christian Faith vnless they had bene confirmed aÌ„d made credible by Arguments which proved them to proceed from God but you graÌ„t that the scripture is proved to proceed froÌ„ God by those very Miracles which were wrought by Christ aÌ„d
delivered by word or writing and therfor cannot without damnation be rejected by any to whom it is sufficiently propounded for such which sufficiency of proposition is required in all articles of Faith fundamentall or not fundamentall before one can be obliged to belieue them 27 Since then according to your Doctrine we are not obliged to belieue Scripture to be the word of God yea and may reject it It remaines true then as I sayd in the last Chapter Scripture cannot be a perfect Rule nor any Rule at all of Faith although we should falsly suppose that it containes evidently all things necessary to be believed For what can it availe me in order to the exercising an act of Faith to read any Point in that Booke which I conceiue my self not obliged to belieue Let vs now come to another errour of yours 28. Your second errour I find Pag. 144. N. 31. where you write thus If you be so infallible as the Apostles were shew it as the Apostles did They went forth saith S. Marke and preached every where the lord working with them and confirming their words with signes following It is impossible that God should lye and that the eternall Truth should set his hand and seale to the confirmation of a falshood or of such Doctrine as is partly true and partly false The Apostles Doctrine was thus confirmed therfor it was intirely true and in no part either false or vncertaine I say in no part of that which they dâ—livered constantly as a certaine divine Truth and which had the Attestation of Divine Miracles For that the Apostles themselves even after the sending of the Holy Ghost were and through inadvertence or prejudice continued for a tyme in errour repugnant to a revealed Truth it is vnanswerably evident from the story of the Acts of the Apostles For notwithstaÌ„ding our Saviours express warrant and injunction to goe and preach to all Nations yet vntill S. Peter was better informed by a vision from Heaven and by the conversion of Cornelius both h o and the rest of the Church held is vnlawfull for them to goe or preach the Gospell to any but the Iewes And Pag. 145. N. 33. you say the Apostles could not be the Churches Foundations without freedome from errour in all those things which they delivered constantly as certaine revealed Truths Do not these words overthrow Christian Religion and Authority of Scriptures 29. These conditions you require that the Doctrine of the Apostles be to vs certaine and receyved as Divine Truth 1. It must be delivered constantly 2 It must be delivered as a Divine Truth 3. It must haue the Artestation of Divine Miracles and these conditions you require for every part therof For you say the Doctrine of the Apostles was false or vncertaine in no part and then you add expressly this limitation I say in no part of that which they delivered constantly as a certaine Divine Truth and which had the Artestation of Divine Maracies You cannot deny but that the Apostles if they conceyved that the Gospell was not to be preached to the Gentills did frame that opinyon out of some apprehended Revelation for example In viam gentium ne abieritis Matth 10.5 Into the way of the Gentiles goe ye not or Matth 15.24 I was not sent but to the sheep that are lost of the house of Israel or some other and so delivered a thing conceyved by them to be a Divine Truth yet they were deceyved in that Poynt because it wanted the other conditions of constancy and Attestation of Divine Miracles and consequently your doctrine must be that every Point of Faith must haue all the sayd three conditions and that the Apostles after the sending of the Holy Ghost might faile in some of them and might teach an errour in delivering matters concerning Faith and Religion 30. If this be so what certainty can we now haue that they on whom Christians are builded as vpon their Foundation Ephes 2.20 haue not erred in writing as then they erred in speaking And in particular whether they did not erre in setting downe that very command which Pag 137. N. 21. You cite out of S. Matth 29.19 Goe and teach all Nations And so at this present we cannot be certaine whether the Apostles erred in their first thoughts of not preaching or in their second of preaching the Gospell to Gentils If they were vniversally assisted by the Holy Ghost they could erre in neither without it in both and if once you deny such an vniversall assistance we cannot possibly know when they are to be trusted and how can you be certaine that S. Luke hath not erred in declaring this very Story out of which you would proue that S. Peter and the other Apostles did erre You grant Pag 35. N. 7. That the meanes to decide Controversyes in Faith and Religion must be indued with an vniversall infallibility in whatsoever it propoundeth for a Divine Truth For if it may be false in any one thing of this nature in any thing which God requires men to belieue we can yield vnto it but a wavering and fearfull Assent in any thing Seing therfor you teach that the Apostles were deceaved in a thing which God required them to belieue and commanded them to practise according to your owne saying we can yield vnto them but a wavering and fearfull assent in any thing What the Apostles spoke or preached they might haue written it is your owne saying Pag 54. N. 7. Whatsoever is delivered by word of mouth may also be written neither had it bene more or less true or false by being committed to writing than if it had bene only spoken or preached and so if they could erre in speaking we cannot be sure but that their writings may containe some errour proceeding from inadvertence or prejudice or some other cause as you speake Pag 137. N. 21. This I may confirme by what you say to Ch Ma Pag 84.86 D. Fields words I confess are somwhat more pressing and if he had bene infallible and the words had not slipt vnadvisedly from him they were the best Argument in your Booke In which words I note that although D. Field had bene infallible yet words might haue slipt from him vnadvisedly even in writing for you speake of what he hath written in his Book and therfor much more if the Apostles were supposed to haue bene fallible and actually to haue erred as you say they did why might not their errour haue vnadvisedly slipt from them into their writings 31. If you answer that it belongs to Gods providence not to permit an errour to be set downe in writing and conveyed to posterity I reply by this very Reason it is cleare that God could not permitt the Apostles to erre against any revealed Truth and yet oblige vs to belieue with certainty their writings which we can belieue only for the Authority and Infallibility of the Writers especially since you pretend that this errour of theirs is
in the Church they meane not those only of whose Authority there was simply no doubt at all by any man in the Church But such as were not at any tyme doubted of by the whole Church or by all Churches but had attestation though not vnâ—versall yet at least sufficient to make considering men receaue them for Canonicall In which number they may well reckon those Epistles which were sometimes doubted of by some yet whose number and Authority was not so great as to prevaile against the contrary suffrages 47. Nothing could more lively set before our eyes the necessity of believing that Gods Church from which we receaue Holy Scripture is infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost than these your Assertions and pernicious Errours which yet do naturally result from the Opinyons of those Protestants who deservedly laughing at the pretended private spirit of rigid Calvinists and yet denying the infallibility of the Church are driven to such Conclusions as you publish and for which those others had disposed the Premises For if the Scripture be receaved vpon the Authority of the Church considered only as a company of men subject to errour and not as infallibly directed by the Holy Ghost who can blame one for inferring that if those men once doubted of some Bookes of Scripture such books cannot chalenge so firme a belief as others in which all haue alwayes agreed Though even these in which all haue agreed can never arriue to be believed by an infallible assent of Divine Faith while these men though never so many are believed to be fallible 48. But to come to your Errour If it be granted that we belieue some bookes of Scripture more vndoubtedly then other by reason of a greater or less consent and so giue way to more or less in the belief of Gods word we shall soone come to end in nothing For why may not those bookes of which somtyme there was doubt and were afterward receyved for Canonicall in tyme loose some voices or sussrages and by that meanes come to be discanonized You teach that we haue not infallible certainty but only a probability for any part of Scripture how farr then shall we be removed from certainty for those bookes which participate of that probability in a less and less degree The common Doctrine of Protestants is that Scripture became a totall Rule of Faith when the Canon was perfited because they cannot determine with certainty in what particular bookes necessary Points are contayned If then some parts of Canonicall Scripture be more vndoubted than others in case some fundamentall points chance to be set downe only in these others it followes not only that they cannot be so certaine of the Truth of those necessary Points as of other truths not fundamentall or of no necessity at all being considered in themselves but also that they cannot be certaine at all since it is supposed that they do not belieue those bookes with absolute certainty but with a lower degree even of a probable assent Your pretended Bishop of London D. King in the beginning of his first Lecture vpon Jonas sayes comparisons betwixt scripture and scripture are both odious and dangerous The Apostles names are evenly placed in the writings of the holy Fundation With an vnpartiall respect haue the children of Christs family from tyme to tyme receyved reverenced and embraced the whole volume of scriptures Marke that it is both odious and dangerous to make comparisons betwixt scripture and scripture and that the children of Christs family with an vnpartiall respect receyve the whole Volume of scriptures Yourself Pag 68. N. 42. say that the controversy about scripture is not to be tryed by most Voyces and what is the greater number of which we haue heard you speake in the next N. 43. that it was sufficient to prevaile against the contrary suffrages but only most voyces or consent in one judgment seing you attribute infallibility or the certaine direction of the Holy Ghost to no number great or small And as for the greater authority which in the same N. 43. you ascribe to one part more than to another what can it be in your Principles except greater learning or some such kind of Quality nothing proportionable to that authority on which Christian Faith must rely Take away the speciall assistance of the Holy Ghost and few for number even one single person may for waight haue as good reason for what he sayes as a great multitude for the contrary There is scarcely any part of scripture which hath not bene Questioned by so many as would haue made men doubt of the works of Cicero Livie c as we see men doubt of some workes which haue gone vnder the name of Old Authours because for example Erasmus or others haue called them in Question vpon meere conjecturall reasons as seeming difference of Stile or the like If then men haue not presumed to doubt of scripture as they would haue done of other Writings it is because they belieue Gods church to be equally infallible in all that she propounds though some perhaps doubted before such a Proposition or Definition I haue proved that in your grounds we haue greater certainty for what is related in humane storyes then for the contents of the most vndoubted Bookes of scripture What strength then can those Books of scripture haue which you receaue with a less degree of belief 49. You Object Pag 67. N. 36. and 38. Some Saints did once doubt of some parts of scripture therfor we haue no warrant to damne any man that shall doubt of them or deny them now having the example of Saints in Heaven either to justify or excuse their doubting or deniall 50. Answer This very Objection proves the necessity of an infallible Living Judg as will appeare after I haue first told you that by this forme of arguing we may now be saved though we belieue no part of the whole Bible because the tyme was when no part of it was written We may now adhere to many old Heresyes condemned by the whole Church which before such a condemnation or definition Saints might haue held without damnation or sinne We may now reject the Faith of Christ because many were Saints and saved in the Law of Nature and Moyses without it Yourself Pag 280. N. 66. affirme That what may be enough for men in ignorance may be to knowing men not enough That the same errour may be not capitall to those who want meanes of finding the truth and capitall to others who haue meanes and neglect to vse them Howsoever we Catholikes are safe by your owne words since we haue the example of Saints in Heaven and holy Fathers as is confessed even by Protestants for those Practises and Doctrines which you will needs call Errours beside S. Bernard S. Bonaverture and others whom Protestants confess to be Saints in Heaven and therfor by your owne rule you haue no warrant to damne vs having such examples either to justify or
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
it by other Meanes which is by the Magistery of other men Faith comes by hearing that is by his Church which he hath commanded vs to heare vnless you will haue all men pretend with Svvinckfeldians to be guided by enthusiasmes or extraordinary lights motions or rapts And so this very Providence of God in permitting some scripture to be lost or questioned for a tyme proves the necessity of a Living Guide and the no-necessity or no sole-sufficiency of scripture and that God hath permitted such a loss or doubting to teach vs the necessity and sufficiency of a visible Living Guide 53. But then say you How is the Church an infallible keeper of sâ—ripture which hath suffered some bookes to be lost It is easy for vs to answer that the Church shall alwayes be infallibly directed to performe whatsoever is necessary for salvation of men and if any bookes of scripture haue bene lost we are sure the Church can and will supply that defect by the assistance which God hath promised Her as your Volkelius de vera Relig L. 6. C. 19. affirmes and endeavours to prove that by scripture alone the Church may be restored though she were supposed totally to haue fayled which conceit of his though it be but a meere chimera since it appeares by experience that scripture alone is not sufficient to produce vnity in faith nor can instruct vs in all Points necessary to be believed yet it demonstrates that if the Church be acknowledged to be infallible she may supply all want or loss of scripture by the perpetuall Direction of the Holy Ghost as she did for yeares and Ages before scripture was written But this answer cannot serue Protestants who on the one side cannot be assured that in those scriptures which were lost there were not contayned some fundamentall or necessary Points of Faith and on the other are resolved not to make vse of the inestimable benefit which they might receyue by submitting to Gods Church and commit a grievous sin by rejecting her Authority and so God giving most sufficient and certaine meanes you remayne inexcusable for not making vse of them Thus then the infallibility of Gods Church in being a keeper of scripture consists not in this that no scripture be lost which God in his holy Providence supplyes by another Meanes but that she be so directed as no scripture or other Meanes be lost if indeed they be necessary for salvation 54. What you say of the Churches restoring to some books of scripture their authority and Canonicallness must be answered by Protestants who receyue for Canonicall some books of which once there was some doubt neither will they pretend to restore to them authority or Canonicallness which in themselves they could never loose for what is once written by inspiration of the Holy Ghost is for ever truly sayd to haue bene so written but only we may come to know that which we did not know or to be assured of that wherof some doubted Which yet you must not so vnderstand as if the whole Church did ever doubt of those bookes and much less that she did deny or ever could make any Declaration or Definition that they were not Canonicall but only that they having been once commended to the Church by the Apostles some particular persons afterward fell into some doubt concerning theÌ„ as many haue questioned or denyed divers Articles of Faith delivered to Christians by the Apostles and the Church in due tyme even by occasion of such doubt or denyall declared the Truths contrary to those Heresyes to be arricles of Faith and those books of which some doubted to be Canonicall Thus Potter Pag 216. teaches that the Apâ—â—â—â—es Creed as it was further opened and explayned in some parts by occasion if emergent Heresyes in the other Catholique Creeds of Nice Conseantmople Ephesus Chalcedon and Athanasius contains all fundamentall Points of Faith And therfor you are injuriours to Gods Church in saying her omission to teach for some ages as an Article of Faith that such books were Canonicall nay degrading them from the number of articles of Faith aÌ„d putting theÌ„ among disputable problemes was surely not very laudable For the church did not omit to declare in due tyme and vpon fit or necessary occasioÌ„ that they were Canonicall as the ancieÌ„t Councell of Nice of whose Creed your Church of England Art 8. saieth it ought throughly to be receaved aÌ„d believed by occasioÌ„ of the daÌ„nable heresy of Arius with whom you and your SociniaÌ„s agree declared that Christ was Consubstantiall to his Father Neither did the Church ever degrade from an article of Faith or put among disputable problemes aÌ„y Part of true Canonicall scripture aÌ„d therfor Cha Ma sayd truly that never aÌ„y booke or syllable defined by the church for Canonicall was questioÌ„ed or rejected for apocriphall either by the church or any Catholique to whom such a DefinitioÌ„ was sufficiently notifyed though Heretiks will still be doing what pride aÌ„d obstinacie may suggest In the meane tyme you will find that I haue already aÌ„swered what you object P. 142. N. 29 against the sayd affirmation of Cha Ma that never any book or syllable once defined c and of which you are pleased to say certainly it is a bold assertion but extremely false aÌ„d say Hee Cha Ma were best ruâ—b his forhead hard and say c But our answer is very obvious that the booke of Ecclesiasticus and Wisdome the Epistle of S. James and to the Heb which you mention were approved by the Apostles for Canonicall yet that did not hinder but afterward some might be ignorant or doubt of them as many did of divers principall articles delivered by the Apostles and then the church had reason and authority to declare the matter You cite S. Gregory L 9. Morall C. 13. calling the books of Machabees not Canonicall S. Gregory hath no such thing in the chapter which you cite but L. 19. C. 17. which you might haue learned out of Potter who P. 259. cites the same authority as I haue set it downe This I would not haue noted if you had not taxed your adversary for missing a citation in one place wheras he citeth the same thing right in another as I note herafter Potter I say makes the same objection out of S. Gregory and Cha Ma Part. 2. Chap. 7. N. 18. answers it at large and you cannot be excused in taking no notice therof and yet make still the same Objection which Potter did These then be the words of Charity Maintayned what you alledg out of S. Gergory is easily answered for he doth not call the Machabees not Canonicall as if he would exclude them from the number of true and divine scriptures but because they were not in the canon of the Jewes or in that which he had at hand when he wrote his first draught of his commentaryes vpon Job For he was at that tyme the Popes Nuncius or Legat at
suppose you will not deny but that he can and then seing one cannot be a Saint or a converted sinner or persever to the end except by free Actions of the will proceeding from Grace you must grant that the congruous and efficacious Grace of God may consist both with freedome of our will aÌ„d infallibility in Gods fore-sight I sayd that if freewill in the Church cannot stand with infallibility neither could it consist with infallibility in the Apostles Now I add your Arguments proue not only against the fallibility of the Church and Apostles but also of Christ our Lord in your wicked doctrine that he is not God nor Consubstantiall to his Father but only man and then your demands enter whether he were moved by his Father resistibly or irresistibly And the same answer you giue for Him must be given for his Apostles and his Church You say Pag 86. N. 63. God gaue the Wâ—semen a starr to lead them to Christ but he did not necessitate them to follow the guidance of this starr that was left to their liberty But this instance makes against your self for no man dare deny but that God so moved those Wisemen as he was sure they would follow the starr and performe that for which he preseÌ„ted it to their eyes and gaue light to their vnderstandings and efficacy to their wills that so our Saviour Christ might be preached to the Gentils by their meanes as S. Leo serm 1. de Epiphan saith Dedit aspicientibus intellectum qui praestitit signum quod fecit intelligi fecit inquiri He who gaue the signe gaue them also light to vnderstand it and what he made to be vnderstood he made to be sought after where the word fecit signifyes that God did moue them effectually and yet we haue no necessity to say that they were necessitated 66. By what we haue sayd is answered a wild discourse which you make Pag. 87. N. 95. about the Popes calling the Councell of Trent which I haue shewed might be done both freely and yet proceed from the infallible fore-knowledg and Motion of the Holy Ghost And what you say of the Pope may be applyed against the Apostles and other Canonicall Writters why they did delay so long to write Scripture and whether they were moved to it resistibly or irresistibly c. 67. I conclude that togeather with the Church you impugne the infallibility of Christ and the Apostles and consequently of their Writings which forces me to repeat that according to your Doctrine scripture cannot be any Rule of Divine Faith and much less a sufficient Rule though it were supposed to contayne all necessary Points of Faith 68. Your 9. and most capitall Errour remaynes wherby you depriue scripture of certainty and infallibility and make both it and the contents of it lesse credible than the Books of prophane Authours and things related in them I meane your Assertion that we know Scripture to be the word of God not by an infallible private Spirit or by vndoubted criteria or signes appearing in Scripture it self as some other Protestants teach nor by the Church as infallibly assisted by the Direction of the Holy Ghost according to the Doctrine of Catholikes but from the Tradition of all Churches meerly as they are an Aggregation of men subject to Errour and as their consent is derived to vs by History and humane Tradition The private Spirit which must be tryed by Scripture and not Scripture by it and those pretended manifest signes found in Scripture it self are meere fopperyes confuted by the experience of so many learned men who hertofore haue differed and of Protestants who at this day differ about the Canon of Scripture and this forceth you to say to your Adversary Pag 69. N. 46. That the divinity of a writing cannot be knowne from it self alone but by some extrinsecall Authority you need not proâ—e for no wise man dâ—nyes it And therfor wheras Protestants teach that the Church is only an inducement and not the certaine ground for which we belieue Scripture you in opposition to them affirme that those criteria or signes are only Inducements but that the ground to receyve Scripture is the Church in the manner I haue declared Out of these considerations you choose rather to be sacrilegious then seeme to be simple or no wise man and therfor teach that Christian Faith is not infallibly true but only probable Which being a doctrine detested by other Protestants and by all respectiyely who profess any Religion and Worshipp of God it followes that we must receyue Scripture from the Church of God acknowledged to be infallible This being once granted we must further say that Her infallibility is vniversall in all things concering matters of Faith and Religion neither is it possible to bring some other infallible Authority to proue the Church infallible in this Point alone For to omitt other Reasons you must proue that Authority by some other and so without end In the meane tyme we haue reasoÌ„ to bless our good God who hath forced ProtestaÌ„ts at length to see the foolery of a private spirit and the vanity of manifest signes pretended to be found evidently in scripture and so come either to acknowledg the infallibility of Gods church or with Atheists and enemyes of Christian Religion to deny the infallibility of Christian Faith by setling the truth therof vpon humane fallible tradition which say you Pag. 72. N. 51. is a principle not in Christianity but in Reason nor proper to Christians but common to all men And Pag 53. N. 3. you teach that scripture may be judge of all controversyes those only excepted wherin the Scripture itself is the subject of the Question which cannot be determined but by naturall Reason the only Principle beside scripture which is common to Christians Behold the Analysis or Resolution of Christian Faith into humane fallible naturall Reason But now let vs shew the falshood of this your Errour 69. First it is an argument of no small waight that both in this devise itself you contradict all Catholikes and Protestants and in the consequence which inavoidably followes it namely that the assent of Christian Faith is fallible wherin as I sayd you contradict all Christians and all men who profess any Religion 70. 2. Christian Faith is infallible as I haue proved which it could not be if the ground on which it relyes were fallible 71. 3. It hath bene proved that Christian Faith is the Gift of God and in all occasions requires the supernaturall influence of the Holy Ghost which yet could not be necessary if Faith were but a fallible conclusion evidently deduced from a Principle not in Christianity but in naturall reason as we haue heard you profess and vpon that ground affirme that Christian Faith is only probable not raysing our Vnderstanding aboue the probability of humane inducements wherin it differs froÌ„ the judicium credibilitatis of which Catholike Divines speake and by which
not this a goodly Tradition to be the ground of our belief of Scripture and all Christian Religion May not the enemyes of Christian Religion triumph and say we can alledg no Authors which may not justly be questioned whether they be not corrupted Which in effect is all one for erecting an Act of Faith as if we were sure they were corrupted 86. 6. You say Seing the Roman church is so farr from being a sufficient foundation for our belief in Christ that it is in sundry regards a dangerous temptation against it why should I not much rather Conclude Seing we receiue not the knowledg of Christ and Scriptures from the church of Rome neither from her must we take his Doctrine or interpretation of Scripture But still I must aske from what true Christian church could England or any member of any church in England receyue the Scripture and knowledg of Christ except from the Church of Rome and such as agreed with Her You confess it is not necessary to proue any church distinct from ours before Luther and yet you will not deny but it is necessary to receiue the Scripture from some church seing you profess to belieue the Scripture which you hold for a sufficient foundation of your belief in Christ vpon the sole Authority of the church and therfor you must take the direct negatiue of your conclusion and say seing we receiue the knowledg of Christ and Scriptures from the church of Rome from her we must take his Doctrine and the interpretation of Scripture Having thus pondered your sayings and proved that they overthrow Christian Religion we may now goe forward to impugne this your Tradition And therfor 87. 9. We haue shewed how vncertaine and dangerous your Tradition must needs be by reason of corruption to which all writings haue bene subject if your Assertions were true But besides this I will demonstrate how insufficient your Tradition must be of it self ād much more if you add the sayd danger of corruption Pag 273. N. 56. You alledg Charity Maintayned saying Part. 1. Chap 5. N. 17. VVhen Luther appeared there were not two distinct visible true Churches one pure the other corrupted For to faine this diversity of two Churches cannot stand with record of Historyes which are silent of any such matter and then you reply in these words The ground of this is no way certaine nor here sufficiently proved For wheras you say Historyes are silent of any such matter I answer there is no necessity that you or I should haue redd all Historyes that may be extant of this matter nor that all should be extant that were written much less extant vncorrupted especially considering your Church which had lately all power in her hands hath bene so perniciously industrious in corrupting the monuments of Antiquity that made against her nor that all records should remayne which were written nor that all should be recorded which was done Nothing could haue bene spoken more effectually to proue the necessity of a Living Judge who being once vpon good and solid reason most certainly believed to be infallible as the Apostles proved their owne infallibility takes away all doubt or possibility of feare least the want or corruption or alteration or contrariety of any writings or records may weaken our Belief of whatsoever such an Authority proposes For till one be setled in the strength of such an Authority one may be doubting of whatsoever fallible Tradition whether there may not be extant some Storyes Records or Tradition contrary to that which he followes there being no necessity that he should haue redd all Storyes nor that all Historyes or Records should be extant that were written which if they had bene extant and had come to his knowledg perhaps might haue moved him to relinquish the Tradition which now he embraceth nor that all should be recorded which was done and therfor he cannot tell whether somthing may not haue bene done repugnant to that which his Tradition induces him to belieue nor finally whether the Tradition on which he relyes hath not bene corrupted and therfor sit only to lead him into and keepe him in errour Which yet is further confirmed by your words Pag 266. N. 35. Why may not you mistake in thinking that in former Ages in some country or other there were not alwayes some good Christians which did not so much as externally bow their knees to your Baal And then Sr why may not you mistake in thinking that in former ages there were not alwayes some good Christians who did not agree with those from whom you take your Vniversall Tradition which therfor will indeed cease to be Vniversall Do you not see how strongly you argue against yourself And yet my next Reason will affoard more in this kind 88. 10. I take an Argument from what you deliver Pag 130. N. 6. where impugning some who as you say Hold the Acceptation of the decrees of Councells by the Vniversall Church to be the only way to decide Controversyes You haue these words VVhat way of ending controversyes can this be when either part may pretend that they are part of the Church and they receaue not the decree therfor the whole Church hath not receyved it I beseech you apply your owne words thus what way of ending Controversyes about the Canon of Scripture can this be when either part may pretend that they are part of the Church and they receiue it not therfor the whole Church hath not receyved it By this doctrine of yours those Heretiks who as you confess Pag 361. N 40. out of S. Irenaeus did accuse the Scriptures as if they were not right and came not from good Authority might haue defended themselves by saying the whole Church had not receyved them because they themselves were part of the Church and did not receiue them According to this account your vniversall Tradition comes to be nothing because whosoever dissent from the rest will be ready to say that they also are part of the whole and so no Tradition contrary to them can be vniversall just as you say that Luther and his fellowes departed not from the whole Church because they did not depart from themselves and they were part of the Church Also Pag 362. N. 41. You overthrow your owne Tradition while you write thus Though the constant and vniversall delivery of any doctrine by the Apostolike Churches ever since the Apostles be a very great Argument of the truth of it Yet there is no certainty but that truth even Divine truth may through mens wickedness be contracted from its vniversality and interrupted in its perpetuity and so loose this Argumēt and yet not want others to justify and support itself For it may be one of those principles which God hath written in all mens harts or a conclusion evidently arising from them It may be either contayned in Scripture in express termes or deducible from it by apparēt consequēce But good Sr. seing that the Canō of
Scripture or what Books be CaÌ„onicall is not one of those principles which God hath written in mens harts nor a conclusion evidently arising from them nor is contained in Scripture in express termes or deducible from it by apparent consequence it being your owne Assertion Pag 69. N. 46. that it need not to be proved that the Divinity of a writing cannot be knowne from itself alone but by some extrinsecall Authority for no wise man denyes it it followes that according to your Principles it can be knowne only by the constant and Vniversall delivery of all Churches ever since the Apostles Now as you say there is no certainty but that a Doctrine or truth even a Divine truth constantly and vniversally delivered by the Apostolique Churches may through mens wickedness be contracted from its vniversality and interrupted in its perpetuity So also may the Canon or Bookes of Scripture which can haue no other argumeÌ„t to justify and support them beside Tradition run the some hazard by the wickednenss of meÌ„ and so come to loose vniversality aÌ„d perpetuity aÌ„d so cannot justify aÌ„d support any Divine truth And as true Books may come to loose so false ones may by the wickedness of meÌ„ come to gaine authority vnless we be assured of the contrary by the belief of an infallible Guide which can never admit of Apocryphall of false Scripture 89. 11. I goe forward to impugne your Tradition out of your owne words Pag 14. N. 14. were you say Though you say that Christ hath promised there shall be a perpetuall visible Church Yet you yourselves doe not pretend that he hath promised there shall be Historyes and Records alwayes extant of the professours of it in all ages nor that he hath any where enjoyned vs to read those Histories that we may be able to shew them Out of these words I argue thus It is not sufficient for your vniversall Tradition of all Ages that the whole Church of this age for example accept a Booke for Canonicall vnless it can be proved to haue bene receyved by all Churches of all ages as Pag 152. N. 44. You openly profess to dissent from S. Austine in this that whatsoever was practised or â—eld by the vniversall Church of his tyme must needs haue come from the Apostles and therfor it is necessary for you to affirme that there alwayes must be Historyes and records which one Age is to receyve from another to proue that Scripture was delivered for the word of God by the Apostles But You do not pretend that God hath promised that there shall be Historyes or Records alwayes extant nor that he hath any where enjoyned vs to reade these Historyes that we may be able to shew them and by them know the true Books of Scripture Therfor you must grant out of your owne assertion that you haue no sufficient meanes to know and rely vpon your Tradition especially if we consider that vnlearned men cannot possibly know whether there be such sufficient ground and Historyes as are necessary to make it Vniversall and yet all sorts of people must haue necessary and sufficient meanes for the knowledg of all things necessary to salvation which meanes Protestants affirme to be the Scripture alone But with vs the case is farr different who belieue a Perpetuall Visible Church For we believing that Church to be Infallible in one age as well as in another are not obliged to seeke after historyes or Records of tymes past as you are for your humane fallible Tradition in regard the Church being alwayes existent and Visible is perpetually indued whith such Notes Prerogatives and Evident Signes as make her manifest in every age and worthy of credit in matters belonging to Religion and among other Points for this in particular that herself must alwayes be Visible as shall be declared herafter more at large though it be also true that it may be evidently shewed for every age by all kind of Witnesses as well friends as Adversaryes that our Church hath alwayes had a visible Being and Prosessours of her Doctrine with a perpetuall Succession of Pastours and this so manifestly that it can no more be denyed than that there haue bene Christians ever since the tyme of the Apostles yea or that there have bene Emperours Kings Writers Warrs or such publike things as no man can deny But you who ground your belief of Scripture and all Chaistianity vpon a fallible Tradition knowne by Humane Historyes and Records of all ages and every one of your sect must either despayre of salvation or els procure to be learned and versed in all Historyes though yet even this will not preserue them from cause of despaire considering how insufficient humane Tradition is of itself as I haue proved out of your owne words and to the rest I will add your saying Pag 361. N. 40. The Fathers did vrge the joynt Trad 〈…〉 all the Apostelique Churcher with one mouth and one voyce teaching the same Doctrine not at a demonstration but only as a very probable Argument If this be so seing your vniversall Tradition can I hope be no better than the joynt Tradition of all the Apostolique Churches surely you can Vrge it only for a very probable and no demonstratiue Argument especially if we reflect that you profess the whole vniversall Church before Luthers tyme to haue fallen into many great and gross errours even concerning the Canon of Scripture and consequently that the first vniversall Tradition from the Apostles came to be altered and corrupted and that your forsayd very probable Argument de facto hath fayled if your Heresy were true that the whole Church hath fallen into errour 90. 12. Pag 149. N. 38. You say I must learne of the Church or of some part of the Church or I cannot know any thing Fundamentall or not Fundamentall For how can I come to know that there was such a Man as Christ that he taught such Doctrines that he and his Apostles did such Miracles in confirmation of it that the Scripture is Gods Word vnless I be taught it So then the church is though not a certaine foundation and proof of my Faith yet a necessary introduction to it I confess I haue studyed to find what sense you can haue in these words and can find nothing but contradictions and finally that your owne Tradition cannot be a sufficient ground for our belief of Scripture You say I must learne of the Church or of some part of the Church or I cannot know any thing Fundamentall or not Fundamentall And in particular That Scripture is the Word of God I askeâ— what you meane by the Church or some part of the Church Is your meaning that the Tradition of some part of the Church is sufficient to believe Scripture to be the Word of God Against this you profess every where that the Scripture is to be receyved only vpon vniversall Tradition of all Churches and Times from the Apostles At least will you
haue it a necessary introduction to Faith I do not see how you can say this seing you profess to disallow S. Austines saying as we haue seene a little before That Whatsoever was practised or held by the vniversall Church of his tyme must needs haue come from the Apostles and how can that be a necessary introduction to Faith which either contaynes a falshood or is confessedly subject to errour as de facto you Protestants proclaime that the whole Church before Luther was fallen into grosse and as you speake damnable errours and you also say Pag 148. N. 36. An Authority subject to errour can be no firme or stable foundation of my belief in any thing and if it were in any thing then this Authority being one and the same in all proposalls I should haue the same reason to belieue all that I haue to belieue one and therfore must either doe vnreasonably in believing any one thing vpon the sole warrant of this Authority or vnreasonably in not believing all things equally warranted by it And therfor you expressly conclude in these words we belieue Canonicall Books not vpon the Authority of the present Church but vpon vniversall Traditiō But then how is that true which we haue heard you say The Church is though not ā certaine Foundation and proofe of my Faith yet a necessary introduction to it For seing Scripture is the certaine foundation and proofe of your Faith and that you belieue the Scripture not for the private spirit or other criteria as some Protestants doe nor vpon the Authority of the present Church but vpon vniversall Tradition it followes evidently that Vniversall Tradition of the Church is the certain Foundation and proofe of your Faith And this you cannot deny if you remember your owne Doctrine That men may belieue and be saved without Scripture but not without the Church according to your owne saying I must learne of the Church or of some part of the Church or I cannot know any thing Fundamentall or not Fundamentall and in particular that the Scripture is the Word of God Therfor say I the Church is a more necessary not only introduction to Faith but also Foundation and proofe of it then Scripture can be but if you will persist in this your Assertion that the Church as you take it for a fallible aggregation of men is not the Foundation of Faith and that Scripture both in truth and according to your owne Principles must be receyved from the Church what remaynes but that the Church must be infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost in all matters belonging to Religion 91. Lastly to ptoue how easily men may be deceyved vnless they rely vpon some infallible Authority may appeare by what happened to myself who some yeares agoe falling vpon a wicked Book vnder a false name of Dominicus Lopez Societatis Jesu about the Authority of Scripture and as printed in a Catholique cittie it came to my minde that in tyme the Book might come to be accepted for such as the title professes My thoughts proved Propheticall For since that tyme a Catholique learned Writer cites it for such though vpon better information he declares afterward in the same Work that the Book was written by an Heretique and printed among Heretiques 92. And here I will end this Chapter having proved divers wayes that according to severall Doctrines of yours Scripture cannot be any Rule of Faith and much less a perfect one although we should falsely suppose that it did contayne evidently and in particular all Points necessary to be believed Wherfor it remaynes that seing Scripture alone cannot be a sufficient and totall Rule of Faith we declare what that Meanes is Which we will endeavour to performe in the next Chapter CHAPTER IV. A LIUING INFALLIBLE IVDG IS NECESSARY FOR DECIDING CONTROVERSYES IN MATTERS OF FAITH THE Premises set downe in the precedent Chapters did Virtually and implicitely containe and leaue it easy for Vs to infer explicitely and expressly as a conclusion the Title of this Chapter For since Christian Faith is the Gift of God and infallible since Scripture alone doth not evidently containe all necessary Points of Faith since your particular way of receiving Scripture as the word of God cannot be sufficient to erect an Act of infallible Faith no nor can be any Rule of Faith and much less a perfect Rule it followes necessarily that there must alwayes be extant a Living Uisible Judg which can be no other but the Church of God against which our B. Saviour promised that the gates of Hell should not prevaile This Deduction is so cleare that you are forced to acknowledg it Pag 326. N. 4. Where you affirme That Catholikes would faine haue the Doctrine of the infallibility of Christian Faith true that there might be necessity of our Churches infallibility Seing then both Catholikes and Protestants and al Christians firmely belieue Christian Faith to be infallible and that this cannot be defended without believing the infallibility of the church it followes that we must either acknowledg in Her such an infallibility or tell Christians that for ought they know all that they belieue of God of Christ of Scripture of the Resurrection of the Dead of Heaven of Hell of all the Articles of Christian Religion may proue no better than a dreame or an imposture or fiction Blessed be the infinite Wisdome and Goodness of God who destroyes the Wisdom of the Wise and the prudence of the prudent 1. Cor. 1.19 This Man was picked out among all the men in England to impugne the Roman Church his Book was approved by three chiefest men of an University and was excessively cryed vp by his friends neither did any Writer ever shew greater malice against the Roman Church than hee But with what success No other but this That Protestants must either deny with this man all Certainty of Scripture and Christianity or els acknowledg not the Scripture but the Church to be Judg of Controversyes in matters cōcerning religiō that is they must either renoūce Christianity by denying the infallibility of Christian Faith or abandon Protestancy by condēning their capitall doctrine of the fallibility of the Church and sufficiency of Scripture alone and so must returne to belieue and obey the Decrees and Definitions of Generall Councells and with them condemne the Heresyes which now themselves maintayne This then may be my first Argument to proue the infallibility of Gods Church and indeed this alone might suffice with Christians yet 2. 2. This Truth of the necessity of an infallible Judg appeares also by what hath bene sayd about Translations Additions Detractions Corruptions and loss of some Scriptures which would leaue vs in doubt and perplexity vnless we believed an infallible Authority able to supply all such defects and provide for all events 3. 3. Out of Charity Maintayned Part 1. Pag 64. N. 19. There must be some Judg fit for all sorts of Persons learned and vnlearned which the ignorant may
belieue the Divell with an infallible Assent for his owne Authority in saying there is one God vnless I belieue him to be infallible But if he proue what he sayes by some evident demonstration I do not belieue him for his Authority but I yield Assent to the demonstration proposed by him for the evidence and certainty of the thing itself proved by such a demonstration and so alwayes infallibility in our Assent requires infallibility in the Ground or Motiue therof As de facto the Divell himself knowes with an infallible internall Assent yea and as I may say feeles to his cost that there is a God but whether you can belieue him with certainty when exteriourly he vtters that or any other Point meerly for his Authority is nothing to our purpose though it seemes you can best diue into his intentions by what you say in your Answer to your Eight Motiue where you say The Divell might perswade Luther from the Masse hoping by doing so to keepe him constanâ— to it or that others would make his disswasion from it an Argument for it as we see Papists doe you should add and as yourself did before you were a Papist and be afrayd of following Luther as confessing himself to haue bene perswaded by the Divell This your strang answer to your owne Motiue I do not confute in this occasion it having bene done already in a litle Treatise intituled Heantomachta or Mr. Chillingworth against himself and in an other called Motives Maintayned Certainly you haue not observed that saying We must not bely the Divell 19. The same Answer I giue to your example of a Geometritian whom in those things which he demonstrates we do not belieue for his Authority but for evidence of his demonstration which is infallible neither did the Author of Charity Maintayned belieue for his owne fallible Authority that he hath written such a Booke but by evidence and infallibility offense And here you should remember your owne words Pag 325. N. 2. Faith is not knowledg no more then three is foure but eminently contained in it so that he that knowes believes and somthing more but he that believes many tymes does not know nay if he doth barely and meerly belieue he doth never know Therfor according to your owne Doctrine he who assents in vertue of some evident demonstration doth know and not belieue for the Authority of another And who sees not that if I belieue a thing for some other reason and not for the Authority of him who affirmes it I cannot be sayd to belieue it for his Authority but I assent to it for that other reason Yea if we consider the matter well when I know one affirmes a thing and yet do not belieue it for his Authority but for some other Motiue or reason I may be sayd of the two rather to disbelieue then belieue him at least I do not belieue him at all for that Point but either some other Person or for some other Reason Wherfor You do but trifle when Pag 138. N. 36. You speake to Charity Maintayned in these words You say we cannot belieue the Church in propounding Canonicall Books if the Church be not vniversally infallible if you meane still as you must doe vnless you play the Sophister not vpon her owne Authority I grant it For we belieue Canonicall Bookes not vpon the Authority of the present Church but vpon vniversall Tradition If you meane not at all and that with reason we cannot belieue these Bockes to be Canonicall which the Church proposes I deny it In these words I say you do but trifle For you know that Charity Maintayned did speake of believing the Church vpon her owne Authority which is so true that you say he must meane so vnless he play the Sophister and what then shall we think you play in imputing to him such a sense wheras you deny not but that his words may be taken in a good sense as indeed they could not be taken otherwise Beside I do not at all belieue the Church when I chance to belieue that which she proposes if I belieue it for some other reason and not for her Authority and therfor it is a contradiction in you to say I belieue the Church at all when I belieue for some other reason as I haue declared aboue You say Pag 35. N. 7. I grant that the meanes to decide Controversyes in Faith and Religion must be indued with an vniversall infallibility in whatsoever it propoundeth for a Divine Truth For if it may be false in any one thing of this nature in any one thing which God requires men to belieue we can yield vnto it but a wavering and fearfull assent Is not this the very same thing which Charity Maintayne sayd If now one should turne your owne words against yourself and say Indeed if you had sayd we can yield vnto it but a wavering and fearfull Assent in any thing for its owne sake I should willingly grant your consequence But if you meane not at all I deny it Would you not say that he did but cavill Remember then Quod tibi non vis fieri alteri ne seceris But let vs goe forward 20. The second difference between learned and vnlearned Catholikes and both those kinds of Protestants is this You say Pag 87 N. 94. The Scripture is not so much the words as the sense If therfor Protestants haue no certaine Meanes or Rule to know the true sense of Scripture to them it cannot be Scripture nor the infallible Word of God But I haue proved that Protestants haue no such certaine Meanes or Rule Therfor we must inferr that by pretending to follow Scripture alone they do not rely vpon any certaine ground and that Scripture to them cannot be an infallible Rule And this being true even in respect of the learned the Faith of the vnlearned who depend on them cannot possibly be resolved into any infallible ground wheras the vnlearned amongst Catholikes believing their Pastors who rely on the Church which both is and is believed to be infallible their Faith comes to be resolved into a ground really infallible The like Argument may be taken from Translations Additions Detractions and Corruptions of Scripture of which the learned Protestants can haue no certainty and much less the vnlearned and so their Faith is not builded vpon any stable Foundation and consequently the vncertaintyes which we object to you touch the very generall grounds of your Faith and not only the particular meanes by which they are applyed to every one 21. 3. I appeale to the conscience of every vnpartiall man desirous to saue his soule whether in Prudence one ought not to preferr the Roman Church and those who agree with Her before any companie of Sectaryes who disagreeing among themselves cannot all belieue aright and yet none of them is able to satisfy why their particular sect should be preferred before others who pretend Scripture alone no less then they Of
fallible authority of some particular men who informe them that there is such a decree And if the decrees were translated into vulgar languages why the translatours should not be as fallyble as you say the translatours of scripture are who can possibly imagine 28. Answer Take away an infallible living Judg and Tradition of the Church you will hardly find any Text of Scripture containing the sublime Mysteries of Christian Faith evident even to the learned among you as hath bene proved hertofore and appeares by the experience of your great and irremediable disagreements and is manifest of itselfe because you haue no certaine Rule when the Scripture is to be taken in a litterall figuratiue morall c sense which difficulty ceases in the Decrees of the Church both because it is knowen vpon what occasion and against what Enours the Church makes â—her Decrees as all know vpon what occasion and against whom the sacred Councell of Trent was gathered and therby it is easy to vnderstand the decrees for the Negatiue or affirmatiue part at least for the substance and the things chiefly inteÌ„ded in them or if any doubt should remayne the Church can declare herself which Scripture can never doe And although the Decrees of Popes and Councells are not conceyved so obscurely as you would make men falsely belieue yet all obscurity is easily cleared by some further declaration As for languages in which they are written it is Latine a language knowne not only to the learned but to many also whom we need not reckon among the learned and they who vnderstand not Larine will find so great vniformity among all those who vnderstand that Language that they cannot remaine vncertaine concerning the meaning of those Decrees though they be not translated into vulgar Languages or if they were so translated eyther the translations would be found totally to agree or els it were easy to be informed which of them did mistake seing innumerable persons do perfectly vnderstand Latine and Besides as I sayd it is evidently knowne vpon what occasion the Decrees were framed and what was the scope of them and what part they condemned as false or defined as true But for Scripture seing you haue no certaine Rule to know the sense therof aÌ„d Translations of Protestants are manifestly seen to be contrary one to another the most learned among you can haue no certainty yea I dare say that greater learning will occasion greatest multiplicity of doubts and perplexityes vnless there be acknowledged an infallible Living Judg and much less can the vnleaned haue certainty sufficient to exercise a true Act of Diuine Faith More of this matter may be seen in Charity Maintayned Part 2. Chap 5. N. 32. in answer to an Objection made by Potter like to this of yours To your saying If the Decrees were translated into vulgar Languages why the Translators should not be as fallible as you say the Translators of the Scripture are who can possibly imagine I answer There is a manifold difference between the Translations of Scripture and of the Ecclesiasticall Decrees For every word of Scripture was inspired by the Holy Ghost One Text may haue divers literall senses intended by the same Holy Spirit We are ignorant what was the scope of Canonicall Writers for every particular Chapter or Text Every Reason given in holy Scripture is a matter of Faith The style and Majesty therof surpasses humane wit and manner of writing All which considerations make the Translations of Scripture both more difficult and more dangerous then those of Ecclesiasticall Definitions or Decrees in which the fore sayd Reasons haue not place as appeares by what I sayd even now 29. But you would proue Pag 94. N. 109. that no man can be certaine of the Churches Decrees which must be confirmed by a true Pope Now the Pope cannot be true Pope if he came in by simony Which whether he did or no who can answer me He cannot be true Pope vnless he were baptized and baptized he was not vnless the Minister had due intention So likewise he cannot be a true Pope vnless he were rightly ordained Priest and that againe depends vpon the Ordainers secret intention and also vpon his having the Episcopall Character All which things depend vpon so many vncertaine suppositions that no humane judgment can possibly be resolved in them I conclude therfor that not the learnedst man amongst you all no not the Pope himself can according to the grounds you goe vpon haue any certainty that any Decree of any Councell is good and valid and consequently not any assurance that it is indeed the Decree of a Councell 30. Answer These very Objections Potter made and are answered by Charity Maintayned Part 2. Chap 5. N 31. but you take no notice therof That your suppositions are never to be admitted but we are sure that whosoever in a tyme free from Schisme is once accepted by the Church for a true Pope is such indeed Yet if you will be making such vntrue suppositions that the Pope did enter by Simony or wanted Baptisme or true Ordination God would never permitt him to define any thing in prejudice of the Church Neither are the occasions of Defining matters of Faith alwayes vrgent as we see the Church for the space of three hundred yeares after the Apostles past without any Generall Councell Yea if de facto any Pope define some truth to be a matter of Faith we are sure even by his doing so that he is true Pope it being impossible that God should permit his vniversall Church to be obliged to belieue a falshood or an vncertaine thing as all are obliged to beleeve the Definition of one who is accepted for true Pope See more of this in the saied place of Charity Maintayned 31. But now Good Sr. I beseech you reflect that in being so eager against vs you haue degraded or rather haue denyed your Bishops Priests and the whole Pretended mock-Hierarchy of the Protestant Church in England which hitherto hath bene ambitious to proue the Ordination and Succession of your Bishops from the Roman Church of which nevertheless you say Pag 77. N. 67. He that shall put together and maturely consider all the possible wayes of lapsing and nullifying a Priesthood in the Church of Rome I belieue will be very inclinable to thinke that it is an hundred to one that amongst an hundred seeming Priests there is not one true one Nay that it is not a thing very improbable that amongst those many millions which make vp the Râ—man Hierarchy there are not twenty trâ—â— If this be so if the fountaine be so troubled or rather none at all what certainty can there be in the streame which flowed from Rome to England if of many millyons among vs there are not tweÌ„ty true Priests if wee keepe a proportion with England to the whole world there must not be among you one true Bishop or Priest And was not your Book fitly approved expressly as
necessary to salvation Facienti quod in se est Deus non denegat gratiam God will not be wanting to second his owne Graces with perpetuall addition of more and greater if we be not wanting to them and our selves Which if we be we cannot be sayd to haue done as much as God requires of vs. Deus non deest in necessarijs and we speake in a case of necessity If I say you giue this Answer you answer for vs who can easily transferr the example from one deceyved by a malitious Pastour or Teacher to another defrauded of absolution by a wicked or a fayned Priest that if the Penitent had kept close to Gods Inspirations he would not haue bene permitted to fall vpon such a Priest or els his soule would haue bene raysed to contrition wherby all deadly sins are forgiven 47. This Instance which I haue vrged out if your owne Assertion that there are some Points indispensably necessary to salvation is declared by Potter Pag 243. who speakes thus of Fundamentall Points these are so absolutely necessary to all Christians for attayning the end of our Faith that is the salvation of our soules that a Christian may loose himself not only by a positiue erring in them or denying of them but by a pure ignorance or nescience or not knowing of them And to this purpose among other he cites Dominic Bannez in 2.2 Quest 2. Art 8. saying Invincible ignorance cannot here excuse from everlasting death though we want them without any fault of ours or although it were not in our power to attaine the knowledg of them even as if there were one only remedy wherby a sick man could be recovered from corporall death suppose the Patient and the Physitian both were ignorant of it the man must perish as well not knowing it as if being brought vnto him he had refused it Which words declare how one may be damned by occasion of inculpable Ignorance though not for it but for his sinnes committed and not pardoned The like example may be giuen of one inculpably ledd into an errour concerning Repentance which no man denyes to be necessary for remission of deadly sinnes as if he were taught that no Repentance were necessary or that it did require no kind of sorrow for what is past but only a purpose to amend for tyme to come or that it were sufficient to conceyve sorrow only for some humane motiue or some temporall shame payne or loss or the like which is but tristitia saeculi and makes one rather a greater sinner than a true Penitent Or els That Attrition alone is sufficient without Absolution which is your pernicious errour or That it is sufficient to haue sorrow for one or a few deadly sinnes though it extend not itself effectually to all Or That Faith alone without precedent Repentance is sufficient or the like For as one may be taught an Errour in other Pointes so also in this of Repentance Now of men in these cases I make the same Demand which I made aboue whether they can be saved without sufficient Repentance And it being cleare that they cannot and yet are supposed to haue bene misled without any fault of theirs your Objection turnes vpon yourself how when you haue done as much as God requires for your salvation yet can you by no meanes be secure which is to make salvation a matter of chance c What I haue specifyed in the belief of Fundamentall Poynts and repentance may easily be applyed to other Points of practise necessary for salvation 48. Besides Many Divines teach That Contrition is necessary in Divers Occasions wherby all his sins will be forgiven whatsoever his Sacramentall Absolution chance to be Some say Contrition obliges as often as deadly sins are presented to our mynd vt practicè detestanda Some that it obliges vpon festivall dayes because we cannot spend the day in God Allmightyes service vnless first we be contrite for our sins Others teach That it obliges in occasion of some publike necessity which we haue reason to feare is inflicted for a punishment of our sins Others as often as we are to begin some heroicall worke vpon which the publike weale or profit of the people depends because the forcible and powerfull helpe of God is wont to be denyed to sinners Others and those men of great learning hold That at least all are obliged to Contrition at the true or believed houre of death or in morall danger of death as in warre or a long and dangerous voyage by sea because a morall danger of death is equivalent to the last houre of death and this they vnderstand even though one confess Sacramentally and much more if he want a Confessarius Besides all are bound to Contrition either when they administer Sacraments or receyue those Sacraments which are called Sacramenta Vivorum if they be guilty of some deadly sinne not confessed Vide Amicum To 8. Disp 9. Sec 3. 4. I abstaine from examining difference of Opinions This is certaine that all Catholikes are taught oftentymes to moue themselves to contrition and all of timorous consciences and good life endeavour to doe it and every body at least at the houre of death at which tyme Charitas propria or Charity towards ones self for the salvation of his soule will as it were naturally and effectually incline them to it with the assistance of Gods Grace which is never wanting and so neither the want nor wickedness of any Priest can hurt them Remember what yourself say Pag 277. N. 61. that according to Potter God hath promised to the Church an absolute assistance for things necessary and then you add a farther assistance is conditionally promised vs even such an assistance as shall lead vs if we be not wanting to it and our selves into all not only necessary but very profitable truth For Gods assistance is alwayes ready to promote her farther It is ready I say but on condition the Church does implore it on condition that when it is offered in the Divine directions of Scripture and reason the Church be not negligent to follow it Why do you not apply this to our present Question and say Gods assistance is alwayes ready to promote vs farther from attrition to Contrition vpon condition we do implore it and be not wanting to it and our selves and that when it is offered in divine directions of Christian Faith taeching that no care or even solicitude can be too great in securing the eternall salvation of our soules we be not negligent to follow such directions Will you say God is more ready to direct our vnderstanding for the belief of Poynts not necessary but only very profitable than he is to assist our will for exercising an Act of contrition which is alwayes eminently profitable and in case of deadly sinne and invalid Absolution absolutely necessary To say nothing that as I sayd great Divines hold it to be necessary at the houre of death even
Churches Governours Pastours and Parents as Judges of Controversyes in Faith and Religion and the only Meanes to propose to vs all Points necessary to be believed Certainly if we were obliged to heare and obey them in so eminent a degree as we are not we ought also to belieue them to be infallible even according to your owne Assertion repeated in divers places of your Book I wonder you and other Protestants will be still thrusting vpon vs this worne-out Objection without taking notice of the Answer which hath bene so often given and which shewes that your Objection tumes against yourself And as for our obligation to seeke the Church none can speake more home than Dr. Field one of the chiefest Protestant Divines of England in his Treatise of the Church in his Epistle Dedicatory to the Lor◠Archbishop teaching expressly that there remaineth nothing for men desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence but diligently to search out which among all the societyes in the world is that Church of the Living God which is the Pillar and Ground of Truth that so they may embrace her Communion follow her directions and rest in her judgment 85. Fiftly I know not whether you speake more vntruly or perniciously or giue me leaue to speake truth more ridiculously when Pag 105. N. 139. you say to Charity Maintayned You must know there is a wide difference between being infallible in Fundamentalls and being an infallible Guide even in Fundamentalls Dr. Potter sayes That the Church is the former that is There shall be some men in the world while the world lasts which erre not in Fundamentals for otherwise there should be no Church For to say the Church while it is the Church may erre in Fundamentalls implies contradiction and is all one as to say The Church while it is the Church may not be the Church So that to say that the Church is infallible in Fundamentalls signifyes no more but this There shall be a Church in the world for ever Thus you And thus the sons of men and children of darkness take pleasure to seeme witty by jeasting sacrilegiously in things belonging to God The Church cannot erre in Fundamentall Ponts because if she erre in such Points she is no more a Church Why say you not thus All men are infallibly true because if they erre they cease to be true in that wherin they erre Mr. Chillingworth is immortall and cannot dy because if he dy he is no more Mr. Chillingworth and happy had it bene for him and others seduced by his sophistry si non fuisset natus homo ille Thus also you may say That God when he threatned and decreed that Adam should be mortall and dye if he transgressed his command at the same tyme even after his transgression he was immortall and could not dye because if he died he should no more be Adam To be immortall in common sence signifyes a certainty not to dye and not ridiculously that if he dy he doth exist no more and so not to exist implyes the direct contrary of being immortall and supposes one to be mortall and therfore to say The Church is infallible because if she erre she is no more a Church comes to this that she is fallible which is directly contrary to infallible For as we sayd of immortality so in proportion infallibility must signify an assurance not to erre and the Church to be infallible in Fundamentall Points must signify that she cannot erre in them and so not loose her being by such errour which is plainly opposite to your saying that she may erre and therby cease to be You erre therfore in not distinguishing between Actum primum and secundum or Potentiam and Actum as Philosophers speake To say a Church is infallible or cannot erre or be destroyed signifyes some antecedent either extrinsecall or intrinsecall Principle or Power preserving Her in such manner as that such a Principle cannot actually consist with errour And therfor you speake not like a Philosopher in saying The Church is infallible in Fundamentalls that is There shall be some men in the world while the world lasts which erre not in Fundamentalls passing ab actuad potentiam and proving that men are infallible because de facto they erre not wheras men may chance not to erre and yet not be infallible You haue heard Whitaker saying We beleeue to the comfort of our soules that Christs Church hath continued and never shall faile so long as the world indureth and we account it a prophane Heresy to teach otherwise What comfort I pray can it be to soules that the Church may erre in Fundamentall Points yet so as she remaynes no more a Church which Whitaker accounts a prophane Heresy Every one conceaves infallibility to be a favour and Priviledge You tell vs the plaine contrary That infallibility in the Church for the most principall and necessary Points of Faith doth not signify that she may not erre in them but that if she erre she must inevitably perish or dye by such a damnable errour and become as it were the Divells martyr by dying for so bad a cause Which surely is no favour or Priviledge especially if we call to mynd an other Doctrine of yours that Errours not Fundamentall are compatible with the Being of a Church which is a greater favour than to be destroyed And therfore how can infallibility in Fundamentall Points in your way of explication that if she erre in such Points she ceaseth to be a Church be a Priviledg or Favour seing no body will say that fallibility and errour in Points not Fundamentall which yet destroy not the Church are favours Other men conceaue that these Propositions are convertible Whosoever is infallible cannot erre and whosoever cannot erre is infallible But you contrary to all other mens Logick say the Church is infallible because she may erre damnably and desperatly and therby loose her Being 86. When Protestants teach That the Church cannot perish but is infallible in Fundamentall Points they make a difference between Points Fundamentall and not Fundamentall and teach That she may faile and de facto hath fayled in these but cannot faile in those But you in opposition to all others maintayne That the Church may erre both in Fundamentall and not Fundamentall Articles from whence every one would inferr that she is absolutly fallible in both and infallible in neither or if infallible in either in both And yet you haue found a devise that though she erre in both those kinds of Articles she is infallible in one of them only that is in Fundamentall Points And fallible in Points not Fundamentall A rare piece of Philosophy To erre damnably and Fundamentally and yet be infallible Yea which is most admirable to be infallible because she erres most deeply and be fallible because she erres in matters of lesser moment Beside other Protestants put a difference between the vniversall Church is infallible ād cannot erre in
7. that the Points which we belieue should not be so evidently certaine as to necessitate our vnderstanding to an Assent that so there might be some Obedience in Faith which can hardly haue place where there is no possibility of disobedience as there is not when the vnderstanding does all and the will nothing Now the Religion of protestants though it be much more credible than yours yet is not pretended to haue the absolute evidence of sense or demonstration Behold a confessed difference between one who knowes a way by evidence of sense and an other who believes a way or Rule only by Faith The former needs no command of the will nor any guide but the latter needs a guide and you confess he needs the command of the will which were not needfull if the way which is Holy Scripture were so plaine as you pretend and if the vnderstanding must depend on the will for believing Points which seeme evident in Scripture that there might be some place for obedience how shall the weakness and mutability of the will it self be established except by some other infallible Living Authority And therfore your Argument proves nothing because it proves too much that as one who knowes and sees his way neeeds no helpe of his will or of Guide or any other particular assistance so for attaining the true meaning of Scripture we need no interpreter no diligence even such as Protestants prescribe as skill in languages conferring of places c though 2 Pet 1.21 it be saied Not by mans will was prophecie brought at any time But the holy men of God spake inspired with the Holy Ghost Which sequeles being very false you must acknowledg a great disparity between the evident knowing of a way and vnderstanding Scripture To which purpose I may well alledg your owne words Pag 137. N. 19. If we consider the strang power that education and prejudices instilled by it haue over even excellent vnderstandings we may well imagine that many Truths which in themselves are revealed plainly enough are yet to such or such a man prepossest with contrary opinions not revealed plainly I pray you tell vs what education or prejudices could hinder a man from finding that way which he is supposed perfectly to know and which it is not in his power to misse by ignorance though as I fayd he may voluntary goe out of it You must therfore acknowledg that your similitude or parity is nothing but a disparate and disparity 94. Fiftly Let a man be never so perfect in the knowledg of his way he shall never come to his journeyes end if he want strength to walke that way Now Faith being the gift of God and requiring the assistance of Grace exceeds the strength of humane wit or will and this Grace being not given but by the Ministery of the Church as I haue declared and as we haue heard Calvin saying God inspires Faith but by the instrument of the Gospell as Paul teacheth that Faith comes by hearing It followes that none can in the ordinary course receiue strength to vnderstand and know the way which you say is Scripture without the Ministery of the Church or a Living Guide and so it appeares many wayes that your Argument or similitude proves nothing against vs but very much against yourself 95. Tenthly and lastly I proue the vniversall infallibility of the Church by answering an Argument or removing an impediment which Potter objects as if some Catholique Doctours held not the Church to be vniversally infallible This the Doctour Pag 149. pretends to proue out of Dr. Stapleton in particular as if he did deny the Church to be infallible in Poynts not Fundamentall to which purpose he cites him Princip Doctrinal Lib 8. Contr 4. Cap 15. But this is clearly confuted by Charity Maintayned Part 2. Chap 5. Pag 127.128.129.130 shewing that Dr. Stapleton doth not oppose Poynts Fundamentall to other revealed Truths or Points of Faith not Fundamentall as if the infallibility of the Church did extend itself only to Fundamentall Articles but he distinguishes between Points revealed and belonging to Faith and Points not revealed nor belonging to Faith but to Philosophy or curious disputes either not called in Question amongst Catholikes as if they were matters belonging to Religion or if they chance to be such yet are not defined by the Church For if once they be controverted and the Church giue her sentence he expressly teaches in the same place that the infallibility of the Church hath place in those Points which are called in Question or are publikely practised by the Church As also Rel Cont 1. Q. 3. Art 6. He expressly saith that certaine Doctrines are either primary Principles of Faith or els though not primary yet defined by the Church and so as if they were primary Others are Conclusions deduced from those Principles but yet not desined Of the first kind are the Articles of Faith and whatsoever is defined in Councels against Heretiques c Of the second are questions which either belong to the hidden workes of God or to certaine most obscure places of Scripture which are beside the Faith and of which we may be ignorant without losse of Faith yet they may be modestly and fruitfully disputed of And afterward he teaches that whatsoever the Church doth vniversally hold either in doctrnie or manners belongs to the foundation of Faith And proves it out of S. Austine Serm 14. de verb Domini Ep 28.89.96 who calls the custome of the Church Ecclesiae morem fundatissimum Fidem fundatissimam consuetudinem Ecclesiae fundatissimam Authoritatem stabilissimam fundatissimae Ecclesiae The most grounded practise of the Church and most grounded Faith the most grounded custome of the Church the most firme Authority of the most grounded Church Could any thing be more cleere to shew that according to Dr. Stapleton the infallibility of the Church reacheth further then to those Points which you call Fundamentall and that it belongs to the very foundation of Faith that we belieue whatsoever the Church holds And that it is not lawfull for any to dispute against such determinations of the Church Which doth overthrow your distinction of Poynts Fundmentall and not Fundamentall though you alledg the Authority of S. Thomas 2.2 Q. 2. Art 5. and Stapleton in favour therof For S. Thomas in the very place you cited after he had sayd that there are some objects of Faith which we are bound explicitely to belieue addeth that we are bound to belieue all other Poynts when they are sufficiently propounded to vs as belonging to Faith Thus far Charity Maintaynâ—d Wherby it is manifest that according to Stapleton the Church cannot erre in defining any point to be revealed which is not so or that it is not revealed if indeed it be so and consequently that she is vniversally infallible in all points belonging to Faith whether they be of them selves Fundamentall or not Fundamentall I say of themselves for in sensu
in regard that these may chance not to be so cleare as of themselves alone to convince 2. He teaches That the objects of Her certainty are not Questions vnnecessary but such as belong to the substance of Faith publike Doctrine and things necessary to salvation and we haue heard him say ad fundamentum Fidei pertinere quidquid Ecclesia tenet sive in Doctrina sive in cultu That whatsoever the Church holds either in Doctrine or in worship belongs to the fundation of Faith and that all things defined by the Church are as if they were primary principles of Faith and so according to him all things defined by the Church belong to the substance of Faith and are necessary to salvation 98. But here is not an end of Potters taxing Dr. Stapleton without ground and against truth For Pag 161. he saith Stapleton hath a new pretty devise that the Church though she be fallible and discursiue in the Meanes is yet Propheticall and depends vpon immediate Revelation and so infallible in delivering the Conclusion And Pag 169. he saith Bellarmin leaves his companion Stapleton to walke alone in this dangerous path and avoweh to the contrary De Concil Lib 1 Chap § Dicuntur igitur that Councells neither haue nor write immediate Revelations But Mr. Doctour to speake truth Bellarmin leaves Stapleton just as you leaue your art of citing Authors against their meaning Bellarmin teaches That Councells neither haue nor write immediate Revelations And does not Stapleton purposely teach and carefully proue the same And does he not doe it even in the first and Third Notabili which immediatly precede that fourth Notabile out of which you pretend to draw that which you call a new pretty devise How then can you say that Stapleton teaches that the Church is Propheticall and depends vpon immediate Reuelation in delivering the Conclusion seing he teaches expressly the contrary Nay doth he not in that very fourth Notabili which you cite expressly say Ecclesiae Doctrina non est simpliciter Prophetica aut ex Revelationibus immediatis dependens The doctrine of the Church is not simply Propheticall or depending vpon immediate Revelations Who would haue believed that in matters of so great consequence you could vse so litle sincerity Dr. Stapleton teaches the same and proves very learnedly Princip Doctrin Contr 4. Lib 8. C. 15. Which very Chapter you also cite and yet make no conscience to tell vs that Bellarmin in this leaues Stapleton But how then doth Stapleton say the Doctrine of the Church is discursiue in the Meanes but is Propheticall and divine in the Conclusion Answer We haue shewed that Stapleton sayes expressly in the same place That the Doctrine of the Church is not Propheticall And besides he explicates the word Prophetica by the word Divina which you leaue out and sayth it is divina propter ea quae in tertio quarto Argumentis produximus for the causes which we alledged in the Third and Fourth Arguments In which Arguments he proved that the Church is infallible and cannot erre because she is guided and taught by an infallible maister the Holy Ghost as the Prophets were and in this agrees with Prophets though as I sayd out of Stapletons express words with this difference that the Prophets had immediate Revelations which the Church pretends not to haue but is infallibly directed by the Holy Ghost to imbrace and declare former revelations made to the Apostles vppon which assistance the certainty and infallibility of her definitions rely and not vpon discourses or inducements 99. Potters falsification will appeare more by these words of Stapleton The Doctrine of the Church is discursiue in the meanes but is propheticall and Divine in the Conclusion which Potter cites thus the the Church though she be fallible and discursiue in the Meanes is yet Propheticall and depends vpon immediate Revelation and so infallible in delivering the conclusion What a mixture is here of Potters words with the words of Stapleton Which say not that the Church depends vpon immediate Revelation but the direct contrary as we haue sayd and his Parenthesis and so infallible is also a falsificarion as if Stapleton had grounded the infallibility of the conclusion vpon immediate revelation wheras he groundes it vpon an other principle as we haue seene This being supposed that Stapleton teaches the Church to haue no immediate Revelations and the certainty of her Definitions to depend on the assistance of the Holy Ghost not vpon humane disceâ—â—se and inducements or Premises the Doctour had no Reason to say that Stapletons doctrine is a fansie repugnant to Reason and to itself He Objects pag 168. A conclusion followes the disposition of the Meanes and results from them But this is not to the purpose seing the Definitions of the Church are called by Stapleton Conclusions only because they are that which the Church determines and concludes not because they are formall Conclusions essentially as such depending on Premises Neither doth it follow that there can be no vse of diligence and discourse if the Church be infallible in the sense I haue declared Thus the Apostles in their Councell Act. 15. did vse diligence and as the Scripture saith there was made a great disputation and they alledged the working of Miracles aÌ„d other Arguments of Credibility and yet no Christian will deny but that the Apostles were infallible So the Church must on her behalfe vse diligence and discourse that all things on her parte may be done more sweetly in order to the perswading of others but the absolute certainty of her definitions and conclusions must rely vpon those words which the Apostles vsed Visum est Spiritui Sancto nobis It hath seemed good to the holy Ghost and vs. Neither likwise doth it follow that the Canons of Councells are of equall authority with holy Scriptures in which every reason discourse Text and word are infallible which we need not say of Councells though they be certaine and infallible for the substance of their definition Wherof more may be seene in Catholique Writers and particularly in Bellarmine whom even Potter doth cite de Concill Lib 2. Chap 12. and yet as if he had seene no such matter in Bellarmine inferrs against Stapleton who fully agrees with Bellarmine that if the canons of Councells be divinely inspired they must be of equall Authority with the Holy Scriptures 100. Many other Arguments might be brought to proue the necessity of an infallible Living Guide and Ecclesiasticall Traditions from Scriptures Fathers Theologicall Reasons which I omitt referring the Reader to Charity Maintayned Part. 1. Chap 2. and 3. and in this whole Worke I haue vpon many occasions proved the same For this point is so transcâ—â—dent and necessary that we must meete with it almost in all Controversyes concerning Faith and Religion This I must not omitt that I having answered and confuted all the Objections which you could make against the Arguments and Reasons alledged by Charity
Maintayned it followes that they remaine still in force and proue this most necessary Truth Scripture alone is not a sufficient Rule of Faith but Tradition and a living Judg are necessary to determine Matters belonging to Faith and Religion And whosoever will take an other way will haue reason and God grant it proue not too late to tremble at those words of Uincent Lirinens contra Heres Cap 23. concerning Origen Dum parvi pendit antiquam Christianae Religionis simplicitatem dum Ecclesiasticas Traditiones Veterum magisteria contemnens quaedam Scripturarum capitula novo more interpretatur meruit vt de se quoque Ecclesiae Dei diceretur Si surrexerit in medio tui Propheta Et paulò post Non audies inquit verba Prophetae illius While he despises the ancient simplicity of Christian Religion while contemning Ecclesiasticall Traditions and magistery of the Ancient he interprets some places of Scripture in a new manner he deserved that it should be also sayd to the Church of him If there shall rise in middes of thee a Prophet And a litle after thou shalt not heare the words of that Prophet God grant that every one heare this wholsome advise The neglect therof alone hath beene cause of Schismes and heresyes in ancient Tymes and never more than in these lamentable dayes of ours 101. But because you do without end object that we cannot proue the infallibility of the Church without running round in a Circle proving the Church by Scripture and Scripture by the Church which is in effect to proue the Church by the Church and the Scripture by Scripture I will in the next Chapter endeavour to confute and shew the vanity of this so often repeated Objection CHAP V. IN WHAT MANNER AND ORDER WE PROVE THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHVRCH 1. I Say in what manner and order For we having already proved the Infallibility of the Church inremaines only now to declare how we can do it without falling into a Circle proving the Scripture by the Church and the Church by the Scripture which you object without end though if you be a man of any solid learning it is impossible you could be ignorant of the Answer which Catholike Writers giue to this common objectiō We grant that with different sorts of persons we must proceed in a different way If one belieue not the Church or Notes proprietyes and prerogatives belonging to Her and yet belieue Scripture to be the Word of God to such a man the Church may be proved by Scripture as contrarily to him who believes the Infallibility of the Church it may be demonstrated in vertue of Her Authority what Scripture is Canonicall and what is the true sense therof by informing him what Canon the Church receyves and what Interpretation she gives Thus in regard Protestants deny the Infallibility of the Church but pretend to belieue Scripture to be the Word of God to them we proue by Scripture the perpetuall Existence Vnity Authority Sanctity Propagation efficacy Infallibility and other Propertyes of the Church But speaking per se and ex natura rei the Church is proved independently of Scripture which we receyue from the Church as you grant which was in Being before the Scripture as all must yield and yet at that tyme there wanted not meanes to find the Church For none could haue believed the Scripture to be Infallible vnless first they believed the Writers to be infallible and many were converted to the true Church before they could belieue the Scripture as not extant at that tyme. So that all must grant that there be Meanes and Arguments wherby some men may gaine such credit as others may and ought vnder payne of damnation to belieue that they are Persons to be accepted as Messengers of God and Teachers of Divine Doctrine 2. Thus Moyses the Prophets our Saviour Christ the Apostles all Apostolicall men by whom God hath converted Nations to the true Faith and knowledg of Him did proue themselves true Preachers by many effectuall and most certaine inducements independently of the Old or New Testament yea S. Irenaeus relates as you expressly grant that some Nations were made Christians without any knowledg of the Scripture As therfore our Lord and Saviour Christ his Aposties and all they who afterward converted the world to Christian Religion proved themselves to be sent by God being verifyed of them He that heareth you heareth me and he that despiseth you despiseth me and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me by Miracles Sanctity of life Efficacy of Doctrine admirable repentance of sinners Chang of manners Conversion of all sorts of Persons of all Countryes through the whole world and this to a Faith Profession and Religion that proposes many Points as necessary to be believed aboue and seemingly contrary to humane Reason and against mens naturall inclinations togeather with the consideration of the constancy of Martyrs Abnegation of Confessours Purity of Uirgins Fortitude even of the youngest Age and weaker sexe and other admirable conspicuous Notes and strong inforcements to gaine an absolute and vndoubted assent to whatsoever they should propose in Matters concerning Faith and Religion So the Church of God by the like still continued Arguments and Notes of many great and manifest Miracles Sanctity Sufferings Uictory over all sorts of enemyes Conversion of Infidels all which Notes are dayly more and more conspicuous and convincing and shall be encreasing the longer the world shall last and it seemes God in his wisdome and Goodness hath blessed vs very particularly since the appearing of Luther and other moderne Heretikes for the greater confusion of them and glory of his Church and the same I say of the name Catholique which is continually more verifyed by accession of new Countreyes as also that of succession of Bishops from the Apostles particularly in the Sea of Rome Vnity Stability Perpetuity The Church I say by these and the like evident Arguments proves that she deserves credit as the first Doctours and Preachers did and consequently that her Doctrine and Definitions in Matters concerning Faith are certainly true And we may with all truth avouch that whosoever either denyes these Notes of Miracles and the rest to be found in the Catholique Roman Church or despises them as insufficient opens an inevitable way for Jewes Turks Gentils and all enemyes of Christian Religion to deny the truth therof which to them must be proved by such Arguments as are evidently found in the Roman Church and in no other Congregation Moreover as the Apostles and Apostolicall men were not believed to be Infallible because they wrote Scripture but contrarily their Writings or Scriptures are believed to be infallibly true because the Writers were preendued with Infallibility which Infallibility was proved by Miracles and other Arguments so the Church is believed infallible in force of the same Arguments abstracting from any proofe drawen from Scripture wherby we are uery sure not to run in a
Circle into which we are not entered while first we belieue the Church for such Arguments as I haue spoken of and afterward embrace Scripture for the Churches Authority and if we be forced to proue the Church by Scripture it is propter incredulitatem vestram for your incredulity and not because indeed it is needfull of itself Whatsoever you object against vs in this way will be found vpon examination to impugne the infallibility of the Apostles and Primitiue Church and to proue that Insidels converted to Christianity in vertue of such Arguments as I haue touched were rather deluded than converted 3. If any object that although what we haue sayd be true of the true Church yet it remaines to be proved that the Roman Church is the true Church 4. I answer For our present purpose it suffices that the true Church be proved to be infallible without descending to other particular disputes in this place Though somthing I haue touched already This is cleare That neither Protestants nor any of our new Sectaryes can so much as pretend to the true Church if they grant her to be infallible since they belieue their owne Church to be fallible The same I might say of the Gift of working Miracles of which our Saviour saith Marc vlt Vers 17. Them that belieue these signes shall followe They shall cast out Divells c On which place Calvin in Harmonia confesses that the grace of Miracles is promised not to every one but to the whole body of the Church And in the marginall notes of the English Bible printed An 1576. vpon Joan 14. Vers 12. He that believes in me the works that I doe he shall doe and greater our adversaryes confess and say that this is referred to the whole body of the Church in whom this vertue doth shine for ever Luther also To 7. Lib de Judaeis c vrgeth against the Jewes the daily confirmation of our Christian Faith by Miracles in all Ages since Christ saying From God we haue learned and receaved as an everlasting word and verity of God for these thousand fiue hundred yeares confessed and confirmed by Miracles and signes How then can it be sayd that Miracles haue ceased ever since the Apostles tyme Now it is evident that this Gift is lasting in our Church and in our Church only The same appeares in the Motiue of Succession of Bishops Antiquity Unity perpetuall Existence Conversion of Nations which Propertyes we manifestly proue to be wanting in all Sects In England Protestants did once pretend a Succession of Bishops whose institution they pretended to hold as Divine But this pretence is to little purpose for them For 1. It was no vniversall consent but opposed by many even in England by Scotland France Holland Germany and other Protestant Congregations 2. They wanted both true Ordination and Succession and so could not be true Bishops 3. They held it not necessary but that they who reject them may be saved and it is strang that a Church rejecting and impugning a Divine Institution can hope for salvation yea even by this they either acknowledg themselves to haue had no absolute certainty that Episcopacy is de Jure Divino orels they speake very inconsequently and vnchristianly that without them there may be true Churches and salvation Who would not wonder to reade in Dr. Andrewes the pretended Bishop of Winchester and a prime man among Protestants in England these words directed to the French Hugonot Molin Respons ad Epist 2. Petri Molinaei Quia hîc idem nobiseum c I make no doubt but you are of the same opinion with vs in this matter If without offence you can profess so much you shall doe a thing very gratfull to vs if you cannot you shall performe a thing not vngratefull if for tyme to come you meddle not with our affaires For in the condition in which you are it will be hard both to please your owne and not displease ours Neither doth it follow if ours be divini juris of divine right that either silvation cannot be had or the Church cannot stand without it A strang Divinity and fortitude and zeale in a Bishop not to dislike dissembling in a thing believed to be Juris Divini least one offend his parishioners or that it is not damnable to impugne a thing which is Juris Divini But what doth Molin answer to this Divinity Heare him Epist 3. Non potui dicere c I could not say that the primacy of Bishops is Iuris Divini of divine right but that I should haue accused of Heresy our Church which hath shed so much bloud for Christ For to be obstinate against those things which are of divine right and to oppose the Command of God is plainly Heresy whether it be in a thing concerning either Faith or discipline And besides I must haue overthrowne that Principle by which our Religion doth chiefly defend itself against Papistery That all things which are Iuris Divint of Divine Lawe are contayned sufficiently and evidently in Holy Scripture I beseech the Reader to obserue two maine Points 1. That it is an Heresy to deny any thing which is Juris Divini of Divine right though it belong only to the discipline of the Church which is very true because whatsoever is against any thing revealed in Scripture is against Faith and damnable to be defended whether it concerne speculation or practise and to hold that it is not damnable to deny a thing sufficiently proposed as revealed by God is plaine insidelity 2. That to say Episcopacy is Juris Divini is to grant that not all things which are Juris Divini are sufficiently and evidently contained in Scripture alone which is the thing I affirmed in the beginning of my second Chapter And so English Protestants who teach Episcopacy to be Juris Divini must either say that some Pointâ—â—â—ealed by God is not evident in Scripture or els renounce their plea for Episcopacy that it is Juris Divini And indeed as long as they hold it not as a Point of Faith and consequently not necessary to be believed it is all one as if they did not hold it to be Juris Divini because in this case nothing is as good as no certainty For it is certaine and a matter of Faith that the true Church must haue Bishops and to deny it is an Heresy in a matter of greatest moment and which strikes at the very roote of Religion neither can any true Church communicate or dissemble or conniue with those Congregations who deny this truth as our English Protestants doe connive and communicate with them and Dr. Andrews expressly sayes may be done yea or with those who hold it to be only probable and the better doctrine though not certaine nor the contrary to be Heresy wheras to affirme that any Article of Faith is only probable is plaine Heresy And in this Point the Divinity of the French Hugonot Molin is better than that of the English
pretended Bishop I meane for the consequence which he makes that if Episcopacie be Juris Divini it is damnable to impugne it and with Molin agrees Dr. Taylor of Episcopacy teaching § 46. That to separate from the Bishop makes a man at least a Schismatike and § 47. That it is also Heresy And in his Liberty of Prophesying Epist Dedic Pag 32.33 having sayd that the Lutheran Churches the Zuinglians and the Calvinists reject Episcopacy he adds which the Primitive Church would haue made no doubt to haue called Heresy More of this and of the Notes of the Church may be seene in Charity Maintayned Part 1. Chap 9. this not being a place to treat at large of these matters It is sufficient for our present purpose to demonstrate that we are no way guilty of walking in a Circle Only it will be necessary to note here two Points 5. First That the Arguments of credibility fall primarily vpon the Church not vpon Scripture which confirmes what I sayd that the Apostles were not Infallible because they wrote but their writings deserue credit because the writers were Infallible Thus in the Old Law Moyses gained authority by working Miracles and by other Arguments of credibility wherby the people accepted him as a Man sent by God to declare his word and will and in such manner as they were sure to belieue God by giving credit to Moyses They believed our Lord and Moyses his servant Exod 14.31 and 19.9 and ther vpon they belieâ—ed the Scripture which he wrote and proposed as the Infallible word of God and by it other particulars even concerning Moyses himself In the New Law the Apostles proved and settled the Authority of their Persons before their writings could be prudently receaved as Diuine or the Word of God The Reason therof is because the Motives or Arguments of credibility immediatly make that credible of which they are effects which immediatly manifest their cause Now the Motives to embrace Religion agree immediatly to the Church or Persons and not to writings and so Marc Vlt it is sayd These signes shall follow those who belieue And therfore though there were no Scriptures if the Church did still remaine these motives would also remaine for example Sanctity of life Miracles conversion of Nations Martirdomes Victory over all enemyes the name Catholique c Which could not agree to Scripture though we did falsely suppose that it did remayne and the Church perish For no Writing is capable of Sanctity of life Succession of Bishops c yea the Scripture can haue no efficacy vnless it be first believed to be the word of God and it must be beholding to the Church for such a Testimony and therfor whatsoever perfections or attributes may seeme to belong immediatly to the Scripture must depend on the Church as the Scripture itself doth in order to our believing it to be the word of God But contrarily the Perfections or priviledges of the Church are independent of Scripture as the Church itself is which was before Scripture And here it is also to be considered that we haue no absolute certainty that the Apostles ever wrought any particular Miracle to proue immediatly that Scripture is the word of God but we are sure they did it mediatè by gaining Authority to their Persons and then to their writings And thus you say in your Answer to the Direction N. 43. That the Bible hath bene confirmed with those Miracles which were wrought by our Saviour and the Apostles But now if we be obliged to believe the Scripture in all things by reason of Arguments which bind vs to belieue it to be the word of God we must also be obliged to belieue the Church in whatsoever she proposes as Divine Verityes since the Arguments and Reasons of credibility do more immediatly proue the true Church than they proue Scripture 6. The second thing to be observed is That when we are obliged to receave some Persons as messengers of God appointed and assisted by him to deliver Divine Truths as the Apostles were we are bound to belieue them in all things which they propound for such Truths For as I haue often sayd if they might erre in some things of this nature we could not belieue theÌ„ in any other thing for their sole Authority as all coÌ„fess of Scripture that being once delivered by meÌ„ of the forsayd Authority as the word of God it must be receyved as vniversally true in all and every least passage though the Apostles did not confirme by seve rall Miracles the matter of every particular Text and yet every one is an object of Faith nor of every particular Truth which they spoke but it was sufficient that people did and were obliged to receaue them as men who by commission from God taught the true way to eternall Happynes and therfore were to be credited in all particulars which they did propose 7. Out of this true Ground I inferr That it cannot be sayed without injury to Gods Church to the Apostles and God himself that when men of our Church worke Miracles and produce other Reasons to proue that they preach the true Faith and Religion to gentils Jewes Turks or Heritikes those Miracles are not sufficient Proofes of all that which our Church propounds as Divine Truth but of some particular Points for example not of Purgatory Prayer to Saints Reall Presence c. but of such Christian verityes as Protestants belieue with vs. This cannot be sayd For it is evident that the same might haue bene objected against the Apostles to wit that God intended to proue by their Miracles only some verityes believed by Jewes or Heretikes and not every one of the particular Mysteryes of Christian Religion Neither can it be sayd that the Preachers of our Catholique Church when they convert Nations doe worke Miracles to bring them to I know not what Faith in generall or in abstracto or an Idea Platonica but to the Catholique Roman Religion which if it were false God in his Goodness could never permitt so many and great Miracles to be wrought and other so evident Arguments of credibility to be produced that people must be obliged to receiue such Preachers as Teachers of the true way to Heaven as he could not permit the Apostles to worke Miracles intending that they should be trusted in some not in all Points For this generall Reason taken from Gods Goodness and providence is the same in all who bring the like Arguments of Credibility as our Church never wants Arguments like to those whereby the Apostles made good their Authority Besides if the sayd Objection were of force men de facto can haue no certainty that Scripture is the word of God for all Points contayned therin because it will be sayd that although Miracles were wrought to proue that the Bible is the word of God they might be vnderstood not to confirme every passage or Text but only some Truths contayned therin And likewise according to
and reall necessity therof You perceaving the impossibility are necessitated to say it is not of importance but needless They in actu exercito you in actu signato shew it impossible to be done You I say teach it to be needless because you find it to be impossible as Protestants would make the world belieue that Miracles are ceased because they can worke none which if they had hope to do they would soone chang their Doctrine as you and they would quickly teach a Catalogue to be profitable and necessary if you could make one The truth is such a Catalogue is necessary in the principles of Protestants who deny the Authority of the Church and yet being indeed impossible to them as we see by experience in their differences and your express confession it shewes in what desperate case they and you are But heere I must by the way note a contradictiō of yours We haue heard you say Pag 134. N. 13. that may be Fundamentall and necessary to one which to an other is not so Which is repugnant to what you say Pag 13◠N. 20. Points Fundamentall be those only which are revealed by God and commanded to be preached to all and believed by all For if Fundamentall Points be such only as must be believed by all it is cleare that they which are necessary to be believed not by all but by some only cannot be Fundametall You also contradict Potter who Pag 21◠teaches that by Fundamentall Doctrines we meane such Catholique verities as are necessary to be distinctly believed by every mark every Christian that will be saved 7 Now That such a Catalogue is needless you would shew as I sayd because who soever believes the Scripture which is evident in all necessary Points and in many which are not necessary shall be sure to belieue all that is necessary and more 8. This evasion I haue confuted allready yet in this particular fit occasion I must not omitt to say somthing 9. First then in saying a Catalogue is needless you contradict other Protestants to whom I suppose you will deferr so much as to thinke their opinion not voyd of all probability and consequently your owne not to be certaine which were only to any purpose For if the contrary chance to be true and a Catalogue be really necessary your Doctrine denying both that it is necessary or that it can be given must be very pernicious to soules deceaving them with an opinion that that is neither necessary nor possible which yet is absolutely necessary for their salvation In the very sentence or Motto before your Booke you alledg Casaubon saying Existimat ejus Majestas c. His Majesty judges that the number of things absolutely necessary to salvation is not great and therfore that there is not any more compendious way to make an agreement than carefully to distinguish between necessary and vnnecessary things and that all endeavour be vsed to procure an agreement in things necessary Do not these words signify both a possibility and necessity of distinguishing between necessary and vnnecessary Points And yet we haue heard you say that it is both impossible and vnnecessary in direct opposition to your Motto And you say in your Epistle Dedicatory to the King that your Booke is in a manner nothing else but a superstruction vpon that blessed Doctrine where with you haue adorned and armed the frontispice of your Book and which was recommended by King James as the only hopefull meanes of healing the breaches of Christendome A strang cure by that meanes only which you hold to be vnnecessary and impossible And here by occasion of mentioning Casaubon I cannot omit to declare for a warning to others that I haue it vnder the hand of a person of great quality and integrity that that vnhappy man finding himselfe in danger of death dealt with the sayd worthy person to procure the presence and help of a Catholick Priest but his intention being discouered or suspected he was so besieged by his wife and a Protestant English Minister that it was not possible to be effected A fearfull example for all such as check or choak the Inspirations of the holy Ghost and procrastinate their conversion till they finde that common but terrible saying when it concerns Eternity to be true He who will not when he may shall not when he will 10. 〈◊〉 by this reason of yours there is no necessity of giv 〈…〉 even a Definition or Description of Points Fundamentall and not Fundamentall or of even mentioning such a distinction seing in practise you cannot by any such description or distinction know when they offer themselves in particular and you are sure not to misse of them by believing all that is cleare in Scripture Especially if we adde your words Pag 23. N. 27. That Protestants giue you not a Catalogue of Fundamentalls it is not from Tergiversation but from Wisdome and Necessity And when they had done it it had been to no purpose There being as Matters now stand as great necessity of believing those Truths of Scripture which are not Fundamentall as those that are And yet all learned Protestants harpe vpon nothing more than vpon this distinction of Points Fundamentall and vpon the definitions or descriptions of them as particularly may be seene in your client Potter Pag 211.213.214.215 which is a needless paynes if this your evasion be good and solid 11. Thirdly Though one be obliged not to disbelieue any Truth revealed in Scripture when it is knowne to be such yet he is not bound to belieue explicitly all such Truths For by this Fundamentall and not fundamentall points are distinguished as Potter P 213. saith Fundamentall properly is that which Christians are obliged to belieue by an express and actuall Faith In other Points that Faith which the Card Perron Replique Liur 1. Chap 10. calls the Faith of adherence or non-repugnance may suffice to wit an humble preparation of mynd to belieue all or any thing revealed in Scripture when it is sufficiently cleared Now if I cannot sever or distinguish these two kinds of Points I shall either be obliged to know absolutely all and every Truth contained in Scripture which is a voluntary and intollerable obligation or none seing I cannot tell in particular what they be which I am obliged to know and so be in danger to be ignorant of fundamentall Articles without the actuall and express knowledg wherof I cannot be saved And this difficulty is encreased by the doctrine which you deliver Pag 195. N. 11. That there is no Point to any man at any tyme in any circumstances necessary not to be disbelieved but it is to the same man at the same tyme in the same circumstances necessary to be believed Seing then no point of Scripture can at any tyme in any circumstances be disbelieved it is necessary at all tymes in all circumstances to be believed And much more this must follow if we cannot know what points be Fundamentall except
by knowing every plain Text of Scripture which as I sayd is an intollerable burthen 12. Fourthly It imports very much to know summarily and certainly what points men are obliged to belieue explicitly that they may with more facility application and perfection learne them and not be diverted by things not necessary with prejudice to the knowledg of Articles Fundamentall or necessary by obliging every one to know every Text of Scripture Neither can you answer that this is done already in the Creed of the Apostles For we haue that forme of Creed by Tradition only and according to your principles we cannot belieue any thing contained in the Creed except we first know it to be contained in Scripture from which if we cannot learne what is Fundamentall and what is not we cannot be certaine that the particular points contained in the Creed are Fundamentall nor can you learne out of any text of Scripture that the Creed containes all Fundamentall points to say nothing that the Creed without the Church and Tradition is not sufficient to declare the meaning of itself and so we see Protestants cannot agree in the sense of any one Article therof as I shewed hertofore Besides if the Creed containe all Fundamentall Points why do you deny that it is possible to giue such a Catalogue Or if you say that even in the Creed it is impossible to determine precisely what Points are Fundamentall my former Argument retaines its force that by this meanes one cannot tell what he is chiefly to study and learne nor what he is bound explicitly to belieue in the Creed itself Nay since you can alledg no precept out of Scripture that all men are obliged to know and belieue the Creed the Creed of itself can be to you no rule at all either for Fundamentall or not Fundamentall Points but still you are devolved to find in the whole Bible Fundamentall Articles of Faith mixt with Points not Fundamentall and so it availes Protestants nothing to alledg the Creed as a summary of all Fundamentall Points Lastly Potter Pag 241. holds it only for very probable that the Creed containes all necessary Points and yourself Pag 194. N. 4. say of Potter he affirmed it not as absolutely certaine but very probable as also rhe Doctour pretends only that all Articles of pure Faith but not of practise are contained in the Creed and yet no man can be saved without believing all Fundamentall points whether they be purè credenda or belong to practise and therfore we must conclude that to alledg the Creed for solving this my Argument can in no wise satisfy 13. Fiftly According to Protestants we cannot be obliged to belieue explicitely any Object vnless we find such an obligation evidently set downe in Scripture And if such an obligation be evidently expressed in Scripture it followes that you may giue vs a Catalogue of such Points If not you cannot burden mens consciences with such an obligation not expressed in Scripture 14. Sixthly I oppose yourself to yourself Pag 149. N. 37. You speake of Protestants in this manner Seing they ground their belief that such and such things only are Fundamentalls only vpon Scripture and go about to proue their Assertion true only by Scripture then must they suppose the Scripture true absolutly and in all things or else the Scripture could not be a sufficient warrant to them to belieue this thing that these only Points are Fundamentall Which words seeme to signify that Protestants can proue out of Scripture that such and such things only are Fundamentalls and what is this but to giue a Catalogue so exact that they may not only say these Points are Fundamentall but also that these only are such that is these and neither more nor fewer than these are Fundamentall Articles And Pag 150. N. 40. You say They Protestants may learne of the Church that the Scripture is the word of God and from the Scripture that such Points are Fundamentall others are not so And Pag 408. N. 35. You tell Charity Maintayned that he overreaches in saying that Protestants cannot agree what Points are Fundamentall and yet you grant in the same place that they do not agree and what reason can be given of this their so constant and long continued disagreement except because they haue no assured meanes and rule how to do it Also Pag 160. N. 53. To these words of Charity Maintayned Part 1. Chap 3. N. 19. Scripture doth deliver divine Truths but seldome qualifyes them or declares whether they be or be not absolutly necessary to salvation You answer Yet not so seldome but that out of it I could giue you an abstract of the essentiall parts of Christianity if it were necessary What difference put you between an abstract of the Essentiall parts of Christianity and a Catalogue of Fundamentall Points And how agrees this with what we haue heard you say Pag 166. N. 59. We know not precisely just how much is Fundamentall And Pag 23. N. 27. You say He that will goe about to distinguish what was written because it was profitable from what was written because necessary shall find an intricate peece of businesse of it and almost impossible that he should be certaine he hath done it when he hath done it And Pag 22. N. 27. A little before the words I cited last treating whether it be possible and necessary to giue a Catalogue of Fundamentalls you say For my part I haue great reason to suspect it is neither the one nor the other What a confusion is here First It is possible it is not possible to giue a Catalogue of Fundamentalls 2. It is possible to giue an abstract of the Essentiall parts of Christianity 3. Pag 135. N. 14. Perhaps we cannot exactly destinguish in the Scripture what is revealed because it is necessary from what is necessary consequently and accidentally meerely because it is revealed 4. I suspect that it is neither necessary nor profitable to giue a Catalogue of Fundamentall Points 5. It is a business of extreame difficultie 6. it is an intricate peece of business and almost impossible that one should be certaine he hath done it when he hath done it By all which you can gather nothing but contradictions and ambiguityes an Affirmation a Negation a Perhaps a Suspicion an extreme Difficulty an intricate peece of businesse a Possibility an impossibility an almost Impossibility and finally nothing certaine but this that in this most important matter of Fundamentall Points Protestants neither haue nor can haue any certainty but that it may be so and so it may be neither so nor so as we see by experience that they do not only disagree in assigning what Points are Fundamentall but some affirme certaine Points to be Fundamētall Truths which others belieue to be Fundamentall errours But now in an other respect also I oppose yourself to yourself 15. Seaventhly For I must vpon occasion still put you in mynd of your doctrine that it is not
Errour and embracing the contrary Fundamentall Truth and so cannot be sure that he hath true Repentance vnless he know in particular what Truths and Errours are Fundamentall And you deliver a very pernicious Errour in saying Pag 159 N. 52. whosoever dyes with Faith in Christ and contrition for all sinnes knowen and vnknowen in which heape all his si full Errours must be comprized can no more be hurt by any the most maâ—ignant and pestilent Errour then S. Paul by the Viper which he shooke of into the fire For if he remayne in his Errour about Fundamentall Points he wants the contrary actuall explicite belief of them which is supposed to be absolutely necessary to Salvation and so he will not cast that viper but it will cast him into the fire His Errour then which is supposed to be Fundamentall must be knowen to him and being knowen to be an Errour eo ipso it is rejected since our vnderstanding cannot assent to a knowen falshood and therfore cannot be comprized in the heape of sinfull Errours knowen and vnknowen but must be distinctly knowen and forsaken 22. How can you say that all Protestants agree touching the necessity of Repentance from dead works and Faith in Christ Iesus the Son of God and Savioâ—r of the worâ—d They may agree in the words or Grammaticall signification of them as any boy Turke Jew or Infidell could not but doe if they vnderstood the toung wherin those words were set downe But for the sense you could scarcely haue picked out Articles of greater moment and withall lesse agreed on among Protestants since every word discovers their irreconciliable differences concerning them and yet which is well to be observed they concerne points of practise and things absolutely necessary to salvation as we haue heard you confess and therfore an errour in them is damnable without all remedy 23. Let vs cast an eye vpon every word Repentance Protestants are not agreed wherin true Repentance consists as may be seene in Bellarmine de Poenit Lib 1. Chap 7. Lib. 2 Chap 4. and you in particular hold a Dòctrine different from the rest That Attrition alone is sufficient and that whether it be Attrition or Contrition it requires the extirpation of all vicious habits which you say is a thing of difficulty and tyme and cannot be performed in an instant and what sinner though repenting himself never so hartily at the houre of his death can be saved with this your kind of Repentance which at that houre is an impossible thing From dead works What will you vnderstand by dead works You know many chiefe Protestants hold all our best works to be of themselves not only dead but deadly sinnes and so Repentance of dead workes must signify Repentance that ever we haue done any good that we haue believed hoped and loved God and our neighbour obeyed our Parents kept any of the Commandements c And if you consider the person from whom they proceed in case he be predestinated no sin can hurt him whatsoever he doe To the former Repentance is needless to the latter fruitless How then do Protestants agree in the necessity of Repentance from dead workes or in Repentance itself For the second Point Faith in Christ Iesus the Son of God and Saviour of the world there is not one word wherin Protestants agree for the sense Faith You say A probable Faith is sufficient all others deny it professiing that Christian Faith necessary to salvation must be infalible and therfory you cannot be saved by your kind of Faith even by the doome of Protestants and in that respect all men who haue care of their soules ought to detest your Doctrine and Booke But do those other Protestants agree among themselves what Faith is necessary and sufficient for salvation They do not Some hold that Faith necessary and sufficient for Justification is that wherby one believes certainly that his sinnes are forgiven and that they are forgiven even by believing so according to which Doctrine what necessity can there be of Repentance Seing men are justifyed precisely by such a Faith and how then did you tell vs that Protestants agree in the necessity of Repentance from dead works Of which strang kind of Faith He whom you call the learned Grotius in his Discussio Riveriani Apologetici c Pag 2â—0 saith very truly Evangelij vox haec est Resipiscite Facite fructus dignos Poenetentiae adhortamini vosmetipsos per singulos dies donec hodie nominetur vt non obduretur quis ex vobis fallacia peccati Terra proferens spinas tribulos proxima est maledictioni cujus consummatioin combustionem At Riveti eique similium longè alia agendiratio remissa tibi sunt peccata Vnde id sciam Debes id credere At quo Argumento cum non remitantur omnibus Remissa sunt credentibus Et quid credentibus Remissa sibi esse peccata Mirus verò circulus Ita si istos sequimur remissio est causa credendi nihil enim credi debet factum esse nisi quod factum est contra credere causa remissionis quia conditio est requisita ad remissionem Haec verè sunt inextricabilia Faith in Christ Jesus the Son of God and Saviour of the world Who is ignorant how deeply Protestants disagree in these points You Socinians absolutely deny Christ Jesus to be the Son of God and Consubstantiall to his Father and Potter Pag 113.114 cites the doctrine of some whom he termes men of great learning and judgment that all who profess to loue and honour Iesus Christ are in the Visible Christian Church and by Catholikes to be reputed Brethren One of these men of great learning and judgment cited by Potter is Thomas Morton who in his Treatise of the Kingdome of Israel teaches that the Churches of Arians who denyed our Saviour Christ to be God are to be accounted the Church of God because they hold the Foundation of the Ghospell which is Faith in Iesus Christ the Son of God and saviour of the world Which are your very words Wherin appeares your hypocrisy in calling Christ the Son of God which men will conceaue you vnderstand as all good Christians do that he is consubstantiall to his Father wheras you meane only as the Arians did that he was the Son of God by conjunction of will or some such accidentall way aÌ„d so ProtestaÌ„ts do not agree in a point simply necessary Saviour of the world For SociniaÌ„s deny Christ to haue satisfyed for the sins of the world as may be seene in Volkelius Lib 4. Cap 2. and Cap 22. against other Protastants who in an other extreme hold that he alone satisfied so as no satisfaction is required at our hands though wee tell them that such our satisfaction depends on and taks all its valve from his You are an excellent advocate for Potter seing you differ from him in this Point which Pag 242. he calls that most important and
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
you take away you destroy the vnity of the Church For a Division of that which is essentiall is a plaine destruction Protestants teach the true preaching of the word and due administration of Sacraments to be so essentiall to the Church that without them a Church ceases to be a Church therfore if there be not agreement or Communion in them they cannot be essentially one Church but essentially different and divided one from another This true Principle being setled 4. The first reason which Charity Maintayned Chap 5. Part 1. N. 12. alledges to proue his Assertion is this Seing Schisme consists essentially in leaving the externall Communion of the Visible Church of Christ and that Luther and his Associars did so as he proves by evidence of fact and by the confessions of Protestants Luther saying in Prà efat Oper suorum in the beginning I was alone And Calvin Ep 141. We were forced to make a separation from the whole world besides the sayings of other Protestants it followes that they cannot be excused from Schisme 5. The Answer which may be gathered out of Dr. Potter to this Reason is That they left not the Church but her Corruptions Which evasion Charity Maintayned confutes by willing him to consider that for the present we speake not of Heresy or departing from the Church but of Schisme of leaving her externall Communion which manifestly they did by separating from all Churches and consequently from the Vniversall Church which is the most formall sinne of Schisme And indeed they ought to inferr that the Vniversall Church is not subject to any errour in Doctrine and not tell the world that they forsooke her Communion for her Errours seing her Communion is never to be forsaken and therfore it is not possible that she can giue any cause of such a separation by falling into errour This we learne of S. Austine Cont Parm Lib 2. Chap 11. There is no just necessity to divide Vnity And Ep 48. It is not possible that any may haue just cause to separate their Communion from the Communion of the whole world and call themselves the Church of Christ as if they had separated themselves from the Communion of all Nations vpon just cause And S. Irenaeus Cont Heres Lib 4. C 62. They can not make any so important reformation as the evill of the Schisme is pernicious 6. Secondly Charity Maintayned proves them to be Schismatikes by this Argument Potter teaches that the Catholique Church cannot erre in points of Faith Necessary to salvation and therfore it cannot be damnable to remayne in her Communion although she were falsly supposed to teach some Errours seing they cannot be damnable and consequently cannot yield any necessary cause to leaue her Communion but it is cleare that Luther and the rest left the whole vniversall Church which was extant before them vnder pretense of Errours which cannot be Fundamentall Therfore it is cleare they left Her without any necessary cause Which I confirme by your owne words Pag 220. N. 52. where you say May it please you now at last to take notice that by Fundamentall we meane all and only that which is necessary and then I hope you will grant that we may safely expect salvation in a Church which hath all things Fundamentall to salvation vnless you will say that more is necessary than that which is necessary And Pag 376 N. 57. he that believes all necessary Truth if his life he answerable to his Faith how is it possible he should faile of salvation Therfore say I seing the Church vniversall cannot erre in necessary Points whosoever embraceth her Faith for as much as belongs to Faith cannot faile of salvation vnless you will say that more is necessary then that which is necessary which are your owne words You say also Pag 33. N. 4. If a particular man or Church may hold some particular Errours and yet be a member of the Church vniversall why may not the Church hold some vniversall Errour and yet be shell the Church This parity is none at all yet seing you must make it good I may say much more with all truth and without any dependence vpon your false parity if the Church vniversall may hold some vniversall Errour as you confess she may which yet indeed is impossible and be still the Church why may not a particular man or Church hold some particular errours and yet be a member of the Church vniversall and consequently capable of salvation for as much as concernes his Faith And therfore none can forsake the Church by leaving her Communion and making himself no member of Her for any such errours as are not opposite to a necessary Truth into which kind of errours it is confessed the Church cannot fall To which I may add what yousay Pag 35. N. 7. if some Controversyes may for many Ages he vndetermined and yet in the meane while men be saved why should or how can the Churches being furnisht with effectuall meanes to determine all Controversyes in Religion be necessary to salvation the end itself to which these meanes are ordayned being as experience shewes not necessary O how truly may we say and happy had your progenitors bene if they had done so If for so many Ages before Luthers pretended Reformation but true Schisme men wrought Miracles converted Nations were eminent for Sanctity attained salvation and are esteemed Saints in Heaven by our Adversaryes and this in the belief and profession of those Points which Catholikes now professe how could any Reformation or separation be necessary since the end itself of salvation to which all meanes are ordained was not necessary but was attained without any such Reformation or separation 7. Like to this Argument of Charity Maintayned is another which N. 22. he tooke from these words of Potter Pag 155. It is comfort enough for the Church that the Lord in mercy will secure her from all capitall dangers and conserue her on earth against all enemyes but she may not hope to triumph over all sin and error tell she be in Heaven If it be comfort enough to be secured from all capitall dangers why were not the first pretended reformers content with enough but rent the Church out of a pernicious greedyness of more then enough or a pretended desire to free men from all errour which cannot be hoped for out of Heaven If even the vniversall Church may not hope to triumph over all Errour till she be in Heaven much less can particular Churches and men conceiue any such hope and so you must either grant that Errours not Fundamentall cannot yield sufficient cause to forsake the Churches Communion or you must affirme that all Churches may and ought to be forsaken and that a man cannot lawfully be of any Church yea and that every one is obliged to forsake himself if it were possible for avoyding errours not Fundamentall Besides as it is not lawfull to leaue the Communion of the Church for abuses in life and manners
any other worldly hope I betray my selfe to any errour contrary to any Divine revealed truth that errour may be justly stiled a sin and consequently of it self to such a one damnable And if he dy without Contrition this errour in it selfe damnable will be likewise so vnto him I haue set downe your words at large that Protestants may learne by them how to examine their conscience about what care they vse to find the true Church ād Religion which imports them no less then the eternall salvation or Damnation of their soules And that every one may clearly see that you do not only grant more than once the errours of Protestants to be in themselves damnable but also a reason for it namely because all errours in Faith are contrary to some Divine Revelation which reason is common to Protestants to the Church of England and to all who erre in matters of Faith And then with what sincerity could you affirme that whosoever holds the doctrine of the Church of England and lives according to it vndoubtedly he shall be saved Can one who is in an errour damnable of itselfe be vndoubtedly saved without repentance Haue we not heard you say To him who dyed without contrition the errour in itselfe damnable will be likewise so vnto him Do you not say Pag 138. N. 23. For ought I know all Protestants and all that haue sense must grant that all errours are alike damnable if the manner of propounding the contrary Truths be not different Therfore you must grant that as errours against Fundamentall Truths sufficiently propounded are damnable so also errours against not Fundamentall Truths are damnable if both be equally proposed How then are the Errours of all Protestants and of the Church of England in particular not damnable 51. Thus we haue sufficiently confuted your first Memorandum and shewed that the separation of Protestants was causeless both in reality and ad hominem or according to the principles and professions of Protestants themselves In reality because there can never be just reason to separate from the Church of God which therfore must be infallible and free from all corruptions and errours Ad hominem because according to the principles of Protestants errours not Fundamentall being not destructiue of salvation cannot yield sufficient cause of separation nor free any from yielding obedience even in the supposed vnfundamentall errours as they confess ours to be and if somtyme Protestants say the contrary at other tymes they contradict themselves which serves only for their greater condemnation in leaving the communion of all Christian Churches vpon vncertaintyes in which themselves do waver somtyme affirming somtyme denying And vpon this very ground of vncertainty I go forward to proue more and more that their separation was causlesse 52. For Pag 308. N. 108. you do not disallow the saying of Cha Ma Part 1. Pag 207. In cases of vncertainty we are not to leave our Superiour nor cast of his obedience nor publikly oppose his decrees And Hooker cited by you in your Pag 310. 311. N. 110. teaches two things to our present purpose The one That an Argument necessary and demonstratiue is such as being proposed to any man and vnderstood the mynd cannot chuse but inwardly assent The other that in case of probability only or vncertainty Lawes established are to be obeyed and men are bound not to obserue those Lawes which they are perswaded to be against the law of God but for the tyme to suspend their perswasions to the contrary and that in otherwise doing they offend against God by troubling the Church This ground being layd I subsume besides what hath now been sayd of the variousness ād vncertainty of Protestants about Points not Fundamentall Protestants cannot possibly haue evidence or certainty against Catholiks therfore they offended against God by dividing theselves from vs and troubling the peace of all Churches The subsumption or Minor I proue diverse wayes abstaining from examination of particular Controversyes and 53. First in this manner An Argument necessary and Demonstratiue is such as being proposed to any man and vnderstood the mynd cannot chuse but inwardly assent saith Hooker If therfore the arguments of Protestants against vs were necessary and demonstratiue learned Catholiks could not chuse but inwardly assent and vnless they were extreme wicked dissemblers against their conscience would also publikly professe And yet we see that all Catholiks in all Ages and places learned holy wise and such as God vsed for instruments in working many great and evident Miracles and in converting nations to the Faith of Christ all these I say did and do and ever will dissent from the Arguments and conclusions of Protestants therfore it is cleare that their reasons against vs are not necessary nor demonstratiue and so according to Hooker the Lawes established were to be obeyed and Protestants were bound to suspend their perswasions to the contrary Truly this is an Argument which must convince any man of a mynd not perverse and resolved to persever in his errour 54. Secondly I prove that they cannot produce against vs any necessary or demonstratiue Argument in regard of the Antiquity of our doctrine confessed even by our Adversaryes as may be seene in Brierley P. 129. seqq Edition Ann. 1608. now how could these doctrines haue passed the search and examine of so many learned men and watchfull Prelats for the space of so many ages if any necessary or demonstratiue argument to which men cannot but assent could haue been produced against them 55. Thirdly Learned Protestants confess that the Fathers hold with vs against them in many and chiefest Points of Doctrine controverted in these dayes as we haue seene hertofore which could not happen if the Arguments of Protestants against the Fathers and vs were necessary and demonstratiue 56. Fourthly In all our chiefest differences diverse most learned Protestants agree with vs against their pretended Brethren as we haue also demonstrated hertofore Now these men being learned could not but see and assent to necessary and demonstratiue Arguments if any could haue been alledged against vs and being Adversaryes would not haue fayld to make vse of them nor would they haue ever left their Brethren and joyned with vs if evidence of truth and reason had not forced them therto or if they could haue espyed any even probability in the grounds and Doctrines of their Brethren wherby it appeares that the tenets of Protestants are so farr from being evident or their Arguments necessary and demonstrative that they are not so much as probable Who I pray will belieue that you could haue any necessary demonstratiue Arguments for your so many changes of Religion and for your ending in Socinianisme which you never durst openly profess and yet men are not wont to be ashamed of truths proved by necessary and demonstratiue Reasons One demonstration or evidence cannot be contrary to another and yet no doubt but you pretended evidence for all your alterations to contrary
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
in so much that in those respects his Feast is solemnly kept in the Grecian Church and all the Orthodox Bishops of the whole World never ceased to hold their Communion with Him his Predecessours and Successours which they neither would nor could haue done if they had discovered any one and much more if so many and so enormious Errours and corruptions had appeared in that Sea which was not any private obscure and as it were invisible Church but was ever visible and conspicuous and like a beacon to all Nations And therfore what she taught and professed could not be hidden vnder a bushell but being placed vpon a candlesticke did so shine to all that all must needs see it and either contradict which none did or approue it as they did And here we may alledg the saying of King James ad Peron Pag 388. Durst one but lightly corrupt the Faith approovea through the World It was easy for a child to discover the new Maister by his Novelty And the beliefe of truth being found all the Pastours of the whole World if need were were mooved and being moved did not rest till they had removed the ill and provided for the security of the sheepe of Christ How then is it possible that this heape of pretended Errours in the Roman Church could appeare without being discovered till Luther an Apostata from his Faith and Religious Order did sacrilegiously marry a vowed Nunne and in the middest of his shamefull carnall pleasures receaue revelations from the Divell as himselfe doth openly confess Wherfore we must conclude that these Points which Protestants would needs miscall Errours were indeed the Orthodox Doctrines of the Ancient Fathers and whole Church of all precedent Ages of the Possession of which Truths and good Name we ought not to be deprived without most certaine evidence which is impossible for any Heretike so much as pretend to doe with any modesty or shew of truth as I haue proved and will saie more hereafter 59. Sixthly Protestants can proue nothing against vs with evidence but by Scripture alone which is impossible for them to do as I haue shewed at large Chap 2. For seing words are capable of diverse senses it is impossible by the words alâ—â—e to convince that they are vnderstood in such or such a particular determinate sense and not in some other of which they are capable and what is possible for ought we know doth actually happen and Gods free Decrees in this matter of vsing words in some set meaning are not evident either in themselves or are notifyed to vs by any certaine Rule and therfore Protestants cannot with any evidence proue out of Scripture that our doctrine containes any Errour Fundamentall or not Fundamentall And it is well to be considered that the same Arguments which Protestants object against vs now were observed and answered by Catholike Divines before Protestants appeared to the world as they answered objections made against Christian Religion or Catholike Verityes by Pagans Turks Jewes and such Heretiks as Protestants detest and it is therby apparent that they did not dissemble difficultyes but did propose them with no less candor and sincerity than they answered them with truth learning and solidity They alone were the men who opposed themselves murum pro Domo Dei against all the enemyes of Christianity and the world believed that they gaue at that tyme as true solutions of those very objections of old Heretikes which now happen to be made by Protestants as they did to those difficultyes which were vrged against Christian Religion or against Catholique Verityes by old Heretiks whom even Protestants condemne Wherfore to come now and tell the world that the Answers of those Catholike Doctours against some few Points were not solid must needs breed a huge scandall against Christian Religion and Orthodox doctrine impugned by Pagans Jewes Turks and old condemned Heretiks Certaine it is that the enemyes of Christian Religion may object greater difficultyes against Christianity than any Heretike can invent against vs. It is therfore cleare that Protestants can haue no necessary or demonstratiue Argument to proue that the Church hath degenerated into any least falshood in matters concerning Faith and so we must conclude with these words of Hooker cited by Chilling Pag 311. As for the orders established sith equity and reason favour that which is in being till orderly judgment of decision be given against it it is but justice to exact of you and perversnes in you it should be to deny thervnto your willing Obedience Doth not every word of Hooker condemne Luther and his followers Sith equity and reason favour that which is in being and no orderly judgment of decision had been given against the orders which they found established in all Churches it was but justice to exact of them and worse then perversness in them to deny therunto willing obedience and a formall sin of Schisme by such disobedience to forsake the Communion of the whole Church 60. Seventhly As the Roman Church and all Churches of Her Communion could not be despoyled of the Possession they held of being accounted true and pure Churches so also the Pope Bishops and other Prelats and Pastours vnder Him could not without Sacriledge and injustice be disobeyed and deprived of the Right which they did peaceably possesse when Luther first appeared And for the Popes Primacy in particular it is acknowledged by Protestants to haue beene ancient and taught by Holy Fathers even with in the compass of yeares which Protestants admit for Orthodox and by some chief Protestants is held as a thing indifferent yea and profitable And I desire the Reader for his satisfaction in this behalfe to see Brierlyes Index Verbo Peters Primacy and Popes Primacy and turne to the places which there he shall find cited See also Charity Maintayned Pag 1. Cap 3. N. 19. of this matter If then this Point be maintayned by Ancient Fathers if believed and practised in those incorrupt Ages if acknowledged by Protestants for a thing profitable who will so much as pretend any evidence of Scripture or necessary demonstratiue reason against it And consequently who will not inferr that the separation of Protestants from the whole Church was causeless and so according to your owne Memorandum sinfull and Schismaticall 61. Let vs now come to examine your second evasion Pag 265. N. 31. The imposing vpon men vnder paine of Excommunication a necessity of professing knowne Errours and practising knowne corruptions is a sufficient and necessary cause of separation And that this is the cause which Protestants alledg to justify their separation from the Church of Rome But 62. First It is manifest that Protestants departed from the Roman Church voluntarily before they were forced by Excommunication or by any other meanes For they voluntarily professed a Faith contrary to that of the whole Church which most carefully and even sollicitously endeavoured by all meanes possible to reclaime them as appeares in the life
externall communion in Sacraments Liturgy c. vpon pretence of Errours in the Faith and corruptions in the discipline of the Church and were so farr from repenting themselves of such their proceedings or admitting any votum or desire to be vnited with the Church that they held all such repentance to be a sin wherby they certainly exclude themselves from Gods Grace and Charity and so it appeares that by meere Excommunication one is not separated from the Church as a Schismatike is nor is a Schismatike first separated because he is excomunicated but is excommunicated because he is a Schismatike and had been divided from the Church though he had never been excommunicated or though the excommunication were taken away Besides as I touched already it is ridiculous to say that the Church requires as a condition of her Communion the profession of her errours in Faith and externall Communion in Sacraments Liturgy and other publike worship of God For profession of the same Faith and communion in Sacraments c. is the very thing wherin Communion consists or rather is the Communion itselfe and therfore is not an extrinsecall or accidentall condition voluntarily required by the Church or to be conceived as a thing separable from her communion and so you speake as if one should say Profession of the same Faith is a condition required for Communion in profession of the same Faith It was therfore no condition required by vs that made Protestants leaue our Communion but they first left our Communion by their Voluntary proper Act of leaving vs which essentially is incompatible with our Communion This whole matter will appeare more clearly by the next Reason 95. Fourthly Either there was just cause for your separation from the Communion of the Church or there was not If not then by your owne confession you are Schismatiks seing you define Schisme to be a causeless separation in which case the Church may justly impose vnder paine of Excommunication a necessity of your returne and then your Memorandum cannot haue place nor can excuse you from Schisme since such an imposing a necessity would vpon that supposition be both lawfull and necessary If there were just cause for your separation then you had been excused from Schisme though the Church had never imposed vnder payne of Excommunication a necessity of professing knowne errours because you say Schisme is a Causless separation and surely that separation is not causelesse for which there is just cause Wherfore your Memorandum about imposing vpon men a necessity c is both impertinent and incoherent with your first Memordium That not every separation but a causeless separation is the sin of Schisme And yet P. 282. N. 71. you say expressly It is to be observed that the chief part of our defence that you deny your Communion to all that deny or doubt of any part of your doctrine cannot with any colour be imployed against Protestants who grāt their communion to all who hold with them not all things but things necessary that is such as are in Scripture plainly delivered So still you vtter contradictions Wherfore the confessed chife part of your defense being confuted both by evident reason and out of your owne sayings it remaines that you will never be able to acquit yourselfe of Schisme 66. Fiftly How can you maintayne this your Memorandum and not giue full scope to all other Protestants who belieue not all the 39. Articles of the Church of England to be true of whom I am sure you are one to forsake her communion seing she excommunicates all whosoever shall affirme that the 39 Articles are in any parte superstitious or erroneous Is not this the very thing which you say is the cheef part of your defence for your separation from vs O Approbators Is it conforme to the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England to say Her communion may and must be forsaken And with what conscience could you Mr. Chillingworth communicate with English and other Protestants in their publike service corrupted with errours about the Trinity the Creed of S. Athā c as you belieue it is Or why could you not communicate with vs Or how will you excuse Luther who left vs 67. Yet I must not here omitt to obserue some Points First what a thing your Religion is which can so well agree and hold communion with innumerable Sects infinitly differing one from another and yet you conceiue yourselfe to be obliged to parte from vs Catholiks But so it is The false Gods of the Heathens and their Idolaters could handsomly agree amongst themselves but in no wise with the true God and his true worshippers An evident signe that the Catholique Roman Religion is only true and teaches the right worship of God and way to salvation Falshoods may stand togeather but cannot consist with truth 68. Secondly If as you tell vs things necessary be such as are in Scripture plainly deliuered points not Fundamentall of themselves become Fundamentall because they are revealed in Scripture and it is Fundamentall to the Faith of a Christian to belieue all Truths sufficiently proposed as revealed by God as Potter expressly grants Seing then Protestants differ in points which one part verily believes to be plainly delivered in Scripture and consequently in things necessary according to your assertion they cannot grant their communion to those who hold not with them in such necessary points that is in effect in all things wherin they disagree For every one judges his opinions to be plainly delivered in Scripture How then can they be excused from Schisme in their separation from vs while they hold Communion with other Protestants and thinke they may and ought to do so and that in doing otherwise they should be Schismatiks Which Argument still presses them more forcibly if we reflect that many of the most learned Protestants in divers chiefe Articles of Faith stand with vs Catholiks against their pretended Brethren and therfore they must either parte from them or not parte from vs 69. Thirdly it appeares by your express words that they who differ in Points necessary must divide from one another though neither part impose vpon the other a necessity of professing known Errours and since every one thinks his Doctrine to be necessary that is plainly dedelivered in Scripture he cannot communicate with any of a contrary Faith though they do not pretend to impose a necessity c And so your memorandum about imposing a necessity c Which you say is the chiefe part of your defense comes to nothing even by your owne grounds and therfore you haue indeed no defense at all to free yourselves from Schisme 70. Fourthly When we speake of Points of Faith not Fundamentall it is alwayes vnderstood that they be sufficiently proposed and therfore are alwayes Fundamentall per accidens and the contrary Errours certainly damnable and consequently a necessary cause of separation no lesse then Errours against Points Fundamentall of themselves and seing
according to Protestants there can be no damnable Errour against Faith vnless either it be or be esteemed repugnant to some Truth plainly delivered in Scripture which you say is a necessary point the conclusion must be that Protestants differ in necessary Points and therfore according to your owne assertion are obliged to forsake one another without expecting any Imposing a necessity of professing knowne Errours and that this your Memorandum or condition is both impertinent and false or if as I sayd they are not obliged to parte one from another they could not without Schisme depart from vs. 71. Fiftly to come to the Point and strike at the roote Tell me whether you may be seriously present as members of one community and as I may say parts in the Quire with any sort of people in their Liturgy and publike service or worship of God as long as they do not expressly demand of you a profession of those particular Points wherin you disagree If you may then you may joyne yourselfe with Turks Jewes or even Pagans if they exact not of you such a profession which to any Christian must needs appeare most absurd and impious If you cannot communicate with those of a belief different from yours though they do not exact a profession of their Faith against your owne belief and conscience it still followes clearly that your Memorandum of imposing a necessity of professing knowne Errours is impertinent seing you cannot communicate with those of a different Faith though they impose it not vpon you and also that either Protestants cannot communicate one with another since they differ in Faith or els that they could not forsake vs vpon pretence that we impose vpon you a necessity of professing knowne Errours Seing that Condition of imposing c is impertinent Into how many difficultyes and contradictions do you cast yourself by impugning the Truth But enough of this Memorandum or condition 72. Your last Memorandum was That to leaue the Church and to leaue the externall Communion of a Church is not the same thing That being done by ceasing to be a member of it by ceasing to haue those requisites which constitute a man a member of it as Faith and obedience this by refusing to communicate with any Church in her Liturgyes and publike worship of God 73. Answer I wish you had declared yourself better First Pag 271. N. 51. you say We are not to learne the difference between Schisme and Heresy For Heresy we conceiue an obstinate defense of any Errour against any necessary Article of the Christian Faith And Schisme a causelesse separation of one part of the Church from another I haue not tyme to examine what you meane by a necessary Article of the Christian Faith Is not every Article of Christian Faith necessary to be believed vnder paine of damnation if it be sufficiently proposed as revealed by God And is it not Heresy to deny any such Article If it be so then your necessary Article of the Christian Faith implyes no such Mystery as one would haue expected in those so limited words and besides if it be Heresy to deny any Point though in itselfe never so small of Protestants differing in any Point of Faith some must be Heretiks and in state of damnation and they must be obliged to separate from one another as from formall Heretiks If it be not an Heresy nor damnable to deny any Truth sufficiently propounded as revealed by God Errours in Points not Fundamentall are not damnable Neither could you for such Errours divide yourselves from the Communion of all Visible Churches If you will needs say that no Errour is Heresy vnless it contradict some Article of itselfe Fundamentall What in particular is Heresy or who is an Heretik you cānot knowe seing you professe that it cannot be determined in particular what Points be Fundamentall and therfore you must retract your former words we are not to learne the difference between Schisme and Heresy For if you cannot possibly tell what Heresy is you will for ever be to learne the difference between Schisme ād Heresy to say nothing for the present that Potter Pag 212. acknowledges that whatsoeuer is revealed in Scripture or propounded by the Church out of Scripture is in some sense Fundamentall that is such as may not be denyed or contradicted without Infidelity therfore it is Heresy at least to deny Points sufficiently proposed as revealed by God though they be not Fundamentall in themselves And Pag 250. he declares expressly every Errour against any Point revealed to be Heresy in these words Where the revealed will or word of God is sufficiently propounded there he that opposeth is an Heretike and heresy is a worke of the flesh which excludeth from Heaven Gal 5 20.21 therfore if you will not contradict Potter and yourself in severall places you must confess that Heresy may be committed by Errour not Fundamentall in itselfe But to our purpose you say Schisme is a causeless separation of one part of the Church from an other and Pag 264. N. 30. you teach that a causeless separation from the externall Communion of any Church is the sin of Schisme Put these togeather Schisme is a separation of one part of the Church from an other And Schisme is a separation from the externall communion of any Church the Consequence will be this A separation from the externall communion of any part of the Church is a separation from the part itselfe and then proportionally a separation from externall communion of the whole Church or of all Churches must be a separation from the whole Church it selfe or from all Churches and so your distinction that to leaue the Church and to leaue the externall communion of a Church is not the same thing is confuted by your owne doctrine And though it make little to our present purpose whether Schisme be defined A separation of one part of the Church from an other as you speake for as I sayed if a separation from the Externall Communion of one parte be a separation from the parte it selfe a separation from the externall communion of the whole church must be a separation from the whole Church itselfe which is the thing I intended to prove against your Memorandum yet you must giue me leaue to say that your definition overthrowes itselfe For the Nature and Essence of Schisme being to separate one from the Church necessarily it is cause that the party so divided is no more a member or part of that Church nor a part of any Church and so Schisme is not a separation of one part from another but the Church which remaynes after such a sparation made in externall Communion is one whole Church and Totum est cujus nihil est extra and so he who is cut off from the Church as Schismatiks are is no part of it but a non ens or nothing for as much as belongs to the Denomination of being a part of the Church in which
respect your definition as I sayd destroyes itselfe as if one could be cut off from the Church by Schisme and yet remaine a part therof A man divided from the Church remaynes a man and is part of the Community or number of men but is not a part or member of the Church as you will not deny but that if for example one should forsake all Christianity yea and fall into Judaisme Turcisme or Paganisme he should still be a part of the number of men but not a member or part of any Christian Church And it is ridiculous to say that Luther and his associats did not separate from themselves seing by their very separation they ceased to be any part of the Church and the Church remayned one whole and so by their not separation from themselves as men you cannot inferr that they did not separate from all Churches and from all true members and parts of all true Churches Yea if they be considered as members of the Church they did in some sort separate even from themselves by ceasing to be now what once they were that is true members of the Church But we shall say more of this herafter Only I obserue now if as you say Pag 264. N. 30. the sin of Schisme be a causelesse separation from the externall communion of any Church much more grievous must that sin be in him who separates from the whole Church or from all Churches as Luther professed to doe 74. Secondly When you say The requisites which constitute a man a member of the Church are Faith and Obedience What Faith or what Obedience meane you That Faith wherby one believes and that Obedience wherby one obeyes all the Definitions and Decrees of the Church If so then you suppose him to be vnited with the Church not only in Faith but also in externall Communion because nothing is more strictly commanded than such an vnion and Communion but then you are out of our case of being separated from the Church If you meane Faith and Obedience to God it is impossible even by your owne confession that one should obey God and divide himselfe from the externall Communion of all Churches without cause aÌ„d therfore he cannot by any such imaginary ObedieÌ„ce be a member of the Church You say Pag 272. N. 53. It concernes every man who separates from any Churches Communion even as much as his salvation is worth to looke most carefully to it that the cause of his separation be just and necessary For vnless it be necessary it can hardly be sufficient Therfore you suppose there is a strict command not to separate from any Churches Communion without necessary cause And then as for Faith you say Pag 134. N. 13. Among the conditions which Christ requires for salvation one is that we belieue what he has revealed when it is sufficiently declared to haue been revealed by him Therfore say I whosoever opposes a Point though not Fundamentall in it selfe yet sufficiently propounded as revealed by God failes in the condition of Obedience required for salvation and so wants one of the requisites which constitute a man a member of the Church therfore he leaves the Church and Protestants erring in such Points divide themselves from the Church and certaine it is that some of them must erre in Points at least not Fundamentall 75. Thirdly The Church essentially implyes not only Faith but also externall Communion in Sacraments Liturgy and publike worship of God therfore whosoever leaves the externall Communion of a Church he cannot but leaue the Church as being divided from it in a thing essentiall to the Church and consequently without which one cannot be a member thereof Moulin Lib 1. cont Peron Cap 26. saith plainly That is the true Church which is vnited togeather in profession of true Faith and Communion of Saâ—ramentâ— And Calvin Lib 4. Institut Cap § 4. saith We cannot haue two or three Churches but Christ must be divided Wherby it appeares that men cannot be of one Church vnless they be vnited in one common mysticall Body for example John hath a head a hand c and so hath Thomas but they are not said to communicate in one head or hand because the parts of their Body are not vnited in one common linke or whole Body Different Kingdomes and Commonwealths may chance to haue the same Lawes Customes Statutes yea and the same forme of Government yet that is not enough to denominate them one Kingdome or Common wealth because they haue not any such vnion or Communion as may make them one mysticall Body Dr. Lawd Pag 300. Affirmes that the Donatists agreed in Faith with the Catholike Church and yet grants that they were Schismatiks and divided from the Church which Division being supposed they could not be properly said to communicate with Her even in Faith because similitude alone without a common vnion in some Whole cannot make one a member or part of one Church But what need I proue a thing evident in it selfe The very Definition of Schisme taken properly as it is distinct from Heresy implyes an agreement in Faith and that supposed it is a separation in externall Communion only therfore similitude in Faith is not sufficient to make that one be not truly said to forsake the Church Jewes and Turks belieue one God and so do Christians and yet they cannot be sayd to be in Communion with Christians even in that Point which all of them belieue in regard they make not on mysticall Body I may eate the same meate which an excommunicate person eates but I may not eate with him not he with me So Jewes and Turks belieue some Truth which we belieue yet properly speaking they belieue not with vs because they themselves are divided from vs. One thing therfore it is to belieue the same Point and another to be vnited in the beliefe therof Neither is there in this particular any difference between Fundamentall and not Fundamentall Points For though one belieue all the same Fundamentall Points which another believes yet he believes them not with him because as I sayd the believers themselves are divided in Communion one from another Otherwise if you will needs haue all those to be of one Church who belieue all Fundamentall Points it will follow that there is no Schisme at all as it is distinguished from Heresy For that doctrine being supposed if one belieue all Fundamentall Points he is no Schismatike If he erre in any Fundamentall or Necessary Point he is an Heretike Therfore Schisme in this way shall never be distinguished from Heresy which yet is contrary to your owne doctrine which we cited aboue out of your Pag 271. N. 51. Where you say We are not to learne the difference betweene Schisme and Herely For Heresy we conceaue an obstanâ—te defence of any errour against any necessary Article of the Christian Faith And Schisme a causless separation of one part of the Church from another You do not declare
but even from the publike Service of Heretiks and will touch and be of the same communion with them If the Apostle sayd to Titus who was a Bishop and in no danger of being perverted avoide an hereticall man could he haue sayd Fly the man but not communion with him If in any case certainly in this we must call to mynd our Blessed Saviours saying He that denyes me I will deny him And what doth it availe a man to gaine the whole world if he loose his owne soule To which purpose Tertullian saieth de Coron Mil Cap 11. Non admittit status Fidei allegationem necessitatis Nulla est necessitas delinquendi quibus vna est necessitas non delinquendi The condition of Christian Faith cannot admitt for excuse of a thing not lawfull to say they were necessitated therto There can be no necessity of sinning for them who acknowledg one only thing to be necessary namely not to sin What is that one thing which our saviour saith is necessary except not to sin Come loss of goods liberty and life let vs remember It is not necessary that we be rich or at liberty or enjoy a long and prosperous life but One thing is absolutely necessary that we do not offend our God If in a morall affaire we would guide soules by metaphysicke the next step will be to take the Zuinglian supper not forsooth as it is receaved by them in nature of a Sacrament but intending only to eate it as it is no more than bread and wine or as Christians may weare the apparell which Infidels vse according to the civill custome of their country But in matters of this nature middle wayes are most dangerous and next to precipices and you must remember those words 3. Reg 18. V. 22. If our Lord be God follow him but if Baal follow him Upon which place the Doway Testament makes this profitable Annotation Such zealous expostulation is necessary to all Neutralls in Religion who are neither hot nor cold but lukewarme such as Angells detest Apoc 3. Less harme it is if we respect the mischiefe which may accrew to others for a man to profess Heresy than professing himselfe a Catholike to be cause that others follow his Doctrine and example in communicating with Heretiks in that which they are wont to call Divine Service What a monster may it justly seeme for Catholiks at home abroad in their pulpits and all other occasions to impugne and speake against Heresyes and the next day to be seene in the same Church at the same publike service with Heretiks This Doctrine of the vnlawfulness for Catholiques to be present at the service or sermons of Heretiques is taught by those incomparable holy zealous and learned Authors of the Annotations vpon the Rhemes Testament Cardinal Alane Richard Bristo Willyam Raynolds Gregory Martin in Matth 10. N. 32. Marc 3. N. 13. 2. Cor 6. N. 14. Ad Tit 3. N. 10. Joan 2. N. 10. And who will not prefer the Authority of these men who opposed themselves against the Heresy Policy and Cruelty of those tymes before any who now should presume to teach the contrary Vpon the whole matter therfore I conclude that it is impossible to propound any Forme of Liturgy in which both sides can hold it lawfull to communicate And therfore Luther and his fellowes did absolutely renounce the Communion of all Churches by professing a contrary Faith and ceasing to communicate with them in Liturgy and publike worship of God which is the thing you denyed in your Objection 83. Object 2. Pag 263. N. 26. You say to your Adversarie That although it were granted Schisme to leaue the externall Communion of the visible Church in what state or case soever it be and that Luther and his followers were Schismatiks for leaving the externall Communion of all visible Churches Yet you faile exceedingly of clearing the other necessary Point vndertaken by you that the Roman Church was then the visible Church For neither doe Protestants as you mistake make the true preaching of the word and due administration of the Sacraments the notes of the visible Church but only of a visible Church Now these you know are very different things the former signifying the Church Catholique or the whole Church The latter a particular Church or a part of the Caâ—holique And therfore suppose we should grant what by Argument you can never evince that your Church had these notes yet would it by no meanes follow that your Church were the visible Church but only a visible Church Not the whole Catholique Church but only a part of it But then besides where doth Dr. Pâ—tter acknowledg any such matter as you pretend Where doth he say that you had for the substance the true preaching of the word or due administration of the Sacraments Or where doth he say that from which you collect this you wanted nothing Fundamentall necessary to salvation 84. Answer Your conscience could not but tell you that Charity Maintayned had evidently cleared this Point and answered your Objections Part 1. N. 47. Pag 221. in these words that the Roman Church I speake not for the present of the particular Diocese of Rome but of all Visible Churches dispersed through the whole world agreeing in Faith with the Chayre of Peter whether that Sea were supposed to be in the City of Rome or in any other place That I say The Church of Rome in this sense was the visible Catholique Church out of which Luther departed is proved by your owne confession who assigne for Notes of the Church the true Preaching of Gods word and true administration of Sacraments both which for the substance you cannot deny to the Roman Church since you confess that she wanted nothing Fundamentall or necessary to salvation and for that very cause you thinke to cleare yourselfe from Schisme whose property as Potter sayeth Pag 76. is to cut off from the Body of Christ and the hope of salvation the Church from which it separates Now that Luther and his fellowes were borne and baptized in the Roman Church and that she was the Church out of which they departed is notoriously knowne And therfore you cannot cut her off from the Body of Christ and hope of salvation vnless you will acknowledg your selfe to deserue the just imputation of Schisme Neither can you deny her to be truly Catholique by reason of pretended corruptions not Fundamentall For your selfe avouch and endeavour to proue that the true Catholique Church may erre in such Points Morover I hope you will not so much as goe about to proue that when Luther rose there was any other true Visible Church disagreeing from the Roman and agreeing with Protestants in their particular doctrines And you cannot deny but that England in those dayes agreed with Rome and other nations with England and therfore either Christ had no Visible Church vpon Earth or els you must grant that it was the Church of Rome A truth so manifest that
censure of Holy Scripture He who soone believes is light of heart that is they could haue no Act of Divine supernaturall faith which requires the particular assistance of the Holy Ghost and this cannot be given to produce or foster such fooleryes or imprudences In the same manner you take no notice of that which Cha Ma in the same Section cites out of Calvin Ep. 141. we haue been forced to make a separation from the whole world nor aske him how he could say so without strayning and how they made a separation from the whole world nor how they could say so seing so many millions followed them But I beseech you consider that even Luther himselfe for his owne opinions and apostasy proceeded by degrees so farr as that he pretended to submitt himselfe to the Pope And then how could so many follow him at the first instant when himselfe knew not what to follow And at that tyme was he not alone neither Catholike nor setled in any other doctrine And seing in those doubts and doctrines some tyme must passe before he himselfe was setled or could instill them to others it is manifest that he opposed himselfe to All Churches then extant and then we must by your owne Rule say that All opposed themselves to him that is they believed at that tyme those Articles and embraced those rites Liturgy and publike manner of worshipping God which he condemned which is true even of those who afterward were seduced by him and so it is most true that in the beginning he opposed himselfe to All and All opposed themselves to him as appeares by that which he further sayth Ep ad Argentinenses Anno 1525. Christum a nobis primò promulgatum audemus gloriari We dare glory that Christ was first diuulged by vs. Mark primo first and Conrad Schlusselburg in Theolog Calvinist L. 2. saith It is impudency to say that many learned men in Germany before Luther did hold the doctrine of the Gospell The like sayings of others concerning Luther may be seene in Ch Ma P. 1. P. 267. It is therfore true that he opposed himselfe to All and All to him 117. Object 12. Charity Maintayned Part 1. P. 202. N. 57. to proue it vniversally true that there can be no just cause to forsake the Communion of the visible Church of Christ alledges S. Austine saying Ep 48. It is not possible that any may haue just cause to separate their Communion from the communion of the whole world and call themselves the Church of Christ as if they had separated themselves from the Communion of all Nations vpon just cause Against this Argument you object thus Pag 302. N. 101. It is one thing to separate from the Communion of the whole world another to separate from all the Communions in the world One thing to divide from them who are vnited among themselves Another to divide from them who are divided among themselves Now the Donatists separatet from the whole world of Christians vnited in one Communion professing the same Faith serving God after the same manner which was a very great Argument that they could not haue just cause to leaue them according to that of Tertullian Variasse debuerat error Ecclesiarum quod autem apud multos vnum est non est erratum sed traditum But Luther and his followers did not so The world I meane of Christians and Catholikes was divided and subdivided long before he divided from it and by their divisions had much weakned their owne Authority and taken away from you this plea of S. Austine which stands vpō no other foundatiō but the vnity of the whole worlds Communiō 118. Answer Ex ore tuo te judico Your owne Answer overthrowes your owne doctrine Whosoever separates from the Communion of the whole world in that wherin the whole world agrees separates from the Communion of the world because to vse your owne words this is to divide from them who are vnited among themselves and is not to divide from them who are divided among themselves But Luther divided himselfe from the whole world in points wherin the whole world was vnited therfore he divided himselfe from the Communion of the whole world The Minor that Luther divided himselfe from the whole world in Points wherin the whole world was vnited that is as Protestants falsely affirme in errours and corruptions common to the whole then visible Church Charity Maintayned Pag P. 61. N. 9. and P. 167. N. 12. hath proved out of learned Protestants as also we haue seene even now by the confession of Luther Calvin and Schlusselb and the thing is cleare of itselfe and even bragged of by Luther and his followers Neither is there any speech more common among Protestants then that the whole visible Church was corrupted ād this is the reason which you ād other Protestāts yeild in excuse of your leaving the Communion of all Churches otherwise there could haue beene no pretence of a reformation If saith the Protestant Gregorius Milius in Argumentâ Confessione Art 7. de Ec There had beene right believers which went before Luther in his office there had then beene no need of a Lutheran Reformation Therfore the argument of ha Ma taken out of S. Austine holds good and strong no lesse against Luther who separated from all Churches in Points wherin they were not divided but vnited than it was of force against the Donatists Yea further it proves that those supposed errours which Luther pretend to reforme were indeed Orthodox truths even by the Rule which you alledg out of Tertullian variasse debuit error Ecclesiarum quod autem apud multos vnum est non est erratum sed traditum Seing then All Churches before Luther agreed in those doctrines which he vndertooke to reforme they cannot be errours being the same not only apud multos among many as Tertullian speakes but apud omnes among all Christian Churches in the world And this reason taken out of Tertullian growes stronger in our case even by your saying that The world of Christians and Catholiks was divided and subdivided long before Luther divided from it because when so many yea and all who otherwise are divided and subdivided yet agree vnanimously in some Points that very consent amongst men of so very different dispositions affections and opinions is more then a very great Argument that Luther and his followers could not haue just cause to leaue them as you argue against the Donatists From whence it also followes that you are in an errour of pernicious consequence while you say that Christians and Catholikes by then Divisions had much weakned their owne authority and taken away from vs Catholikes this plea of S. Austine which stands vpon no other foundation but the vnity of the whole worlds Communion seing this vnity yieldes a stronger argument in our present case by the Divisions and subdivisions of which you talke and therfore doth not takeaway but strengthen our plea out of S.
haue some Errours yet seeing they are not soe great as yours he that conceiâ—es it any disparagement to his judgment to change your Communion for theirs though confessed to haue some corruptions it may well be presumed that he hath but little judgment Do not these words declare your opinion that in case of perplexity when of two Evills one must be chosen it is judgment and consequently no sinne to make choise of the less This is the very thing which I haue alledged out of Divines and which obliges you to answer your owne argumeÌ„t against Charity maintayned This your chiefest objection being answered confuted and retorted let vs examine the rest 136. You say Pag 164. N. 57. It is impossible to adhere to the Roman Church mâ—ll things having no other ground for it but because she is infallible in some things that is in Fondamentalls 137. Answer Although indeed if once we suppose that we cannot know what Points are Fundamentall it be an evident consequence that we can never belieue the Church in some things vnless we belieue her in all and so your objection is of no force yet Charity Maintayned never sayd that one may adhere to the Church in all things precisely and formally because she is infallible in some things which in speculation and good Logicke had been like to this Argument Mans vnderstanding is infallible in some things for example in the most vniversall knowne principles as that two contradictoryes cannot be true or that every whole is greater than a part therof and the like Therfore I am to belieue mans vnderstanding to be infallible in all things But he spoke morally and pro subjectâ materia and therfore sayd expressly seing Protestants grant the Church to be infallible in Points necessary to salvation any wise man will inferre that it behooves all who haue care of their soules not to forsake her Where you see he speakes of what were to be done in wisedowne and for the safety of ones soule and considers tkings as in this subject they ought to be considered in a morall not in a Logicall or Metaphisicall way That the Church being confessedly infallible in all necessary Points men must consider well how they leaue her in any point least perhaps either that point wherin they forsake her be a Fundamentall point or els least they may fall into some Fundamentall errour after they haue left her as also that seing they rely on her Authority in Fundamentall Articles it is no wisdome to suspect her credit in matters of less moment especially considering the many examples of those who de facto forsaking the Church haue fallen into damnable and Fundamentall Heresyes and in a word seing there may be great danger in leaving the Church and damnation cannot be feared by adhering to her which I am sure neither doth nor can erre in Points necessary to salvation there may be great harme in leaving but no hurt in fellowing Her in all that she proposes as matter of Faith which is your owne grant as we haue seene aboue in these words Pag 168. N. 63. It is true if we sayd there were no danger in being of the Roman Church and there were danger in leaving it it were madness to perswade any man to leaue it Now that the Roman Church doth not erre in Fundamentall or necessary Points I will proue herafter out of your owne words out of Potter and other Protestants and therfore it was madnesse to perswade men to leaue Her 138. These and the like morall and prudentiall Arguments Charity Maintayned vrged which truly in a matter concerning Eternity ought to mooue every one and more than meere Metaphysicall speculations And that this discourse of Charity Maintayned was very reasonable yourselfe make good in your words which I haue cited that if there were set vp some setled society of Christians for our guide in Fundamentalls then Charity Maintayned might with some colour and shew of reason haue concluded that we could not in wisdome forsake this Church in any Point for feare of forsaking Her in a necessary Point What Mr. Chillingworth For feare of forsaking Her in a necessary Point What colour of reason can there be in this your feare Seing we haue heard you tell vs P. 164. N. 57. It is impossible to adhere to the Roman Church in all things having no other ground for it but because she is infallible in some things And what will become of your vaine Dialogue in this same section wherby with great pompe of words you endeavour to prove that it is impossible to adhere to the Roman Church in all thingr hauing no other ground c Is it not cleare that you contradict yourselfe and are engaged to answer all the Arguments which you object against Charity Maintayned for saying that if the Church be infallible in Fundamentalls it is no wisdome to leaue her in any Point Can one judge that there is reason for that which the same man is confident which is your owne word Pag 165. N. 57. may be demonstrated to be false And by this appeares that your whole discourse N. 63. is against this your owne grant Neither do we say that vniversally one must stick to one side for feare of going too far towards the other but that when there is no harme in embracing one part and evident danger in forsaking it in such a case we cannot forsake one part and goe to the other that is we cannot forsake the Church in Points not necessary for salvation because we may chance to leaue her in some Fundamentall Point which even yourselfe grant to be a rationall deduction if once it be supposed that any particular Church is infallible in Fundamentall Points as Protestants commonly grant the vniversall Church to be infallible in such Articles and therfore as I sayd aboue Luther and his fellowes could not in wisdome forsake the vniversall Church in any one Point Morover remember what you write Pag 277. N. 61. in these words Neither is there any reason why a Church should please herselfe too much for retaining fundamentall truthes while she remaines regardless of others For 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 If this be true of the vniversal Church which is infallible for Fundamentalls much more may we say of any private person who hath no such priviledg of infallibility forsaking the Church in some Point of Faith Who is there can put him 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 fundations of Religion and Piety And therfore Charity Maintayned had reason to
say that the Church ought not to be forsaken in any least Point least perhaps that proue to be Fundamentall Neither can you say that Protestants were certaine that the Points wherin they left the Church were errours For to omit the reasons which I haue already giuen here I must put you in mynd that diverse learned chiefe Protestants agree with vs in very many yea I may say in all the maine differences betwixt Protestants and vs And therfore your preence of so great evidence and certainty against the Doctrine of the Roman Church is meerly voluntary and verball And besides I would know how the Church can be supposed to be infallible in fundamentall Points and yet may be in danger to fall into such errours as are pernicious and pestilent and vndermine the very Fundations of Religion and Piety 139. These maine dissicultyes being taken away your other Objections cited aboue are answered by only mentioning them The Question is not whether we should erre with the present Church or hold true with God Almighty as you vainly speak but whether the word and will of God Almighty be better vnderstood and declared to vs by Gods vniversall true Church or by any private person or particulat Sect. 140. If particular Churches haue been liberall of their Anathemas which yet were never conceaved infallible What is that to the Anathemas of the vniversall Church granted to be infallible in fundameÌ„tall points in which whosoever disobeyes her puts himselfe in state of damnation And seing you confess that men cannot know what points be fundamentall it followes that we cannot with safety disobey her in any one point for feare of leaving her in some fundamentall Article 141. That the visible Church of Christ holds itselfe to be infallible cannot be doubted seing even her enemyes belieue she cannot erre in fund mentall Points and she proposes all her definitions of faith to be believed without distinguishing betweene Points fundamentall and not Fundamentall which she could not doe without great temerity and injury to Faithfull people if she did not hold herselfe to be vniversally infallible Of which point Ch Ma P. 2. Ch 5. N. 20. P. 132. spekes at large in answer to a demand or objection of Potter and in vaine you say God in Scripture can better informe vs what are the limits of the Churches Power than the Church herselfe For the Question is only whether God will haue his meaning in Scripture declared by the Church or by every mans private spirit wit or fancy Besides God declares his sacred pleasure not only by the written but also by the vnwritten word 142. That there is no danger in being of the Roman Church Protestants must affirme who hold that she had all things necessary to salvation as shall appeare herafter and whosoever denyes it must grant that Christ had no Church vpon Earth when Luther appeared and that there is danger to leaue her experience makes manifest by the infinite multitude of different Sects and opinions wherof all cannot be true and so must be esteemed a deluge of Heresyes 143. The Heresy of the Donatists did consist formally in this that the Church might erre or be polluted and by that Meanes giue just cause to forsake her communion For if without any such errour in their vnderstanding they did only de facto separate by the obstancy of their will they were indeed Schismatikes but not Heretikes as not dividing themselves from the Church in Matter of Faith And yet Potter saieth they were properly Heretiques Yea if it be not an Heresy to say in generall that the Church may erre and be corrupted or polluted to say that in such a particular case she is corrupted comes to be only a matter of History or fact whether she hath done so or no but it is not a point of Faith and so is not of a nature sufficient to constiute an Heresy supposing as I saied it be once granted that she may erre For example the Donatists gaue out that the Catholique Church was defild by communicating with those who were called traditors The Heresy consists precisely in this Point That the whole Church may be corrupted and so give just cause to be forfaken not in that other Point whether or no the possibility of the thing being supposed de facto Catholikes did communicate with those traditours Since therfore it is supposed by you aÌ„d affirmed by Potter that the Donatists were heretiks their heresy must coÌ„sist in this that the Catholique Church spredd over the whole world might erre and be polluted And is not this the very heresy of Protestants And do they not pretend to leaue the Church vpon this same ground that she erred And this particularly is evident in those Protestants who say the whole visible Church before Luther perished The names of which Protestants may be seene in Charity Maintayned Part 1. N. 9. Pag 161. and more may be read in Brierley Tract 2. Ca 3. Sect 2. And therefore I wonder you would say that Charity Maintayned had not named those Protestants who hold the Church to haue perished for many Ages That it is a fundamentall errour of its owne nature properly hereticall to say The Church Militant may possibly be driven out of the world is the Doctrine of Potter as we haue seene as also that Whitaker calls it a prophane heresy and more Protestants may be seene to that purpose in that place where we cited Whitaker And Dr. Lawd holds it to be against the Article of our Creed I belieue the Holy Catholique Church and that to say that Article is not true is blasphemy 144. That he which is an Hererike in one Article may haue true Faith in other Articles is against the true and common Doctrine of all Catolique Divines and vniversally against all Catholikes to say That such a Faith can be sufficient to salvation because his very heresy is a deadly sin And therfore to say the Church can erre in any one point of Faith is to say the whole Church may be in state of damnation for faith which is an intollerable injury to God and his spouse the Church For if she may be in state of damnation by any culpable errour she must be supposed to want some thing necessary to salvation namely the beliefe of that truth which such culpable errour denyes But more of this herafter 145. By the way How can you say N. 56. to Charity Maintayned That when it was for his purpose to haue it so the greatness or smallness of the matter was not considerable the Evidence of the Revelation was all in all For where doth Charity Maintayned say That evidence of the Revelation is all in all Yea doth he not expressly teach Part 1. Chap. 6. N. 2. that evidence is not compatible with an ordinary Act of Faith and therby proves N. 30. that Protestants want true Faith 146. Object 14. Charity Maâ—ntayned in diverse occasions affirmes or supposes that Dr. Potter and other
forsaking the Faith and communion of the vniversall Church or of all Churches extant when Luther appeared and therfore that Protestancy vnrepented destroyes salvation 169. Having then proved that Christian Faith is absolutely Infallible that therfore some Infallible judge or Rule of Faith is necessary that this cannot be Scripture alone that all though Scripture did containe all points of Faith necessary to salvation yet it could neither be a sufficient Rule nor any Rule at all of Faith if the errours which Mr. Chilling worth holds concerning it were true that the Infallible Judge of controversyes in Faith must be the alwayes visible Church of God that to oppose her doctrine and forsake Her communion is Heresy and Schisme that Protestants cannot be saved without Repentance These things I say being proved and every one of them having such connexion that from the first to the laast one is deduced from another by evident consequences We must now see whether Mr. Chilling worth though he hath not been able to defend Protestants from the sins of schisme ād Heresy at least that he hath taught thē some remedy to obtaine pardon for those and all other deadly sins by proposing some true way to Repentance and our next Chapter shall shew that the Repentance which he would teach them is neither sufficient nor possible but plainly destructiue of itselfe A hard condition of Protestants to be forced for their defense to chuse an Advocate who neither can excuse them from sin nor prescribes any possible meanes for pardon therof CHAP VIII Mr. CHILLINGVV ORTHS ERROVRS CONCERNING REPENTANCE ARE EXAMINED AND CONFVTED 1. NO benefit is wont to be more welcome than that which we receiue from an enemy against his will in regard we enjoy the favour and yet are absolved from all obligation of rendring thankes or even acknowledging it You are forced to confesse Pag 34. N. 5. That the Doctrine and practise too of Repentance is yet remaining in our Church and by that confession you grant that safety to vs which we cannot yield to Protestants since without true Faith Repentance will proue but a meere illusion And in this Protestants are greatly obliged to our sincere declaration of so necessary a Truth that being in due tyme clearly warned of the danger they may seeke to put their soules in safety by embracing that Religion wherin both we and our Adversaryes grant a possibility of Salvation But now as I sayd hertofore that although it were granted that true Scripture alone is a perfect and totall Rule of Faith as we haue proved it not to be yet it could not be so much as any Rule at all if your pernicious errours concerning it were true so here I will proue That although the Doctrine and practice of Repentance were supposed to remaine amongst Protestants which we can never grant yet that Repentance which you hold sufficient and necessary is such as either in the way of Defect or too little or of Excesse and too much no man can hope for Salvation by meanes therof This we will proue by a particular examination of your severall errours of which the 2. First is delivered by you Pag 32. N. 4. in these words God hath no where declared himselfe but that whersoever he will accept of that Repentance which you are pleased to call contrition he will accept of that which you call Attrition For though he like best the bright flaming holocaust of Loue yet he rejects not he quenches not the smoaking flaxe of that repentance if it be true and effectuall which proceeds from hope and feare In confutation of which pernicious errour I need not spend paines or tyme since it seemes proper to yourselfe or perhaps some Associats of yours But what can be hoped from those who haue forsaken the direction of Gods Church but that they should crosse one another in their wayes and end in Extremes as I haue observed in severall occasions and appeares in this particular matter of which we treate Luther as may be seene in Bellarmin de Poenit Lib. 1. Cap. 6. taught that Attrition makes a man an hypocrite and a greater sinner So far was he from dreaming that it alone is a sufficient disposition to obtaine remission of sins Others in a contrary extreme hold that perfect sorrow or Contrition is not sufficient without Absolution as Kemnitius affirmes 2. part Exam p. 960. and even your opinion is That perfect Contrition will not serue without extirpation of all vicious habits which you say being a worke of difficulty requires tyme and so you are singular in a matter vpon which eternall salvation depends agreeing neither with Catholikes who teach that Attrition is not sufficient without Absolution and that Contrition alone in all tymes and moments is enough nor that contrition is sufficient without absolution as Kemnitius holds but you teach that no Repentance is sufficient without the extirpation of all vicious habits as we shall see herafter 3. For the thing itselfe I wonder what could bring you to such a Doctrine as this That an Act which you confess Pag. 32. N. 4. proceeds from Hope and Feare could alone be a sufficient disposition for justifying Grace and the Theologicall vertue of Charity and Loue of God As well might you say That an Act of Historicall Faith is a sufficient disposition for the vertue of Hope and Hope for Charity and so Faith would come to justify I say an Historicall Faith which no Protestant holds can justify But this is the worke of our common enemy to suggest Doctrines which can produce no other effect except damnation of soules For to what other purpose can this your invention serue God is always ready to giue sufficient Grace for an Act of Contrition when it is necessary as alwayes it is necessary for the Remission of deadly sinnes when Sacerdotall Absolution cannot be had and yet this your Doctrine if once it be accepted for true can haue no better effect than to make men rely vpon it and not apply themselves to an Act of contrition wherby they might be secure wheras if your Doctrine be false as most certainly it is whosoever contents himselfe with Attrition for remission of any deadly sin shall infallibly be damned even though we should suppose that the beliefe of this errour were inculpable because true Repentance is absolutely necessary to salvation necessitate medij wherin invincible ignorance doth not excuse in which case every one is obliged to embrace not only a probable but the most safe and secure part And therfore this your errour being against both Catholikes and Protestants every one is bound by the most strict obligation Charitatis propriae which obliges vs to take the safest meanes for the salvation of our owne soules in things absolutly necessary not to rely on your conceypt but to procure that which is safe either contrition or Attrition with Absolution and so your Doctrine can never be practiced without a deadly sin though it were supposed to
esse novit Uerum est enim quod illa falsa sint No man can be sayd to know false things except by knowing they are false c But an errour is sinfull because he gives a culpable cause therof either by not vising diligence to find the truth in a matter of highest moment which is that vnum necessarium that one necessary Thing of which our saviour spoke and to which all other things are to be referred and therfore requires our chiefest and vtmost endeavour and all that may any way put it in hazard ought instantly to strike vs with a most deepe fright and move vs to fly from it tanquam a facie colubri as from the face of a serpent oâ— by reason of pride confidence in his owne witt or judgment or the like sinfull cause which must be knowne and voluntary in order to such an errour and ignorance otherwise they could not be sinfull as we haue seene out of your owne words that we cannot be obliged to that which is not in our power Now if the cause of such errour be sinfull and voluntary to say one may be pardoned of that sin without actually forsaking it is to say A sin may be repented and forgiven while one is actually persisting in the committing of it and seing to pardon a sin is to destroy it and to be committing it is to conserue it in being sin should be destroyed and conserved be and not be at the same tyme which is a manifest contradiction 20. But you say The sinner may haue Repentance of all sins knowne and vnknowne I answer You are in a great errour or inconsideration both concerning the nature of sin and of Repentance in supposing that either can sin be committed without all knowledge or that true Repentance can extend it self to a sin of which one is in Act of voluntary committing it For how doth he effactually detest and with his whole hart repent himselfe of it if he be yet voluntarily committing it And as for the other part All sin is voluntary and necessarily presupposes some kind of knowledge therof to proceede in the vnderstanding without which it were not voluntary nor vincible nor culpable but necessary and invincible or no sin at all Which being true in all sin much more must it be so in deadly and damnable sins as you affirme errours against Faith to be which require full knowledge and deliberation when they are first committed And this is particularly true in the subject of which we speake in regard that our good God whose will is that all should be saved and come to the knowledge of Truth never failes to be frequently preventing illuminating moving and strongly inciting the soules of men to embrace the true Faith Religion and church within which he hath confined salvation aÌ„d is continually speaking so lowd as he may be clearly heard aÌ„d so stroÌ„gly as every one must confess himselfe guilty if he do not obey aÌ„d hearkeÌ„ to a voyce so sweet forcible and Divine And therfore your Contrition of all sins knowne and vnknowne comes to be a meere sixion or illusion your Repentance of sins which one is actually committing to be a plaine contradiction and both of them to containe a most pernicious Doctrine To comprise all this matter in few words When you speake of sins not knowne if the ignorance be invincible it is no sin if vincible and culpable it doth not excuse from sin the Errour which proceeds from it and therfore cannot be forgiven as long as one is committing it no more than other sins against Gods Commandements for example hatred desire of revenge c. And how can want of knowledge excuse one who either sins by that very want of knowledge or that want of knowledge is the effect of his sin that is of culpable neglect to learne as a tâ—e want is not excused from the rot by ignorance proceeding from his voluntary neglect to study 21. Perhaps some may say I haue proved sufficiently that no Protestant or other Sectary can haue true Contrition of sins wholy vnknowne or when it is committing them or while he hath tyme to amend them neglects to doe it But the difficulty may seeme to remaine what is to be sayd of a Protestant at the point of death if he come to be particularly contrite of his former culpable negligence to seeke the true Religion but now hath no tyme to discusse particular Controversyes with a firme resolution to embrace that Faith which if God spare him life he shall by his Divine Assistance find to be true To this doubt I 22. Answer First That such a one cannot according to your Doctrine hope for Salvation which is never granted without true Repentance and this cannot be had at that moment of death when there is no tyme to roote out all vicious Habits which cannot be supposed to be few in persons who for worldly respects haue not cared to seeke out the true Religion on which every Christian believes the salvation of his soule to depend Secondly This case or supposition yields as much as Charity Maintayned intended to proue That a formall Protestant cannot be saved if he persist in Protestantisme For he who is hartily sory that he hath neglected to seeke the true Faith Religion and Church and conceives an obligation to haue vsed more diligence therin doth clearly doubt whether the Protestant Religion be true and theâ—by is no more a Protestant than he can be a Christian who doubts whether Christian Religion be true it being a true Axiome in Divinity dubius in side est infidelis He who doubts of his Faith is an infidell The reason is because Christian Divine Faith is infallible and certainly true and consequently cannot consist with any deliberate or voluntary doubt neither doth Christian Faith belieue any Article of Faith with greater certainty than that itselfe is certaine Whosoever therfore doubts whether Protestants Faith and Religion be true ceases to be a Protestant or to belieue Protestant Religion to be true with that firmnes of Faith which is required for Salvation And although such a pertinent sinner be not a Catholike by the actuall beliefe of those Points conceruing which he hath no tyme to be particularly instructed yet he is really and actually a Catholike by believing in voto or desire whatsoever the Church teaches and those errours of his which before were culpable only by reason of some culpable cause or neglect to seeke the truth while he had tyme to doe it after true and effectuall Contrition of such a sinfull cause remaine errours materially only and no sins till it be in his power to examine and reverse them just as vertuous persons in the true Church may by invincible ignorance hold some errour against Faith till they be better instructed And so the finall Conclusion will be that he who effectually repents his sin committed in omitting culpably to seeke the true Church and hath no possible meanes to examine matters
may be saved not by a generall but by a particular contrition not of sins vnknowne but knowne not remaining a formall Protestant but being a reall Catholike having retracted the former malice of his sin and believing in desire all that the Catholike Church believes and so he is a Protestant neither in act seing he doubts of the Protestant Religion nor in voto or desire which is to be a professed member of the true Church and to imbrace the truth and forsake all Errour as in this present Question we expressly speake of the errours of Protestants and enquire whether they can be saved with such errours as likewise our supposition for the present is that the Roman is the true Church and so the Uotum or desire of such a penitent is to forsake the Doctrine of Protestants and to embrace the Religion of the Roman Church But then if such a one survine and come to haue tyme sufficient for seeking and finding out the truth and neglect to doe it he waxeth recidivous and falls into a new sin and his eâ—â—ours grow againe to be sinfull by reason of their new sinfull cause 23. Your example that poyson will not poyson him that receives with it a more powerfull Antidote is either de subjecto non supponente as if the poyson of sin could stand with the Antidote of Contrition or implyes a manifest falshood and contradiction if you suppose that contrition can destroy that sin which one is committing Naturall or corporall poyson may stand with an Antidote but sin the poyson of the soule cannot stand with Contrition and so caÌ„ helpe no more thaÌ„ an Antidote not receyved can hinder the operation of poyson aÌ„d contrition cannot be receyved in his soule who continues the act or affection to a deadly sin And so your example turnes against yourself and this Answer proves to be a more powerfull Antidote than the poyson of your objection which therfore I hope will not poyson any that receives with it the Antidote 23. Thirdly I answer by denying absolutely the case which was proposed that he who hath sinfull errours at the houre of his death can haue true Contrition without actuall direliction of them My reason is because Contrition being a most singular Gift of the Holy Ghost as I proved in the Introduction and including the perfect loue of God is an infallible Disposition to Justifying Grace as therfore God in his holy Providence hath decreed that after baptisme in the ordinary course or de lege ordinaria none shall be saved out of his Uisible Church so he gives not his effectuall Grace to exercise an Act of Contrition in the Will before he endue him with true Faith in the vnderstanding that as his errours were repugnant to Faith so his Repentance and retractation may rectify them by the contrary Truths of Faith For this cause the Apostle after he had sayd God will haue all men saved which words signify the End adds and to come to the knowledge of truth as the Meanes to such an End And this being the ordinary course in vaine is it to dispute what God may doe de potentia absoluta by his absolute Omnipotency or whether there be any physicall or Metaphysicall repugnance between Contrition and Errours per se loquendo damnable since those matters wholy depend on Gods free will and holy pleasure which we cannot know by Logicall humane demonstrations but only by Revelation wherby God hath declared in generall that for Christians there is no salvation without professing the Faith of his Uisible Church and for vs to put exceptions to that generall Rule can haue no other effect than to make men negligent in seeking the Truth in tyme vpon hope that they may be saved with Errours against Faith at the houre of their death when indeed it will proue too late Neither can it be objected that at the houre of death it is not possible to examine particular Controversyes and none can be obliged to an impossible thing For the answer is easily given out of what we haue already sayd First that this ought not so seeme strang to you whose kind of Repentance is impossible at that houre of death as I haue often sayd and so we may apply against you your owne words Pag 390. N. 7. They that confess their sins and forsake them shall find mercy though they confesse them to God only and not to men They that confess them both to God and men if they do not effectually and in tyme forsake them shall not find mercy Now by your doctrine men cannot forsake their sins in tyme who haue not tyme for rooting out all vicious habits and therfore shall not find mercy But by the way what evidenct Scripture haue you that they shall find it who confess their sins only to God seing some Lutherans and other Protestants hold and other confess that it was the Doctrine of ancient holy Fathers that private confession of sins is commanded by God and we haue heard Kemnitius teaching that even Contrition without absolution is not sufficient for pardon of sins either in act or in desire and your resolute speech to the contrary is an affirmation without any proofe Neither can Contrition be sufficient vnless it imply a firme purpose to performe all that God hath commanded wherof Confession of deadly sins is one Secondly I answer that as God is supposed at that tyme to infuse perfect contrition and change the will so also you should suppose that he rectifyes the vnderstanding and the same meanes which he vseth for the one he may vse for the other whether he doe it immediatly by himselfe or by the ministery and helpe of some second cause as a catechist or instructour or good bookes to stirre vp the species and then God may giue his grace to belieue and it would be incomparably more strang that God should giue Repentance to Christians remayning out of his Visible Church for matter of Faith than to cleare their Errours supposing he will giue them Repentance though indeed in our case there can be no true Repentance vnless all sinfull errours be rectifyed 24. That which you alledge out of the Prophet David aboccultis meis munda me cannot signify that sin can be committed without some knowledge as even Socinians confess but only that sins committed by culpable ignorance are not wont to moue vs so much to detestation and sorrow as those which are committed with full knowledg and therfore those hidden sins require a more particular light and Grace of God to present them to our soules so clearly and effectually as we may be perfectly sorrowfull for them in particular and not be deceyved with such a generall ineffectuall sorrow as you obtrude without dereliction of the sins of which men pretend to repent 25. And now I hope it appeares vpon examination of your particular errours concerning Repentance that you make it either insufficient by your pretended necessity of extirpating all vicious habits
places And therfore Charity Maintayned had reason to say that in this particular he never touched the Point really seing he himselfe destroyes what himselfe might seeme once to haue builded 5. All that you haue N. 10. is answered by saying that it is damnable not to belieue any least Point which the Church proposes to be a Divine trurh that is as revealed by God till which tyme one may erre without Heresy Now to determine what Points in particular be so proposed were to run overall particular Articles of Faith Yet to your instances I answer briefly The Quarta decimani who held that Easter was to be kept according to the Rite of the Jewes were justly condemned of Heresy not precisely for the Circumstance of Tyme but for the ground of that Assertion that it was necessary to doe so which would haue brought with it a necessity of keeping all the Rites of the Jewes And therfore you say vntruly that God had not then declared himselfe about Easter But the keeping of Chrismass day ten dayes sooner or later goes vpon no such ground For I never heard that the Jewes kept our Saviours Nativity either according to the new or old Calendar As for believing that there are Antipodes if you can produce any Text of Scripture or definition of Gods Church I will hold it a matter of Faith Sure I am it is a matter of reason not to produce such impertinent examples as you doe The same I say of Predetermination that what the Church shall determine will become a matter of Faith The example of Millenaryes and necessity of Eucharist for Infants which last you vntruly Father vpon S. Augustine you are still obtruding vpon vs without proving what you say as also that S. Austine did not hold it as a matter of Faith that the Bishops of Rome had Right and Power to judge of all appeales from all parts of the world and it is manifestly false that the Church ever determined the Doctrine of the Millenaryes or that S. Austine did deny the Pope had Right to judge of all appeales though for the Practise therof there might be just cause not to vse it promiscuously in all occasions You say Justine Martyr denyes that some good Christians held the contrary to the Millenaryes But even learned Protestants and more skillfull in the Greeke toung than you are interpret S. Justine Martyr in a direct contrary sense as I shew hereafter And in fine our Question is only concerning matters defined by the Church and not what any particular Doctour might hold It seemes you hold it not to be a matter of Faith that Heretikes may giue true Baptisme but S. Austine held and Gods Church believes it to be such and by this example we proue that some Points are matter of Faith which are not evidently contained in Scripture 6. To your N. 13. I answer Charity Maintayned N. 6. said not that a perswasion that men of different Religions may be saved is Atheisme but a ground of Atheisme yea he sayd not this absolutely but thus there is not a more pernicious Heresy or rather marke this modification a ground of Atheisme than a perswasion that men of different Religions may be saved Where you see such a Doctrine is not absolutely called Atheisme but only that it may be rather called a ground of Atheisme than a pure or ordinary kind of Heresy And I pray is not a perswasion that men of different Religions may be saved without repentance a ground and disposition either to deny the Deity which is to be worshipped ōly by a true Religion or not to care much for God or Religion And who would dislike this saying of Charity Maintayned pronounced in generall except a Socinian or some such creature Yourselfe say N. 8. That to deny a thing sufficiently proposed to be revealed by God is to giue God the lye and to say that men may be saved who giue God the lye is it not a ground and disposition to end in Atheisme Potter saith Pag 212. Whatsoever is revealed in Scripture or propounded by the Church out of Scripture is in some sense fundamentall in regard of the Divine Authority of God and his word by which it is recommended that as such is may not be denyed or contradicted without infidelity Why do you not question the Doctor and aske how he can be an infidell who believes the true God Remember your owne saying that the naturall fecundity of errour is to beget Errour And so what will follow of freedom and indifferency for all beliefes of which one only can be true but a flitting from one Errour to another till they hold no Religion at all But the truth is you could not impugne Charity Maintayned but by changing or rather falsifying the Question which was whether men of different Religions may be saved without repentance and you say they may be saved by repentance wherby it may seeme you do not deny but it were a ground of Atheisme to assirme that men of different Religions may be saved without any repentance though they liue and dy in their errour 7. The rest of your Answer being only an Answer to such Demands as Charity Maintayned proposed which haue been handled at large in other places I will only briefly note First what you say Pag 18. N. 26. in these words why an implicite Faith in Christ and his word should not suffice as well as an implicite Faith in your Church I haue desired to be resolved by many of your side but never could hath been expressly answered Chap 2. where I haue shewed that Scripture alone neither extensiue containes all necessary Points of Faith nor as I may say intensiue seing euen those Articles which it containes for the true and certaine vnderstāding of them require the authority of the church to say nothing that we cannot haue an implicite Faith in the Scripture vnless it be resolved into our beliefe of the Church for whose authority we receaue Scripture it selfe Secondly That N. 19. you answer not directly to the Question of Charity Maintayned Part 1. P. 15. N. 12. What visible Church was there before Luther disagreeing with the pretended Church of Protestants But transferr it from a Church to particular men as if it were necessary for vs to shew that every man agreed with the Roman Church seing we know many particular men haue fallen into errours but we affirme that before Luther there was no visible true Orthodox Church which disagreed from the Roman and particularly in those Points wherin Protestants disagree from vs. Thirdly that Pag 23. N 27. as it should be you accuse vs of want of Charity even while you are in the act of giving the same ill measure to vs saying that for want of Charity to Protesiants we alwayes suspect the worst of them and what greater want of Charity can there be in you than not only to suspect but to pronounce and proclaime in print that we want Charity which is
the heaviest imputation that can be imagined For seing Charity is major horum greater than Faith or Hope in saying we want Charity you say we offend against a vertue of greater perfection than any other either Theologicall or Morall And so Protestants in generall are more vncharitable against Catholikes by accusing them of want of Charity than Catholikes can be against them who we say cannot be saved without Repentance for want of true Faith And it is well to be observed that Protestants do not accuse vs of vncharitableness in saying they want true Faith seing they profess to belieue that we also erre in Faith but because we say they cannot be saved supposing they want the true Faith as we also ought to belieue of ourselves vnless we were most infallibly certaine of the truth of our Faith as we are Fourthly You shew little skill in Divinity while you make no difference betwixt an erronious Conscience and errour wheras Conscience which is always considered in order to practise may be practicè true and right and yet rely vpon some invincible speculatiue errour Fiftly In vaine you labour to proue that ignorance is not accidentall to errour seing you know very well that Charity Maintayned spoke not of ignorance and errour as if they were accidentall to themselves or all ignorance accidentall to errour but that to be inexcusable or not excusable vincible or invincible culpable or not culpable voluntary or not voluntary are accidentall both to ignorance and errour which you will not deny seing they are separable and some errour may be vincible and some other invincible c. Wherin if you impugne him you confute yourselfe who Pag 25. say that he who erres though not conceaveable without ignorance simply may be very well considered either as with or without voluntary and sinfull ignorance This occurres concerning your answer to the Preface Now I come to answer your Chapters as they lye in order CHAP X. The Ansvver to his FIRST CHAPTER ABOVT THE STATE OF THE QVESTION And VVhether amongst men of DIFFERENT RELIGIONS one side only can be saved 1. I Omitt to take notice that wheras Charity Maintayned in the Title of his First Chapter speakes expressly of men of different Religions you turne Religions into Opinions saying There is no reason why among men of different Opinions one side only can be saved As if there were no difference between difference in Faith and Religion and in Opinion Which shewes that no man could do you injury in saying that your kind of Christian Faith was but Opinion wherof you complaine Pag 35. N. 7. But this I omit heere and come to tell you that in vaine you take great paines to pervert notoriously the meaning of Charity Maintayned against his words and intention about the possibility of the saveablenesse of Protestants Wheras Hee and Charity Mistaken and all Catholikes belieue and professe the same thing That a Protestant or any other Sectary if his errour be sinfull cannot be saved wihout repentance of those errours it being impossible that the sin should be forgiven while one remaines in it And therfore Charity Maintayned distinguishing between the sinfull errours in the vnderstanding of a Protestant and other sins which he might haue committed hath these expresse words we haue no revelation what light might haue cleared his errours or Contrition retracted his sins in the last moment before his death The reason why besides the relinquishing of his errours Charity Maintayned expressly required retractation of all other deadly sins was least any should thinke that for the salvation of Protestants or any other Sectaryes it were sufficient that they were cleared from their Heresyes and vnited to the Church by Faith wheras indeed after that is done there remaines a chiefe businesse which is to conceiue effectuall sorrow for all other deadly sins For which cause when we vnderstand that a Catholike who hath true Faith dyes suddenly or without Sacramentall absolution we are moved with just feare and griefe So that Charity Maintayned expressly requires two things A renounciation of errours and contrition both for those sinfull errours and all other sins And therfore you had no reason at all to say Pa. 31. N. 3. I wish you had expressed yourselfe in this matter more fully and plainly hee having declared himselfe very clearly 2. But you are not only vnreasonable but vnjust also when you take for plaine that which even yourselfe in this very place say was not plaine And what you saie is only insinuated that though no light did cleare the errours of a dying Protestant yet Contrition might retract his sins you take for a plaine affirmation or concession and continue to do so and build vpon it through your whole Booke declaring therby that you do proficere in pejus even against your owne sayings passing from an insinuating to a certainty for which cause the Author of that pithy and learned treatise called the totall summe Pag 39. calles your proceeding in this particular an impudent slandering of Charity Maintayned And that what you cannot obtaine by truth and fayre dealing you seeke to get by falshood fraud and forgery And Pag 40. that without shame you falsify the Tenet of your Adversary and the Doctrine of our Church And Pag 42. That the saying which Pag 31. N. 4. you set downe in a distinct character as the verball and formall Assertion of Charity Maintayned is forged and fayned by yourselfe from the first to the last syllable therof not only against his meaning in that place but also the whole drift of his Treatise and that in this you shew the Adamantinall hardness of your Socinian forhead and Samosatenian conscience And Pag 43. That it is an impudent vntruth and that your collection of it out of Charity Maintayned is a fond and voluntary inference as most certainly it is For neither Charity Maintayned himselfe nor any other who read his Booke did ever intertaine any least imagination of such a meaning Insomuch that a Protestant Writer Francis Cheynell hath these words Men are damned saith he Mr. Chillingworth I who dy in willfull errours without repentance but what if they dy in their errours with repentance Answer in the preface Pag 20. That is a contradiction saith the Iesuit and he sayth true which shewes the Doctrine of Charity Maintayned to be that sinfull errours cannot remaine with repentance but must be relinquished Lastly to make this your calumny inexcusable Charity Maintayned N. 5. hath these very words But yet least any man should flatter himselfe with our charitable mitigations and therfore waxe carelessin search of the true Church we desire him to read the Conclusion of the second Part where this matter is more explayned Now in that Conclusion he teaches that our greatest care must be to find out that one saving Truth which can be found only in the true visible Catholique Church of Christ which we shall be sure not to misse if our endeavour be not wanting to his
grace who desires that all men should be saved and come to the knowledg of truth Where you see Ch Ma saith it is in our power with Gods grace to find that saving Truth which is but one and is to be found only in the true visible Church of Christ and so it must 〈◊〉 our fault if we misse therof and consequently that our errours will be sinfull and that we cannot effectually repent of them without passing to the Truth that is without destroying those culpable sinfull errours which by Gods grace is in our power to destroy by embracing the contrary truths And afterward Ch Ma saith that the search of this truth will not proue so hard and intricate as men imagine because God hath endued his visible Church with so conspicuous markes of vnity and agreement in Doctrine Vniversality for tyme and place a never interrupted Succession of Pastours a perpetuall visibility from the Apostles to vs c. far beyond any probable pretence that can be made by any other congregations that whosoever doth seriously and vnpartially weigh these notes may easily discerne to what Church they belong Thus Ch Ma to shew how culpable and inexcusable they are who do not actually embrace Catholique Religion and forsake all other Congregations and errours And yet to take away all possibility for you to deceiue the world with this vnjust calumnie Ch Ma hath these very words Let not men flatter and deceiue themselves that ignorance will excuse them For there are so many and so easy and yet withall so powerfull meanes to find the true Church that it is a most dangerous ād pernicious errour to rely vpon the excuse of invincible ignorance What could he haue sayd more than to stile the Hope of Salvation by meanes of ignorance a pernicious errour Yet more and more to confute your calumnie and declare his owne sense he adds I wish them to consider that he can least hope for reliefe by ignorance who once confides therin because his very alledging of ignorance shewes that God hath put some thoughts into his mynd of seeking the safest way which if he relying on Gods Grace do carefully and constantly endeavour to examine discusse and perfitt he shall not faile to find what he seekes and to obtaine what he askes Now if Ch Ma teach so effectually that none must hope to be saved by ignorance with what truth or justice can you say that in his opinion Protestants may be saved without actually retracting their sinfull errours Nay I am sure Ch Ma believes that if God will in his Goodness bring a man to Salvation he will be sure by his Wisdome to apply those Meanes which in the ordinary course of his holy providence he hath appointed for that end which is to embrace the true Faith and to be a true member of the true visible Church 3. You pretend to beleeue that de facto God will bring none to heaven without Faith in Christ and beliefe of Christian Religion If then one should aske whether a Pagan or Jew or Turke could be saved with an vniversall sorrow for all his errours and sins knowne and vnknowne what would you answer If you say they might be saved you contradict yourselfe and grant that Salvation may be had without faith in Christ If you say they could not be saved because God de facto hath appointed Faith in Christ as a necessary condition or meanes for Salvation The same I answer in our case that God hath decreed to saue none without true Faith which is only in the true Uisible Church yea to be a true Christian and to be a Catholike is all one there being not any other true Christian Faith than that which is taught by the Catholique Church nor is there any true Church of Christ but One and therfore as you pretend to hold Christian Faith to be necessary for Salvation you should also hold the same of the Catholique Faith and consequently that none can be saved with any sinfull errour contrary to that Faith nor that it can be true Repentance which doth not exclude any such errour And all that you can Object against this truth may be objected in behalfe of Jewes or Turks against your pretended beliefe that Faith in Christ is necessary to Salvation They might I say demand of you why they may not haue true Contrition and pardon of their sins by a generall repentance of all their offences knowne and vnknowne and among the rest of their errours against or ignorance of Christian Religion and what you answer to them will serve for a confutation of your Arguments against vs. For this cause Charity Maintayned Part 1. Pag 28 N. 3. saith that we hope and pray for the conversion of Protestants and surely our meaning is not that they be converted to vs by remaining in their former beliefe contrary to vs. But Ch M. need not wonder that you falsify him seing you are not ashamed to say Pag 34. N. 6. that according to the grounds of our Catholike Religion Protestants may dy in their supposed errours either with excusable ignorance or with contrition and if they do so may be saved But I beseech you out of what Ground or Principle of Catholique Religion can you dreame to collect that Protestants can be saved by ignorance or with Contrition remayning formall Protestants And it is a comfort for Ch Ma to be calumniated by you in that very thing wherin you calumniate the whole Church of God In the meane tyme by what I haue sayd innumerable places I may say the chiefest part of your Booke are answered which goe vpon this false ground that men may be saved without relinquishing their sinfull and damnable errours which you perpetually affirme without any proofe And what reason can be given why a man cannot be saved without relinquishing other deadly sins for example Hatred Perjury Theft c. and yet that it is not necessary to forsake errours confessed to be sinfull and damnable But it is no wonder that Heretikes are willing to sooth their Heresyes with false priviledges denyed to all other deadly sins 4. To your numbers 1.2.3.4.5.6 I haue answered already You say Pag 33. N. 4. the truth is the corruption of the Church and the destruction of it is not all one For if a particular man or Church may as you confesse they may hold some particular errours and yet be a member of the Church vniversall why may not the Church hold some vniversall errour and yet be still the Church Especially seing you 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 itselfe Why do you stopp here and not goe forward to declare what lyes involued in your discourse thus In the tyme of the Apostles if a particular man or Church might haue held some errour and yet remained a member of the Church
knowledge of Scripture Do not these words speake of the first Principle among Christians who alone receiue Scripture and not of Principles in Metaphysicke Mathematicke c which were nothing to the purpose Or who ever dreamed that Scripture could be the most knowne in all sciences seing it is not knowne by any naturall science but depends on Divine Revelation Yea doth not Ch Ma expressly say That if Potter meane Scripture to be one of those Principles which being the first and most knowne in all sciences cannot be Demonstrated by other Principles He supposes that which is in question Which words declare That Scripture is none of those Principles which are most knowne either in all naturall sciences or in Christianity 16. Out of what hath beene sayd very often it is easy to answer and retort all that you haue in all your sections till the N. 62. For to vs who belieue the Church of God to be infallible diversity of Tranlations or corruptions can bring no harme seeing we are sure that the Church can neverapproue any false Translation or corruption nor ground vpon them any Point of Faith But for you who deny the infallibility of the Church and rely vpon Scripture alone false Translations or corruptions may import no less than the losse of your soules by being led into some damnable errour or left in ignorance of some Point necessary to salvation For to rely vpon Scripture alone and yet not to know with certainty what Scripture in particular is Canonicall and incorrupted is to take away all certainty from it and from the Faith of Protestants grounded on it alone The Church did exist before any Scripture was written and must last although we should imagine that all Scripture were lost as some say it happened to the Old Testament at least it lay hid Only I must note for answer to your N. 58. and 59. that Catholikes object to Protestants not only difference of Translations of which you speake N. 59. but that one of them most deeply condemnes the Translation of the other as Ch Ma Pag 52. N. 16. sets downe at large As for the vulgate Translation approved by the sacred Councell of Trent we are sure that it can containe no errour against Faith and for diverse Readings we are certaine that the Church can never approue any one that is false or settle any doctrine vppon it as I sayd even now But to treate at large of this Translation would require a Uolume and is not for this tyme for my or even your purpose In your N. 61 you pretend to make good or excuse Luther who in the Text where it is said Rom 3.28 We account a man to be justifyed by Faith translates justifyed by Faith Alone and in stead of proving you only ask What such great difference is there between Faith without the works of the Law and Faith alone without the works of the Law Or why does not without Alone signifie all one with Alone Without Answer there is as great difference between those two Propositions as betwene Truth and Falshood That a man is justifyed by Faith without the works of the Law is a truth believed both by Catholiques and Protestants for both of vs belieue that Faith concurres to justification But that other Proposition A man is justifyed by Faith alone without the works of the Law signifyes that we are not justifyed by the works of the Law but by Faith alone that is by nothing but by Faith which is false and excludes justification by Hope Charity and works of Christian piety and accordingly Luther being admonished of this shamefull falsification answered poenitet me quod non addiderim illas duas voces omnibus omnium vz. sine omnibus operibus omnium legum Besides it is strang you will defend this falsification of Alone seing Pag 406. N. 32. you wish that those Chapters of S. Paul which intreat of justification by Faith without the works of the Law were never read in the Church but wheÌ„ the 13. Chap of the 1. Epist to the Corinth Concerning the absolute necessity of Charity should be to prevent misprision read togeather with theÌ„ But then good Sr. what danger of misprision must it needs be when people shall think S. Paul spoke of Faith Alone as Luther makes him speak To this may be added what you haue Pag 218. N. 49. of the danger of justification by Faith alone Neither I nor others with whom I haue confered can make any sense of your other workes Or why does not Without c. The translation of Zuinglius This signifyes my Body in stead of This is my Body is rejected by Protestants themselves where of see Brereley Tract 2. Cap 3. Sect. 9. Subd 3. 17. In your N 62. till the 80 inclusiue you vainly triumph as if you did invincibly proue that according to our Groundes mens salvation depends vpon vncertaintyes All which I haue answered at large hertofore 18. Concerning your N. 83 I desire the Reader to consider what Charity Maintayned recites out of Dr Couell about our vulgate Tanslation of Scripture and he will find that your Answer to that particular is but a vaine speculation and that he supposes the Translation which is called the Bishops Bible and is approved in England to be the best as coming neerest to the vulgate which had been no proofe at all vnless he had also supposed the Vulgate to be the best all things considered and so made it a Rule to Judge of the goodness and quality of that English Translation 19. To your N. 86. I answer that if Dr Field when he saith in his Treatise of the Church in his Epistle Dedicatory to the L. Archbishop Seeing the Controversyes of Religion in our tymes are growne in number so many and in nature so intricate that few haue tyme and leasure fewer strength of vnderstanding to examine them what remayneth for men desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence but diligently to search out which among all the societyes in the world is that blessed Company of holy Ones that how should of Faith that Spouse of Christ and Church of the living God which is the Pillar and Ground of Truth that so they may imbraâ—e her Communion follow her directions and rest in her judgment If I say Dr. Field did not thinke of any company of Christians invested with such Authority from God that all men were bound to receiue their decrees as you say he did not I can only say that when he spoke of searching out that Blessed Company of holy Ones c he spoke of a Chimera or of a thing impossible and yet he saith that there remaineth for men desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence only this that they search out which among all the societyes in the world is that Blessed Company of holy Ones c which had bene nothing els but to bring men to desperation by prescribing one only meanes for salvation and that an
impossible one And that he and other Protestants do but cosin the world and speake contradictions or non-sense when they talke of a perpetuall visible Church which cannot erre in Fundamentall Points and whose Communion we are to embrace and yet tell vs that such a visible Church cannot be designed in particular where and which she is For this is all one as to make her invisible and vncognoscible and of no vse at all and therfore they being forced by manifest Scripture to assert and belieue a perpetuall visible Church we must without asking them leaue necessarily inferr that this Church by their owne necessary confession must be designable and cognoscible in particular You say By all societyes of the world it is not impossible nor very improbable he might meane all that are or haue beene in the world and so include even the Primitiue Church But this is no better then ridiculous For he saith What remaineth but diligently to search out which among all societyes in the world is that Church of the liuing God which is the Pillar and Ground of Truth that so they may imbrace her Communion c You see he speakes of that society of men which is the Church and which is the Pillar of Truth and would haue men search it out wheras the Primitiue Church neither is but hath beene nor was it for but directly against the Doctours purpose to advise men to search out the Primitiue Church and her Doctrine which had required tyme and leasure and strength of vnderstanding which he saith few men haue and therfore he must vnderstand a Church to be found in these tymes whose Directions they should follow and rest in her judgment To say as you doe that we embrace her Communion if we belieue the Scripture endeavour to find the true sense of it and liue according to it is very fond as if the Doctour spoke of Scripture when he named the Church and in saying we are to embrace the Communion of the Church he meant we should embrace the Communion of Scripture which had beene a strang kind of phrase and in advising vs to seeke out that society of men and that Company of Holy Ones he vnderstood not men but the writings of men Do not your selfe say that the subject he wrote of was the Church and that if he strayned too high in commendation of it what is that to vs Therfore it is cleare he spoke not of the Scripture in commendation wherof you will not say he strayned too high but of the Church and of the Church of our tymes and so saith the Controversyes of Religion in our tymes are growne c But why do I loose tyme in confuting such toyes as these It being sufficient to say in a word that Protestants in this capitall Article of the invisibility and infallibility of the Church are forced to vtter some mayne Truthes in favour of Catholikes though with contradiction to themselves 20. In your N. 87. You do but trifle Charity Maintayned N. 18. said That the true interpretation of Scripture ought to be receâ—ved from the Church is proved c To this you answer That the true interpretation of the Scripture ought to be reveaved from the Church you need not proue for it is very easily granted by them who professe themselves ready to receaue all Truthes much more the true sense of Scripture not only from the Church but any society of men nay from any man whatsoever But who sees not that this is but a cavill and that Charity Maintayned to the Question which was in hand from whence the interpretation of Scripture was to be received answered it is to be received from the Church And I pray if one should say the knowledge or truth of Philosophy is to be received from Philosophers would you say this need not be proved nor even affirmed to them who profess themselves ready to receiue all Truths not only from Philosophers but from any man whatsoever 21. You labour N. 90.91.92 to proue that Protestants receiue not the Scripture vpon the Authority of our Church but in vaine For what true Church of Christ was there when Luther appeared except the Roman and such as agreed with her even in those Points wherin Protestants disagree from vs and for which they pretend to haue forsaken our Communion Doth not Luther in his Booke against Anabaptists confess that you haue the Scripture from vs And Doue in his persw sion to English Recusants c Pag 13. sayth Wee hold the Creed of the Apostles of Athanasius of Nyce of Ephesus of Constantinople and the same Byble which we receyved from them And Whitaker Lib de Eccles c Pag 369. confesseth that Papists hâ—ue Scripture and Baptisme c and that they came from them to Protestants That you receiue some Bookes and reject others which the vniversall Church before Luther received argues only that you are formall Heretikes that is voluntary choosers and that not believing the infallibility of the Church you haue no certainty of any Booke or parcell or period of Scripture And wheras you say N. 90. that we hold now those Bookes to be Canonicall which formerly we rejected from the Canon and instance in the Booke of Machabees and the Epistle to the Hebrewes and add that the first of these we held not to be Canonicall in S. Gregoryes tyme or els he was no member of our Church for it is apparent He held otherwise and that the second we rejected from the Canon in S. Hieromes tyme as it is evâ—dent out of many places in his workes I answer that it is impossible the Church should now hold those Bookes to be Canonicall which formerly she rejected from the Canon and if there were any doubt concerning these Bookes of Scripture they were not doubted of by any Definition of the Church but by some particular persons which doubt the Church did cleare in due tyme as I haue declared heretofore and answered your Objection out of S. Gregory about the Machabees as also Charity Maintayned Part 2. Pag 195. which you ought not to haue dissembled did answer the same Objection made by Potter Concerning the Epistle to the Hebrewes I beseech the Reader to see what Baronius anno Christi 60. N. 42. seqq writes excellently of this matter and demonstrates that the Latine Church never rejected that Epistle as he proves out of Authors who wrote both before and after S. Hierome and that S. Hierome relyed vpon Eusebius and therfore your absolute Assertion that this Epistle was rejected in tyme of S. Hierome is no lesse vntrue than bold Neither ought you to haue concealed the answer of Char Maintayn Part 2. Chap 7. Pag 197. where he saith thus Wonder not if S. Hierome speake not always in the same manner of the Canon of the Old Testament since vpon experience examination and knowledge of the sense of the Church he might alter his opinion as once he sayd ad Paulinum of the
you would spend tyme in such toyes The maine Question being whether the Church or Scripture be Judge or Rule of Controversyes in Faith Charity Maintayned N. 19. proves that the Scripture cannot be such a Judge because it is not intelligible to all that is to vnlearned persons as the Church is and therfore inferrs that not the Scripture but the Church must be Judge And is not that a good consequence Besides you say that Charity Maintayned in the beginning of his N. 19. which you impugne vndertooke only to proue that Scripture is not a Judge Therfore you grant that he proved all that he vndertooke in that place though he added by way of supererogation that the Church must be that Judge which was the chiefe thing he intended to proue in this Chapter and which followes evidently of the Scriptures not being Judge it being supposed that either the Scripture or Church must be A grievous Crime in Charity Maintayned to proue a pertinent and most important Truth 31. The words of the Apostle Rom 14.5 Let every one abound in his owne sense are prophanely applyed by you as if every one might follow his owne sense for the interpretation of Scripture which delivers Divine Revelations and you confess that to disbelieue objects so revealed is damnable in it selfe S. Paul speakes of things indifferent and which at that tyme were neither commanded not absolutly forbidden to the Jewes in the Old Law which then was mortua but not mortifera dead but not deadly 32. Your N. 104. till the N. 106. inclusiuè haue beene answered at large You suppose N. 108. and N. 113. that to find out the true Church every one must be able to examine the succession of visible Professours of the same doctrine through all Ages or els to examine the Church by the conformity of her doctrine with the doctrine of the first Age as you speak N. 108. Both which we deny and affirme that the Catholique Church of every Age carryes along with her so many conspicuous Notes of the true Church and all her enemies appeare with so many Markes of Errour that no man who seriously thinkes of his Eternall Happyness can chuse but clearly see the difference and behold a way so cleare ita vt stulti non errent per eam This answer is solid and evident for vs. But you who teach that we receaue Scripture from the vniversall Tradition of the Churches of all Ages and not for the Testimony of the present Church how will you enable all men to examine whether the Scripture and much more whether every Booke and parcell of Scripture hath bene delivered by all Churches even till you arriue to the Primitiue Church and by it include the Apostles Wherin we may vse these your owne words N. 108. This tryall of necessity requires a great sufficiency of knowledge of the monuments of Christian Antiquity which no vnlearned can haue because he that hath it cannot be vnlearned You say also How shall he an vnlearned man possibly be able to know whether the Church of Rome hath had a perpetuall Succession of visible Professors which held always the same doctrine which they now hold without holding any thing to the contrary vnless he hath first examined what was the doctrine of the Church in the first Age what in the second and so forth And whether this be not a more difficult worke than to stay at the first Age and to examine the Church by the conformity of Her Doctrine with the Doctrine of the first Age every man of ordinary vnderstanding may Iudge But I would know how one can examine the Church by the conformity of her Doctrine with the Doctrine of the first Age except by the monuments and Tradition of all the Ages which intervene betwixt the first Age and his which no vnlearned can doe because he that can doe it cannot be vnlearned And so it seemes you will haue vnlearned men despaire of all meanes to find the true Faith Church and salvation Will you haue them passe as it were persaltum immediately from this present Age to the first or Primitiue Age of the Church without the helpe of writings or other meanes of the middle Ages What remedy therfore can there be to overcome these difficultyes except an infallible beliefe that the Vniversall Church of every Age cannot erre And that otherwise all will be brought to vncertaintyes euery man of ordinary vnderstanding may Judge 32. For Answer to your N. 110. till the 122. inclusiuè I say No man indued with reason will deny the vse of Reason even in matters belonging to Faith But we deny that Reason is not to yield to Authority when assisted by Gods Grace it hath once shewed vs some infallible Guide and Authority to which all must submitt and so as it were cease to be different particular men and be in a manner one vnderstanding guided by one visible infallible Judge for want wherof Protestants remaine irreconciliably divided into as many opinions as they are men of different vnderstanding and will yea one man is divided from himself as he alters his Opinions Reason then may dispose or manuduct vs to Faith but the Object into which Faith is resolved is the Divine Revelation at which Reason did point and to which it must submitt Otherwise Faith were but Opinion which even Dr Potter affirmes to be a good consequence And it should not be the Gift of God but the Act of it should be produced by the force of nature and the Habit be an acquired and not infused Habit which is evidently against Scripture as I proved in the Introduction I wonder how you dare alledge Scripture as you do as if the places which you alledg N. 116. for trying of Spirits did signify that we are to try them by humane Reason and not by the Doctrine of the Church and Holy Scripture interpreted by Her But in this you shew yourselfe to haue drunke the very quintessence of Socinianisme 33. Charity Maintayned had Reason to say N. 29. What good states men would they be who should ideate or fancy such a Commonwealth as these men haue framed to themselves a Church And N. 22. What confusion to the Church what danger to the Commonwealth this denyall of the Authority of the Church may bring I leaue to the consideration of any judicious indifferent man For if it be free for every one to thinke as he pleases who will hinder him from vttering his thoughts in matters which he conceives belong to Faith and to conforme his practise to his thoughts and words And by that meanes sowe discord in the Church and sedition in the Commonwealth And therfore what you say N. 122. that men only interpret for themselves is not alwaies true but their selfe interpretation may indeed redound to the hurt of other both Private ād Publicke Persons and Communityes if their thoughts chance to pitch vpon some object which may be cause of mischiefe 34. Howsoever N. 118.
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
consisted of the Apostles who determined not only what others but what themselves were to belieue if they had not believed it already as de facto they did belieue it before the Councell and so the Apostles had determined what the Apostles were to belieue The same may be applyed to Generall Councells who determine even what they themselves are to belieue and vniversally if we do conceiue any congregation to be infallibly assisted by God they may declare what themselves and others are to belieue though that congregation be nothing but an aggregation of such Believers Yourselfe confess that the Governers of the Church may determine Rites Ceremonies c for the whole Congregation and so for themselves according to your inference yea if you vnderstand the matter as you should in determining Rites c they determine what every one is not only to practise but to belieue also as I sayd aboue and so all believers may determine in this sense what they are to belieue But the truth is you erre even in Philosophy not considering that when a thing is determined by a Community endued with sufficient Authority to command and define the obligation falls not vpon the whole collectiuè compared with the whole that is adaequate with it selfe but as the whole respects a particular member or part from which it is truly distinguished as includens ab incluso and the whole a singulis partibns in the manner that a mans soule is distinguished from a man Besides the precept of Faith or Believing is not a pure Ecclesiasticall precept but a Divine command obliging All and Every one to belieue whatsoever the Church propounds as revealed by God which therby becomes an Object of Faith And I hope you will not deny but that although it were granted that a man cannot oblige himself nor a community it self by their owne Authority or command yet God may and doth oblige all and every one to belieue whatsoever is propounded as a Divine truth by such an infallible Propounder as the Church is which in that sense may truly be sayed to determine what all are to belieue We may also add that by the Church are vnderstood the Pastours and Prelates therof who are not the whole Church collectiuè but may command and define for the whole Church Lastly what doth this your answer belong to the Point of which Charity Maintayned spoke That there is a greater necessity of some infallible authority in the Church of Christ than in the Synagogue of the Jewes because the Lawes Rites c were more particularly and as I may say minutely determined in the Old then in the New Law which therfore stands in need of some Living Judge to determine for all the many varietyes and different occasions that may present themselves 48. Your N. 143. is answered in three words that when S. Paul 1. Cor. 16.11 sayd All these thinges chanced to them in figure Every body sees that he meant not of the temporall but of the Ecclesiasticall or spirituall state of the Jewes and so if they had one high Priest who was endued with infallibility much more ought we to belieue that there is such an infallibility in Gods Church And the Reader by comparing the words of Charity Maintayned with your Objection will of himselfe see that you labour to seeke but can find no solide matter against him Neither did he ever say that the Ecclesiasticall Government of the Jewes was a Patterne for the Ecclesiasticall Government to Christians as you would make him speake but expressly that the Synagogue was a type and figure of the Church of Christ for those are his words Now to be only a type and figure argues imperfection To be a Patterne expresses perfection as being a Rule modell and an idea of that in respect wherof it is a Patterne 49. You needed not in your N. 144. pretend to doubt what discourse Ch. Ma. meant when in the beginning of his N. 24. he sayd This discourse is excellently proved by ancient S. Irenaeus For it was easy to see that he spoke of that discourse which he held in his immediatly precedent N. 23. His discourse was that the Church of the Old and New Law did exist respectiuè before any Scripture was written as there he shewes at large and consequently that Tradition and not scripturedid then beget faith which is also clearly confirmed by the place which Ch. Ma. cited N. 24. out of S. Irenaeus whose meaning you do pervert against himselfe and even against yourselfe The words of the Saint Lib 3. Cap 4. are What if the Apostles had not left Scriptures ought we not to haue followed the order of Tradition which they delivered to those to whom they committed the Churches To which order many Nations yield assent who belieue in Christ having salvation written in their harts by the spirit of God without letters or inke and diligently keeping ancient Tradition It is easy to receaue the truth from Gods Church seing the Apostles haue most fully deposited in her as in a rich storehouse all things belonging to truth For what If there should arise any contention of some small question ought we not to haue recourse to the most ancient Churches and from them to receiue what is certaine and cleare concerning the present question These be the words of S. Irenaeus cited by Charity Maintayned which declare that Tradition is sufficient and powerfull to produce Faith even with facility as S. Irenaeus expresses himselfe though no Scripture had beene written And this he affirmes not by way of conjecture or discourse what God would haue done if there had beene no Scriptures but that de facto there was existent such a powerfull Tradition as to it not one nor some nor few but many nations did yield assent without letters or inke that is without Scripture And in this Chapter N. 159. you say Irenaeus tells vs of some barbarous Nations that believed the doctrine of Christ and yet believed not the Scripture to be the word of God for they never heard of it and Faith comes by hearing From whence you inferr That a man may be saved though he should not know or not belieue Scripture to be the word of God if he belieue Christian Religiō wholly and entirely and liue according to it If this be true doth it not follow that Scripture alone is not the only nor a necessary Rule of Faith seing by tradition alone men may be saved though they should not know or not belieue Scripture to be the word of God And that by this concession you directly blott out the very title of this Chapter which is Scripture the only Rule wherby to judge of controversyes 50. Now let vs heare what you can Object against Charity Maintayned in this matter You say N. 144. In saying what if the Apostles had not left Scripture ought we not to haue fellowed the order of Tradition And in saying that to this order many Nations yield assent who
were present and to which they gaue consent namely the Councell of Lateran vnder Innoc 3. Anno 1215. The Councell of Lyons vnder Gregory the 10. Anno 1273. The Councell of Florence Anno 1438. And you must consider that the Grecians hold Generall Councells to be Rules of Faith Of this matter Brierly Tract 1. Sect 7. Subdiv 2. Marg 11. Pag 202. speakes very well and shewes even out of Protestant Writers the beginning of the Errours of the Grecians and their defections from the Roman Church and in particular saith that twelue tymes or therabout hath the Greeke Church reconciled itselfe to Rome and afterwards fallen from thence being the rupon now at last wholly oppressed with barbarous Turcisme And here I may well alledge the saying of S. Antonin Part 4. Tit 11. Cap 7. that since the Grecians divided themselves from vs they do daily more and more faile in Wisdome in temporall power in good life neither hath any of them wrought miracles And yet notwithstanding all this even the Schismaticall Grecians do agree with Catholikes almost in all the Points in which the Protestants disagree from vs as Brierly in the same place demonstrates out of Protestant Authors And the same is set downe in Charity Maintayned Part 1. Chap 5. N. 48. citing in particular Potter who Pag 225. denyes not but they belieâ—e Transubstantiation By all which it appeares that of the Greeke Schismaticall Church you say to vs against truth all that there is not one Note of your Church which agrees not to her as well as to your owne Seing by the novelty of Her Errours her Alterations Contradictions and Heresy she must want Antiquity Unity Perpetuity Vniversality for tyme and place as is obvious to every one to Judge by what we haue sayd 79. You say N. 165. Neither is it so easy to be determined as you pretend that Luther and other Protestants opposed the whole Church in matter of Faith 80. Answer we haue lately heard you say N. 152. Perhaps you may be in a dreame and perhaps you and all the men in the world haue beene so when they thought they were awake and then only awake when they thought they dreamed Which it seemes proves to be your owne case who pretend to be awake and yet dreame of men in the Moone agreeing with Luther when he first arose which either is a dreame or all those learned Protestants who are cited by Charity Maintayned Part 1. Chap 5. N. 9. and N. 12. were in a dreame As he who sayd It is impudency to say that many learned men in Germany before Luther did hold the doctrine of the Gospell And I may say that far greater impudency it were to affirme that Germany did not agree with the rest of Europe and other Cristian Catholique natious and consequently that it is the greatest impudency to deny that he departed from the Communion of the visible Catholique Church spredd over the whole world As he who affirmeth it to be ridiculous to thinke that in the tyme before Luther any had the purity of Doctrine as he who sayd if there had beene right bâ—lâ—evers which went before Luther in his office there had then beene no need of a Lutheran Reformation as he who sayth The Truth was vnknowne at that tyme and vnheard of when Martin Luther and Vldericke Zuinglius first came vnto the knowledg and preaching of the Gospell As he who saith We say that before the dayes of Luther for the space of many hundred yeares an vniversall Apostasy overspredâ— the whole face of the earth As he who teacheth that from the yeare of Christ three hundred and sixteene the AntiChristian aÌ„d Papisticall Raigne had begun raigning vniversally and without any debateable contradiction one thousand two hundred sixty yeares that is till Luthers tyme As he who affirmes thâ— it the true Church was interrupted by apostasy from the true Faith As Calvin who saith of Protestants in generall we haue beene forced to make a separation from the whole world As Luther who saith At the first I was alone The particular names and places of these Protestants may be seene in the now cited place of Charity maintayned with more other speaking to the same purpose With what modesty then caÌ„ you say that it is not easy to be determined that Luther and other Protestants opposed the whole Visible Church in matters of Faith If any will interpret your words so as that you do not deny but that Luther opposed the whole Visible Church it being evident that he did so but that the things wherin he opposed Her were not matters of Faith this interpretation will serue only to make good that Luther was inexcusable in dividing himselfe from the whole Church for matters not belonging to Faith CHAP XII THE ANSWER TO HIS THIRD CHAPTER ABOVT FVNDAMENTALL AND NOT FVNDAMENTALL POINTS 1. WHosoever peruses the Third Chapter of Ch Ma and considers vnpartially with what clearnesse and methode it is written and compares with it your Answer cannot but judge that you proceed with much confusion snatching at words or periods and amusing men with fond vnlearned subtiltyes and by Points as if your chiefe care had beene to divert or as I may say hood winke the Reader for the maine Controversy by petty diversions In proofe of what I say I beseech the Reader to run over the first fiue numbers or Sections of Ch. ma. and he will find I doe you no wrong 2. I wonder you will always be taking pleasure in toyes and vntruthes First N. 4. you affirme that if we say we agree in matters of Faith it is ridiculous and that we define matters of Faith to be those wherin we agree So that to say you agree in matters of Faith is to say you agree in those things wherin you do agree And then N. 5. That we are all agreed that only those things wherin we do agree are matters of faith which you put in a distinct letter as out Doctrine and then add these words of your owne And Protestants if they were wise Could do so toâ— wheras you know it to be both ridiculous and vntrue that we haue any such saying and that we define matters of Faith to be all those Objects which are sufficiently proposed by the Church as revealed by God without dependance of any mans agreeing or disagreeing in them though it be true that by consequence whosoever agrees in such truths must agree among themselves for those truthes as proportionably Quae sunt eadem vni tertio sunteadem interse And our deduction is this Whosoever agree in the beliefe of all things revealed by God agree in all matters of Faith Catholikes agree in the beliefe of all things revealed by God Therfore they agree in all matters of Faith But we are not so foolish as to say that if a Catholike should inculpably deny a thing revealed by God and so disagree from other Catholikes that therfore our Faith were changed because all do not agree
in those Objects in which they may chance inculpably to disagree You define the Religion of Protestants to be the Bible and that all who belieue all plaine Texts therof are true Protestants and do agree in matters of Faith and therfore must agree among themselves in such Points Now I aske whether you will define matters of Faith to be those wherin Protestants agree If you say yes then I take your owne words and say this is ridiculous and as if we should say Protestants agree in those things wherin they agree If you answer No but that matters of Faith are those which are clearly contained in Scripture whether or no Protestants or any other belieue them then you both answer and confute your owne Objection and turne it against yourselfe You say it is ridiculous to say we agree in matters of Faith and are all agreed that only those things wherin we agree are matters of Faith And yet you say Protestants if they were wise would do so too which is to say Protestants if they were wise would do that which you say is ridiculous Nay according to this your wholsome advise if they will be wise they must not regard what indeed is matter of Faith as being revealed by God but only that they procure to agree among themselves and then say that they agree in matters of Faith which is to say they agree in those things wherin they do agree which is the thing you object against vs. Neverthelesse I know not well by what Logike you will inferr that we speake as if one would say we agree in those things wherin we agree vnless perhaps by some such wild Syllogisme as this All matters of Faith are those wherin we agree but we agree in all matters of Faith Therfore we agree in all those things wherin we agree as if you say every mā is a reasonable creature but every reasonable creature is a man Therfore every mā is a mā If you would to the purpose you might say whatsoever we agree in is a matter of Faith but we agree in the belief of the Trinity c. Therfore the beliefe of the Trinity c. is a matter of Faith But howsoever this be we vtterly deny that definition of Faith and leaue it to Protestants that they may be wise according to the wisdom of your advise and definition 3. To the rest of this N. 5. as also to your N. 6. I answer that you would gladly divert vs to particular disputes But it is sufficient to say in generall That whatsoever is knowne to be proposed by the Church as revealed by God is a Point of Faith in respect of him to whom it is so proposed Neither it is pertinent to this present Worke to dispute in what subject infallibility resides Let me now tell you that which may suffice for the present that those three meanes of agreement which you mention the Pope A Councell with him The vniversall Church haue never yet nor ever shall nor ever can be found to disagree And it is no fayre dealing in you to omitt what Ch ma hath concerning this matter Part 2. Chapt 5. N. 15. and 16. where he answers the objection ād discovers the falsifications of Potter in citing Catholique Authors about this point But to proue that the vniversall Church cannot be infallible or a meanes of agreement you say N. 6. And indeed what way of ending Controversyes can this be when either part may pretend that they are part of the Church and they receiue not the decree therfore the whole Church hath not received it Answer I know no man hath greater obligation to answer your Objection than yourselfe who teach that by vniversall Tradition we know Scripture to be the word of God For if one should say what way of determining what Scripture is the Word of God can this be when if any deny it they may pretend that they are part of the Church and they receiue not such or such Scriptures therfore the whole Church or vniversall Tradition hath not received them If you answer that the number or Authority of a few is not considerable in comparison or opposition to all the rest nor ought to prevaile against the contrary suffrages as you speake Pag 68. N. 43. I answer First that if the Church be fallible it is not the number but the waight of reason which ought to prevaile And secondly you cannot but see how easy it is for vs to say the same That it imports not if some who are not of consideration in respect of all the rest disagree from them But the truth is your Objection is of no force vnless you helpe it out with your wonted refuge of begging the Question and supposing the Church not to be infallible For if she be infallible whosoever oppose Her decrees and Definitions by doing so become Heretikes and cease to be members of the Church nor can pretēd that they are part of the Church and they receiue not the decree Therfore the whole Church hath not received it As I sayd aboue that Schismatiques cannot pretend to be members of the Church after their separation And this your subtility is directly against Dr. Potter Pag 57. saying Whosoever either wilfully opposes any Catholique Verity maintayned by this Church or the Catholique visible Church as doe Heretikes or perversly drvides himselfe from the Catholique Communion is doe Schismatikes the condition of both is damnable The Scriptures and Fathers cited here by the Mistaker proue this and no more and therfore prone nothing against Protestants who never denyed it Now why do you not aske your client Potter How any man can oppose the whole Church or depart from Her Communion seing they who oppose and depart may pretend that they are part of the Church and do not oppose or depart from themselves and therfore Protestants who the Doctour saith never denyed it must deny it if they will belieue you or you must deny yourselfe if you will belieue them Your N. 7.8 are meere words without any proofe and deserue no other Answer 4. Your whole N. 9. is plainly impertinent Charity Maintayned Part 1. Chap 3. N. 1. declared how Protestants are wont to abuse the distinction of Points Fundamentall and not Fundamentall to many purposes of theirs and among the rest to this That if you object their bitter and cotinued discords in matters of Faith without any meanes of agreement they instantly tell you they differ in points not Fundamentall In which words it is cleare that Ch. Ma. intends only to shew what vse Protestants make of the sayd distinction and that he speakes truth you neither do nor can deny the thing being notorious But you decline the matter and say I desire you to tell me whether they do so or doe not so that is whether they differ in points only not Fundamentall or do nor differ in them If they doe so I hope you will not find fault with the Answer But your hope
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
ignorance or Nescience I deny That he is ignorant by a positiue errour or ignorance prauae dispositionis I grant and so when you assume He who knowes not the truth is ignorant of it you must distinguish according to the double sense of ignorance which hath beene declared and not speake with such confusion This same distinction I find in Dr. Potter Pag 243. where speaking of some Fundamentall Articles of Faith he hath these words These are so absolutly necessary to all Christians for attaining the end of our Faith that is the salvation of our soules that a Christian may loose himselfe not only by a positiue erring in them or denying of them but by a pure ignorance or nescience or not knowing of them Where you see he distinguishes between error and not knowing and therfore one may be ignorant of what another believes and yet not erre against it or disbelieue it As it is one thing not to be hot and another to be hold Now Charity Maintayned expressly distinguishes between pure ignorance and errour and therfore you do very ill first to confound them and then vpon that affected mistake frame your Objections The same equivocation you haue Pag 25. where you make a shewe of great subtility but indeed the Reader will finde nothing but vanity as I shewed in that place 14. You say to Charity Maintayned If your meaning were they were not ignorant that each other held these opinions or of the sense of the opinions which they held c I answer that this saying of yours is nothing to the purpose For though de facto Protestants are not ignorant what opinion other Protestants hold and therfore their disagreement is more patent and not only against the opinions by whomsoever they might chance to be held but also against opinions knowne to be defended by them whom they will needs call Brethren Yet indeed it is meerly accidentall and in no wise necessary to our present purpose that one Protestant should be conscious or know that he differs in opinion from another For if it were revealed to some in the Indyes that Christ is God and Saviour of the world and he did assent to that truth while another in Europe did dissent from the like Revelation sufficiently proposed this second doth truly disbelieue what the former believes no lesse than if he had knowne that the other believes it And therfore Charity Maintayned said Protestants disbelieue and wittixgly and willingly oppose what others do belieué to be testifyed by the word of God without saying vnnecessarily that they disbelieue what they know others belieue because as I sayd this knowledge is not necessary for our present purpose concerning the disagreement of Protestants in matters of Faith Much lesse to the purpose yea directly against syncerity is your saying That if their vnderstandings be not convinced they are excusable if they do not belieue Seing Charity Maintayned did speake of objects sufficiently proposed as revealed by God which are his expresse words in this very number which you impugne 15. In your N. 19.20.21.23 nothing occurrs of difficulty which hath not beene answered elswhere And you falsify Ch. Ma. when N. 20. you say he concludes that there is nodifference betweene errours in Points Fundamentall and not Fundamentall wheras he expressly saith in his N. 3. which here you answer and N. 4. that they do not differ in this that both of them are against Gods Revelation and damnable which yourselfe often grant yet you know that in other respects he puts a maine difference betweene them even in the number next precedent and declares the matter at large Surely this is no good dealing 16. In your N. 22. you still voluntarily mistake the state of the Question though Charity Maintayned had stated it very clearly N. 3. as we haue seene i. e. that when we treate whether errour excludes salvation we speake of Points sufficiently proposed as revealed by God and not in case of invincible ignorance want of instruction or the like This being presupposed Charity Maintayned N. 4. saith thus Dr Potter forgetting to what purpose Protestants make vse of their distinction doth sinally overthrow it and yields as much as we can desire Speakinge Pag 211. of that measure and quantity of Faith without which none can be saved he saith It is enough to belieue some things by a virtuall Faith or by a generall and as it were a negatiue Faith wherby they are not denyed or contradicted Now our question is in case that divine truth although not Fundamentall be denyed and contradicted and therfore even according to Him all such denyall excludes salvation Thus Charity Maintayned whose words you cite very imperfectly in this manner It is enough by Dr Potters confession to belieue some things negatively i.e. not to deny them therfore all denyall of any divine Truth excludes salvation Thus say you omitting these very next words of Charity Maintayned now our question is in case that divine Truths although not Fundamentall be denyed and contradicted And therfore even according to Him all such denyall excludes salvation And that Dr Potter alwayes supposes a sufficient Proposition before one can be obliged not to deny or contradict those Points of which he speakes is evident because one could not be obliged vnder sin not to contradict them if they be not sufficiently proposed Which Proposition he requires Universally in matters of Faith And in this very place he saith There is a certaine measure and quantity of Faith without which none can be saved but every thing revealed belongs not to this measure And then he adds the a foresayd words It is enough to belieue some things by a virtuall Faith or by a negatiue Faith wherby they are not denyed Where it appeares that as no man is obliged to belieue those Fundamentall Points without the beliefe wherof none can be saved vnless they be sufficiently proposed so none can be obliged not to contradict Points not Fundamentall if they want sufficient Proposall And this is yet further demonstrated by Charity Maintayned who immediatly after the words of which you take notice and cite as His though imperfectly saith thus After He Dr Potter speakes more plainly in the very next Pag 212. It is true whatsoever is revealed in Scripture or propounded by the Church out of Scripture is in some sense Fundamentall in regard of the divine Authority of God and his word by which it is recommended that is such as may not be denyed or contradicted without infidelity such as every Christian is bound with humility and reverence to belieue whensoever the knowledge therof is offered to him marke whensoever the knowledg therof is offered to him And further Pag 250. he saith where the revealed will or word of God is sufficiently propounded obserue sufficiently propounded there he that opposeth is convinced of errour and he who is thus conuinced is an Heretike and Heresy is a worke of the flesh which excludeth from heauen Galat 5.20.21
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
common Doctrine of Protestants and the supposition If you answer that though there were not the selfe same reason or necessity for the Churches infallibility as for the Apostles which is all that that reason proves and so is a Sophisme a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter as if you should say This Truth is not proved by this particular reason therefore there can be no reason for it yet we cannot doubt but that there is some reason and cause whatsoever it be and therfore you must be content that Scripture declare God Almightyes Will that the Gates of Hell shall not prevaile against the Church in which Promise seing there is no restraint to Fundamentall Points it becomes not you to divide the same sentence into different meanings as they are applyed to the Apostles and as they haue reference to the Church Beside if one would imitate you in determining concerning divine matters according to humane apprehension and discourse he might in your owne Grounds quickly dispatch all and say that seing the errours of the vniversall Church can be only not Fundamentall there is no necessity of having recourse to any for the discovering and correcting them and so you cannot inferr that the Apostles for reforming errours in the Church need be infallible in Points not Fundamentall no more than you say the Church herselfe is Thus Pag 35. N. 7 You say Christians haue and shall haue meanes sufficient to determine not all Controversyes but all necessary to be determined And what Rule will you in your Groundes giue to determine what Points are necessary to be determined except by saying that eo ipso that they are not Fundamentall or not necessary to salvation to be believed they are not necessary to be determined as you say in the same place If some Controversyes may for many Ages be vndetermined and yet in the meane while men may be saved why should or how can the Churches being furnished with effectuall meanes to determine all Controversyes in Religion be necessary to salvation the end itselfe to which these meanes are ordained being as Experience shewes not necessary If then may we say the beliefe of vnfundamentall Points be not necessary to salvation which is the end of our Faith the meanes to beget such a Faith in the Church which you say must be the vniversall infallibility of the Apostles cannot be necessary Which is confirmed by what you say in your Answer to the Direction N. 32. It is not absolutely necessary that God should assist his Church any farther than to bring her to salvation How then can it be necessary in your ground that the Church be assisted for Points not Fundamentall Thus while by your humane discourses you will establish the vniversall infallibility of the Apostles you destroy it as not being necessary for discovering or correcting either Fundamentall errours from which the Church is free or vnfundamentall which are not necessary to be corrected or discovered Morover this very reason of yours proves a necessity of the Churches being vniversally infallible supposing the truth which we proved Chap 2. that Scripture alone containes not evidently and particularly all Points necessary to be believed and that even for those which it containes a Living Judge and Interpreter is necessary For this truth supposed I apply your Argument thus If any fall into errour by a false interpretation of Scripture it may be discovered and corrected by the Church But if the Church may erre to whom shall we haue recourse for correcting her errour And heere incidently I put you in minde of the Argument which you prize so much as to glory that you never could finde any Catholik who was able to answer it that if a particular man or Church may fall into errour and yet remaine a member of the Church vniversall why may not the Church vniversall erre and yet remaine a true Church The Answer I say is easy almost out of your owne words that there is not the same reason for every particular mans or Churches infallibility or security from error as for that of the Catholik Church For if private persons or Churches fall into errour it may be reformed by comparing it with the Decrees and Definitions of the vniversall Church But if the Church may erre to whom shall we haue recourse to correct her error As S. Hierom saieth Lib 1. Comment in Cap 5. Matth Si doctor erraverit à quo alio doctore emendabitur But of this I haue saied enough heretofore Lastly giue me leaue to tell you that in this and other Reasons which we shall examine you do extremely forget yourself and the state of our present Question which is not now whether there be the same reason or necessity for the Churches absolute infallibility as for the Apostles and Scriptures But whether we can proue the vniversall infallibility of the Apostles and not of the Church by the same Text of Scripture which speakes of both in the same manner But let vs heare your other reasons of disparity betweene the Apostles and the Church in Point of infallibility 34. You say in the same N. 30. There is not so much strength required in the Edifice as in the Foundation And if but wise men haue the ordering of the building they will make it much a surer thing that the Foundation shall not faile the building then that the building shall not fall from the Foundation Now the Apostles and Prophets and Canonicall Writers are the Foundation of the Church according to that of S. Paul built vpon the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets therfore their stability in reason ought to be greater than the Churches which is built vpon them 35. Answer Your conclusion therfore their stability in reason ought c shewes that you ground yourselfe on reason not on revelation and on a reason which is not so much as probable For you will not deny but that God might haue communicated absolute infallibility both to the Apostles and to the Church yet to the Church dependently of the preaching of the Apostles and then what would you haue sayd to your owne ground In reason more strength is required in the Foundation than in the Edifice seing in that case both the Foundation and Edifice should haue had an immoveable and firme strength and stability Your reason if you will haue it proue any thing against vs must goe vpon this principle that nothing which depends or which is builded vpon another for its certainty can be absolutely certaine which is a ground evidently false The Conclusion in a demonstratiue Argument is abfolutly certaine and yet depends on Premises The Church is infallible in Fundamentalls and yet in that infallibility is builded vpon the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets The absolute infallibility of the Apostles was builded vpon our B. Saviours Words and even his infallibility as man was builded vpon the infallibility of his God head and yet I hope you will not say that
infallibility to Fundamentalls I say the Major of this Syllogisme on which all depends is deceitfull For though he that grants the Church infallible in Fundamentalls and ascribes to the Apostles the infallible guidance of the Spirit in a more high and absolute manner than to any since them limits not the Apostles infallibility to Fundamentalls by only and precisely granting the Church infallible in Fundamentalls and ascribing to the Apostles the guidance of the Spirit in a more high manner yet he may doe it by some other way and in particular by the meanes of which now we speake that is by restraining the selfe same words of Scripture which without distinction speak of the Apostles and the Church to Fundamentall Points in respect of the Church and not in order to the Apostles and this voluntarily without proofe from any other evident Text of Scripture which yet in the Grounds of Protestants were necessary in this case As also by proving the fallibility of the Church by Arguments which must involue the Apostles no lesse than the Church as even now I haue proved Howsoever that you are not a faithfull interpreter of Dr Potter appeares by your saying He out of curtesy grants you that those words the Spirit shall lead you into all Truth and shall abide with you for ever though in their high and most absolute sense they agree only to the Apostles yet in a conditionall limited moderate secondary sense they may be vnderstood of the Church For where doth Dr Potter say that these words agree to the Church in a conditionall sense Which conditionall sense you interpret N. 34. to singify if the Church adhere to the direction of the Apostles and so far as she doth adhere to it which overthrowes the doctrine of Potter and other Protestants that the Church is absolutely infallible and cannot erre in Fundamentall Points in which yet she might erre if the promise of our Saviour were only conditionall and it would giue no more to the Church than to any private person who is sure not to erre not only in Fundamentall but even in vnfundamentall Points as far as he adheres to the direction of the Apostles And by this reflection the difficulty against Dr Potter and you growes to be greater how the same words of Scripture are vnderstood both of the Apostles and of the Church absolutely for Points Fundamentall and only conditionally for the Church in Points not Fundamentall And how will you be able to proue this various acception of the same words in order to the same Church and not only in respect of the Apostles and the Church by any other evident Text of Scripture You say to Cha Ma Do you not blush for shame at this Sophistry The Doctour sayes which yet I know he never intended no more was promised in this place therfore he sayes no more was promised Are there not other places besides this And may not that be promised in other places which is not promised in this 41. Answer If the Doctour spoke beyond or contrary to what he intended I cannot wonder since whosoever defends a bad cause is subject to write contradictions which yet men intend no to doe You say there may be other places besides this I answer It is neither in your nor in any mans power to alledg any place which may not be interpreted and restrayned as you limit this of which we speake Certainly the Doctour being to proue the absolute infallibility of the Apostles was much to blame for alledging ineffectuall Texts if He could haue found better Indeed I find in his Pag 152. these words That other promise of Christs being with his Matth 28.20 vnto the end of the world is properly meant as some Ancients truly giue the sense of his comfortable ayde and assistance supporting the weaknesse of his Apostles and their Successours in their Ministery or preaching of Christ But it may well be also applyed as it is by others (a) 5. Leo Scrm 10 de Nativ Cap 5. to the Church vniversall Which is ever in such manner assisted by the good Spirit that it never totally falls from Christ But as in the other Texts so in this the Question returnes to be asked by what evident place of Scripture can you or He proue that this Text speakes of an vniversall Assistance for the Apostles and only a limited direction for the Church seeing Potter grants that it may well be also applyed as it is by others to the Church vniversall You could say N. 30. Shew where it is written that all the Decrees of the Church are divinely inspired and the Controversy will be at an end And much more may we say to you Shew some evidenr Text of Scripture that the Apostles are infallible in all Points Fundamentall and not Fundamentall the Church only in Fundamentalls or that any Text of Scripture makes any such distinction I say much more may we say Shew c. Because the truth Authority and infallibility of the Church is proved independently of Scripture as the infallibility of the Apostles was proved before any Scripture of the New Testament was written But you who hold that we can belieue nothing as a matter of Faith vnlesse it be evidently set downe in Scripture are obliged either to proue the difference of infallibility in the Apostles and the Church by some evident Text of Scripture or els you cannot be assured of it as a thing revealed by God You see how hard you were pressed and therfore were forced to giue this noble answer That Dr. Potter out of courtesy grants vs that those words The spirit shall lead you into all truth and shall abide with you for ever in a conditionall limited moderate secondary sense may be vnderstood of the Church But I haue shewed that you misalledge the Doctour who sayes expressly that promise was directly and primarily made to the Apostles and is verifyed in the Church vniversall Now I aske whether or no it be true that this promise is verifyed in the Church If it be true that is if God hath revealed it to be so one would thinke it were no point of ceremony or courtesy but a matter of necessity to acknowledge so much It seemes you thinke the Doctour was of your disposition who Pag 69. N. 47. say to Charity Maintayned You might haue met with an answerer that would not haue suffered you to haue sayd so much Truth togeather but to me it is sufficient that it is nothing to the purpose But I goe on and say if it be not true nor revealed that those words are verifyed of the Church how durst Potter affirme that they were verifyed of Her Is it lawfull to add to the old and coyne new Revelations Doth not Potter say Pag 222. to add to it he speakes of the Creed is high presumption almost as great as to detract from it 42. You say The Apostles must be ledd into all such truths as was requisite to make them the
Churches Foundaâ—ions Now such they could not be without freedome from etrour in all those things which they delivered constantly is certaine revealed truths And to proue that the Apostles are the Foundation of the Church you alledge N. 30 S. Paul saying Built vpon the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Fphes 2.20 43. I reply First The Church must be led into such an all as is necessary to judge of controversyes which yourself Pag 35. N. 7. confess to require an vniversall infallibility Secondly seing Scripture containes not all points necessary to be believed the Church must be indued with infallibility for such points Otherwise we could haue no certainty concerning them And if once you grant her infallible for Points not evideÌ„t in Scripture you cannot deny her an Infallibility derived not from evidence of Scripture but from the assistance of the Holy Ghost And as you say the Apostles were vniversally infallible because the Church was builded on them so every Christian is builded vpon the Church and for that cause she must be vniversally infallible Thirdly We are not saied to be builded vpon the writings of the Apostles or Scripture but vpon the Apostles who were the Foundation of the Church before they wrote any thing by their preaching and verbum traditum Tradition So that indeed this Text Ephes 2.20 makes for vs and proves that we are builded on the vnwritten word and might haue beene so though no Scripture had bene written Fourthly you still mistake the Question and seeke diversions but never goe about to proue by some evident Text of Scripture that the infallibility of the Apostles may not be limited to Fundamentall Points as your restraine to such Points the generall Promises of infallibility made to the Church in holy Scripture and limit the word Foundation to the writings of the Apostles which I haue shewed to be a manifestly vntrue limitation S. Paul 1. Tim 3. avouches the Church to be the Pillar and Ground of Truth and yet you deny Her to be vniversally infallible How then can you proue by the word Foundation which cansignify no more than the pillar and Ground of Truth that the Apostles cannot erre in any Point but the Church may Yea even to make this place Ephes 2.20 cleare and convincing in favour of the Apostles the authority of the Church is necessary and the letter alone will not suffice if you will regard the doctrine or authority of some learned prime Protestant And therfore Fiftly you haue cause to reslect on what Cornelius a Lapide vpon this place saieth That Beza and not he alone interprets vpon the Foundation of the Apostles to signify Christ who is the Foundation of the Apostles Prophets and the whole Church and he Beza saieth that it is Antichristian to put an other foundation For no man can put an other Foundation beside that which is put Iesus Christ. If this exposition be admitted the saied Text Ephes 2.20 will not proue that the Apostles but only that our Saviour the Foundation of the Apostles and of the Church was infallible nor will the stability of a Foundation expressed in this place of Scripture belong to the Apostles And albeit indeed this interpretation be not true yet to you it ought not to seeme evidently false being the Opinion of so great a Rabby as also because it is very agreable to the manner which Potestants hold in impugning Catholik Doctrine when for example they argue The Scripture saieth We haue an Advocate Jesus Christ Therfore Saynts cannot be our Advocates though in an infinitly lower degree than our Saviour is Especially if we reflect that it is saied of our Saviour with a Negatiue or exclusiue particle No man can put an other Foundation wheras in those words we haue an Advocate there is only an affirmation that Christ is our Advocate but no negation that any other is Other examples might be given in this kind if this were a place for it We do therfore grant that the Apostles were Foundations of the Church and that they received Revelations immediately from our Saviour and the Church from them so that as I saied she depends on them not they on Her and you wrong vs while N. 30. in your first Sillogisme you speak in such manner as the Reader will conceiue that we make the infallibility of the Church equall in all respects to that of the Apostles the contrary wherof all Catholikes belieue and proue I omit to obserue that you take occasion to descant vpon these words as well which are not found in Charity Maintayned though for the thing itselfe he might haue vsed them Your N. 31. and 32. haue beene already confuted at large and the words of Dr. Stapleton considered and defended with small credit to Dr. Potter and you 44 You say N. 34. he teaches the promises of Infallibility made to the Apostles to be verifyed in the Church but not in so absolute a manner Now what is opposed to absolute but limited or restrained 45. Answer first our Question is not what Dr. Potter saied but what he did or could proue and in particular I say it cannot be proved by any evident Text of Scripture that the words which he confesses to be verifyed in the Church are limited to fundamentall points in respect of her and not as they are referred to the Apostles Secondly wheras you say what is opposed to absolute but limited or restrained I reply absolute may be taken in diverse senses according to the matter argument or subject to which it is applied and therfore though some tyme it may be opposed to limited yet not alwayes Do not you N. 33. oppose to absolute a conditionall moderate secondary sense which being epithetons much different one from an other giue vs to vnderstand that you are too resolute in asking what is opposed to but limited seing more things than one may be opposed to it What Logician will not tell you that in Logick not Limited but Relatiue is opposed to absolute And we may also say that the infallibility of the Apostles was absolute that is independent and the infallibility of the Church dependent as the Effect depends on the Cause and so is not absolute in that sense but hath a Relation of dependance to the infallibility of the Apostles as to its Cause which particular Relation the Apostles haue not to the Church 46. You say also N. 34. that though it were supposed that God had obliged himself by promise to giue his Apostles infallibility only in things necessary to salvation nevertheless it is vtterly inconsequent that he gaue them no more or that we can haue no assurance of any farther assistance that he gaue them Especially when he himself both by his word and by his works hath assured vs that he did assist them farther 47. Answer I know not to what purpose or vpon what occasion you vtter these words Only I am sure that they containe both a manifest falshood and contradiction to
yourself who say heere N. 33. If we once suppose they the Apostles may haue erred in some things of this nature in things which they delivered constantly as certaine revealed Truths it will be vtterly vndiscernable what they haue erred in and what they haue not Now if God hath promised to giue his Apostles infallibility only in things necessary to salvation which heere you expressly suppose it is cleare we cannot be certaine of the truth of their writings in any one thing Which supposed that we cannot be certaine that their writings are true how can you say that God both by his word and by his works hath assured vs that he aid assist them farther Seing vpon that supposition the Scripture may be false and recount works never wrought and so it is consequent that we can haue no assurance by his written word of any farther assistance that God gaue them if it be supposed that he gaue them infallibility only in things necessary to salvation which is the contradictory to your assertion and yet it is evidently deduced from your owne express words and doctrine Nay you could not be sure that the Apostles had infallibility even for Fundamentall Points if once it be supposed that they and consequently their writings were subject to errour in any thing So farr from truth is your saying we could haue assurance of farther assistance Your N. 35.36 containe no difficulty which hath not bene answered heretofore 48. I wish you had in your N. 37. set downe at large the words of Charity Maintayned whereby he proves N. 15. that according to the grounds of Protestants it is sufficient for salvation that Scripture be infallible in Fundamentall Points only as they limit to such Points the infallibility of the Church and accordingly interpret Scriptures speaking thereof The summe of his Discourse is this Put together these Doctrines That Scripture cannot erre in Points Fundamentall that they cleerely containe all such Points that Protestants can tell what Points in particular be Fundamentall it is manifest that it is sufficient for salvation that Scripture be infallible only in Points Fundamentall For seing all are obliged to belieue explicitely all Fundamentall Articles it is necessary to know which in particular be Fundamentall which Protestants cannot know except by Scripture which alone in their grounds containes all that is necessary for vs to knowe and therefore knowing by Scripture what Points in particular be Fundamentall as N. 40. you say expressly men may learne from the Scripture that such Points are Fundamentall others are not so and that Scripture is infallible in all Fundamentalls they are sure that it is infallible in such particular necessary Articles though it were supposed to be fallible in other Points by this Argument All Fundamentall Points are delivered in Scripture with infallibility this is a Fundamentall Point therefore it is delivered in Scripture with infallibility And the Syllogisme at which you say men would laugh is only your owne The Scripture is true in something the Scripture sayes that these Points only are Fundamentall therefore this is true that these are so For say you every fresh-man in Logick knowes that from meere particulars nothing can be certainly concluded But you should correct your Syllogisme thus All that is necessary the Scripture delivers with infallibility but to know what Points in particular be Fundamentall is necessary therefore the Scripture delivers it with infallibility Besides you say If without dependance on Scripture Protestants did know what were Fundamentall and what not they might possibly belieue the Scripture true in Fundamentalls and erroneous in other things Now both you and Potter affirme that there is an vniversall Tradition that the Creed containes all Fundamentall Points and consequently that in vertue of such a Tradition men may belieue all Fundamentall Points without dependance or knowledg of Scripture as also for vniversall Tradition you belieue Scripture itself Heare your owne words Pag 198. N. 15. The certainty I haue of the Creed that it was from the Apostles and containes the Principles of Faith I ground it not vpon scripture Therefore according to your owne grounds Protestants may belieue the Scripture to be true in Fundamentalls and erroneous in other things And you did not well to conceale this Argument taken from the Creed which was expressly vrged by Ch Ma in that very N. 15. which you answer By what I haue saied it appeares that in the grounds of Protestants the knowledg of Fundamentalls neede not haue for Foundation the vniversall truth of Scripture as you say but only the truth thereof for all Fundamentall Points and for knowing what Points in particular be Fundamentall as I haue declared So we must conclude that the Argument of Ch Ma stands good that if you limit the infallibility of the Church you may vpon the same ground limit the infallibility of the Apostles and their writings namely the Holy Scripture 49. Your N. 39. goes vpon a meere equivocation or a voluntary mistake you being not ignorant that Charity Maintayned saied N. 16. that no Protestant can with assurance believe the vniversall Church in Points not fundamētall because they belieue that in such points she may erre which sequele is very true and cleare For how can I belieue with assurance an Authority believed to be fallible If she alledg some evident Reason Scripture c I belieue her no more than I would belieue any child Turk or Jewe and so I attribute nothing to her authority nor can be saied to belieue her Thus you say N. 36. We cannot belieue the present Church in propounding Canonicall Bookes vpon her owne Authority though we may for other reasons belieue these Bookes to be Canonicall which she proposes Your instances are against yourself For if the divell proue that there is a God or a Geometritian demonstrate some conclusion I neither belieue the divell who I knowe was a Lier from the beginning nor the Geometritian whom I knowe to be fallible but I assent for the Reason which they giue by whomesoever it had bene given and therfore you speak a contradictory in saying N. 38. Though the Church being not infallible I cannot belieue Her in every thing she sayes yet I can and must belieue her in every thing she proves either by Scripturs or vniversall Tradition This I say implies a contradiction to belieue one because he proves seing the formall object or Motiue of Beliefe is the Authority of the speaker and not the Reason which he gives which may produce assents of diverse kinds according to the diversity of Reasons as Demonstration Scripture c which may cause an infallible assent not possible to be produced by the authority of the Church if it were fallible 50. In your N. 39. First you cite the words of Charity Maintayned thus The Churches infallible direction extending only to Fundamentalls vnless I know them before I goe to learne of her I may be rather deluded than instructed by her and then you
things indifferent that is neither commanded nor prohibited But as for the thing it self S. Austine never speaks of particular Churches as we haue heard him speak of the vniversall both in this place of which we treate and in other sentences alledged by Ch. Ma. in the saied N. 16. and the Promises of our Saviour were made to the vniversall Church Yea you confess that S. Austine speaking even in this place of those things which he dislikes saies that they were neither contained in Scripture decreed by Councells nor corroborated by the custome of the vniversall Church which words declare that the Scripture Generall Councells the Custome of the vniversall Church and consequently the Church of God can never be saied to approue any such presumptions as S. Austine calls them which he never saieth of particular Churches And therfore when you say that superstitions may in tyme take such deepe roote as to pass for vniversall customes of the Church you contradict S. Austine and that the world may see you doe it plainely and as I may say in actu signato and not only exercito but to his face you take his owne words Consuetudine vniversae Ecclesiae roboratum corroborated by the custome of the vniversall Church and say that some such superstition had not already even in S. Austines tyme which circumstance of tyme is to be noted to shew how directly you contradict him prevailed so farre as to be corroborated by the custome of the vniversall Church who can doubt that considers that the practise of Communicating Infants had even then got the credit and Authority not oily of an vniuersall custome but also of an Apostolique Tradition And which is more in other places of your Booke you ascribe this very thing which you call superstition not only to S. Austines tyme but even to himself though both imputations be most false and it is strang that through your whole Book you do not so much as once offer any one proofe thereof And yet to shew how causelesly and intemperately you declaime against the Church of S. Austines tyme that you might discredit every Church of every Age and so of all Ages though Protestants commonly hold that the Church was pure in S. Austines tyme you confess he saieth they were not against Faith and only vnprofitable burdens But of things that are apertissimè contra Fidem sanamque doctrinam he expresly declares that the truth is to be professed Yea even when there is question not whether a vaine thing be to be permitted but whether a good thing ought to be omitted he saieth Si aliquorum infirmitas ita impediat vt majora studiosoruÌ„ lucra sperand a sint quam calumniatorum detrimenta metuenda sine dubitatione faciend um est Now if you be so indiscretely zealous as to say that no inconvenient things are in any case to be tolerated not for feare to offend or for humane respects but for avoiding greater evill you impugne our Saviour and not his Church only who Matth. 13.29.30 forbids the servants to gather vp the cockle least perhaps gathering vp the cockle you may root vp the wheat also togeather with it Suffer both to grow vntill the harvest And you do very wickedly in comparing the observing this advise of our Blessed Saviour to that which He reprehended in the Scribes and Pharises for teaching and not only tolerating perforce vaine things as the washing of pots c Did not the Apostles tolerate for some tyme even after they had received the holy Ghost some Observances of the Mosaicall Law till they became to be deadly as if without them the law of Christ had not beene sufficient to salvation for Gentills converted to Christian Religion And for that cause S. Paule saieth stand and be not holden in againe with the joake of servitude Galat. 5. V. 1. and therefore you do absurdly apply against the Church of Christ those words of the Apostle especially seing you confess that those foolish observances which S. Austine dislikes were not against Faith as he saieth expressly that it cannot be found quomodo contra Fidem sint and which is the maine point that they were never decreed by any generall Councell or practised or approved by the vniversall Church which is only our Question Yourself say Pag 301. N. 101. that S. Austine supposed that the publique service of God wherein men are to communicate is vnpolluted and no vnlawfull thing practised in their Communion which was so true of their Communion that the Donatists who separated did not deny it And towards the end of the same number you say The Donatists separated from the whole world of Christians vnited in one Communion professing the same Faith serving God after the same manner which was a very great Argument that they could not haue just cause to leaue them according to that of Terâ—ullian variasse debuerat error Ecclesiarum quod autem apud multos vnum est non est erratum sed traditum Therefore you must either free the Church of that tyme from errour or the Donatists from Schisme I haue beene longer in answering this Objection in regard it containes hiddenly more Socinian venome against the Church than appeares at the first sight 58. And now it will be easy to answer your N. 48. wherin you speak thus to Charity Maintayned But you will say not with standing all this S. Austin here warrants vs that the Church can never either approue or dissemble or practise any thing against Faith or good life and so long you may rest securely vpon it What Do you now grant that S. Austine here warrants vs that the Church can never either approue c. Which is the very thing which even now you objected against Cha Ma as if S. Austine had neither saied so not that it could be deduced from what he saied You goe forward and say Yea but S. Austine tells vs in the same place that the Church may tolerate humane presumptions and vaine superstitions and those vrged more severely than the commandements of God and whether superstition be a sinne or no I appeale to our Saviours words before cited and to the concent of your Schoolmen Besides if we consider it right we shall finde that the Church is not truly saied only to tolerate these things but rather that a part and a farre greater publiquely avowed and practised them and vrged them vpon others with great violence and that continued still a part of the Church Now why the whole Church might not continue the Church and yet doe so as well as a part of the Church might continue a part of it and yet do so I desire you to informe me 59. Answer you seeke to deceyue the ignorant by leading them into a misvnderstanding of the word tolerate as if it did signify a voluntary permission of a thing when it is in our power to hinder it where as the Church doth only tolerate abuses in that sense as our Saviour teaches that
cockle is to be suffered or as I may say tolerated to growe with the wheate least vntymely weeding the cockle spoile the good corne that is of two vnavoidable evills it is not only lawfull but laudable yea necessary to chuse the lesser which taken formally with comparison to the greater is in some sorte good as in some proportion I declared heretofore speaking of the case of invincible and inculpable Perplexity as heere the Church is necessitated without any fault of hers either to suffer a less or doe a greater evill by vntymely and fruiteless rigor Did not the Apostles and must not all Prelats permit many sinnes of diverse kinds which they cannot hinder without greater damage to the Christian Commonwealth vnless they were Omnipotent to rule the wills of men and effectually drawe them only to good But you speak very vnworthily of the vniversall Church of Christ when you would make the world belieue that the farre greater part of Christians in S. Austines tyme was guilty of vaine superstitions and avowed and practised them yea or even dissembled them in silence when prudent Charity and zeale could dictate the contrary As for your parity betwen the whole Church and particular members thereof it hath bene confuted heretofore infallibility being promised to the Church not to private persons and you might make the same Argument to proue that the Apostles might erre in matters which they delivered as Points of Faith and yet remaine parts of the Church as well as particular men might erre and remaine members of the Church if their errours were inculpable If you say the Apostles were to teach others and so could not erre even inculpably you know we say the same of the Church which is Judge of Controversyes and was before Scripture and from which we receyue true Tradition Scripture and the interpretation thereof But if we suppose that those superstitious persons chanced to erre in any Point against Faith and remained obstinate therein after sufficient Declaration of the Churches Doctrine to the contrary then they became formall Heretiques excluded from being members of the Church and so cannot be saied to be either the greater or lesser or any part thereof 60. In your N. 49. You say But now after all this adoe what if S. AustaneÌ„ sayes not this which is pretended of the Church viz that she neither approves nor dissembles nor practises any thing against Faith or good life but only of good men of the Church Certainly though some Copies read as you would haue it yet you should not haue dissembled that others read the place otherwise viz. Ecclesia multa tolerat tamen qûae sunâ— contra Fidem bonam vitam nec bonus approbat c The Church tolerater many things and yet what is against Faith or good life a good man will neither approue nor dissemble nor practise 61. Answer But who beside yourself hath made all this adoe Which certainly you would never haue made vnless you had believed that the Common Reading goes as Charity Maintayned cites it and for that cause you found it necessary to take so much paines spend so many words and make so much adoe to answer it If an English Protestant should cite the English Translation approved in England as the Text hath it were he obliged to take notice of every different Lection quoted in the Margin And were not such English Protestants obliged to answer according to the Reading which all things considered the Translators though fittest and securest to be placed in the Text itself If the Text condemne can the margent acquit him I haue procured to know what divers Editions haue and amongst the rest one of Basilea Anno 1556 and not one of them all hath in the Text nec bonus only the Edition of Lovaine hath it in the margin But you are much mistaken if you conceyue that our Argument looses its force though we should read nec bonus approbat For to omit your owne manner of arguing els where and even in this place that good men are part of the Church and therefore it is impossible that the whole Church can be saied to approue or dissemble or practise those things we ground our proofe on such considerations as I touched aboue that the Church is saied only to tolerate and is contradistinguished from those who approue or practise the saied abuses as also she is opposed to cockâ—e and chasse yea yourfelf confess that S. Austine affirmes that they were neither contained in Scripture deâ—reed by Councells nor corroborated by the Custome of the vniversall Church Which shewes how innocent she was from being obnoxious to that imputation of approving those presumptions Which also appeares by the whole drift of S. Austines discourse where still he makes a difference betwene the Church and those erring persons Besides when you would haue him say A good man will neither approue nor c by a good man you must not vnderstand every pious or devout or even holy person who may be subject to such abuses as S. Austine speaks of seing you cite him saying Multa hujusmodi propter nonnullarum vel sanctarum vel turbulentarum personarum scandala devitanda liberius improbare non audeo Many of these things for fear of scandalizing many holy persons or provoking those that are turbulent I dare not freely disollow But by good men you must of necessity vnderstand such as haue zeale with knowledg such as are of a right and settled true judgment in matters belonging to Faith and Religion and certainly such they cannot be in the opinyon of S. Augustine who could think that the Church can approue any errour or superstition seing we haue heard him say Ep 118. If the Church through the whole world practise any of these things to dispute whether that ought to be done is a most insolent madness Will you haue an vnderstanding good man to be guilty of most insolent madness If a good man cannot approue such things much less in truth and in the opinion of S. Austine the Church could doe it So that reade S. Austine as you please the sentence which Charity Maintayned alledged proves the infallibility of Gods Church neither can you finde any meanes to avoide this inference except by vnmasking yourself and saying as you doe here N. 44. To deal ingeniously with you and the world I am not such an idolater of S. Austine as to think a thing proved sufficiently because he saies it or that all his sentences ore oracles And so I may returne your owne words and say But now after all this adoe what if S. Austine saies what Charity Maintayned affirmes him to say seing you do not much regard what S. Austine saies 62. For answer to your N. 53. I say that Charity Maintayned had reason to affirme that seing no private persoÌ„s ought to presume that they are endued with greater infallibility than the Church which Protestants teach to be infallible only in Fundamentall Points they cannot
Church and your labour and paines taken therin are lost in order to any other effect except contrary to your desires to stregthen the saying of Charity Maintayned which was That our very difference about the meaning of these Texts shewes the impossibility of agreement in matters of Faith by Scripture alone To which purpose He setts downe what sense Catholiques giue them and the different interpretation of Protestants from Catholikes and from one and other While therfore you profess to confute the interpretation of Catholikes but indeed impugne also that of most Protestants and of Dr. Potter in particular what doe you els but make good the saied Affirmation and intention and proofe of Cha Ma that Scripture alone is not sufficient to interpret it self And you could not but see that Charity Maintayned did not alledg any Text to proue the Churches infallibility but only to shew the difficulty of Scripture taken alone by those examples which he alledges and Protestants interpret in a different sense from Catholiques and in which you differ from both So that even by your disagreeing from Catholiques in the meaning of those places you in fact and Deeds proue the truth of that which your adversary affirmed and the more you object against Charity Maintayned the more you prejudice yourself and make good these his words If words cannot perswade you that in all controuersies you must rely vpon the infallibility of the Church at least yeald your assent to Deeds Which thing considered I haue no obligation at all to examine your Objections against the interpretation of those Texts in favour of the Churches infallibility for which purpose they were not produced by Charity Maintayned but only to proue by an Argument drawen from Experience and Deeds or matter of fact that there must be some Living Guide to interpret Scripture and you were wise enough not to take notice of this Argument which was evident by experience but dissemble the matter and divert the Reader with discourses no less repugnant to Protestants than Catholiks and therefore your interpretations proue nothing because they proue too much even in the common grounds and tenets of Protestants Nevertheless by way of supererogation I will examine all that you can object 72. N. 69. you bring certaine objections in a different letter as if they were made eypressly by Ch Ma and yet I finde them not in him whatsoever they be in themselves Then N. 70. you say The Church may erre and yet the gates of Hell not privaile against her 73. Answer you know we deny this and in diverse occasions haue given good reasōsfor our denyall And what cā be more incōsistēt with being of a true Church than errour against Faith which Faith is the most essentiall constitutiue of the Church or congregation of Faithfull people Yourself teach that every errour repugnant to Divine Revelation is damnable of itself and what can set the gates of Hell more open than damnable sinnes Neither can you flie to ignorance whereof you cā haue no certainty especially for the whole vniversall Church and yet we are certaine by our Saviours Promise that the gates of Hell cannot prevaile against her whereof we could not be certaine if the Church may erre damnably and be excused only by ignorance which as I saied is an vncertaine hidden thing Beside The Church being appointed by our Saviour Christ to be the teacher of all Christians it is essentially necessary that she cannot erre even by ignorance but must be believed to be infallible in all matters belonging to Faith seing otherwise we cannot belieue her with certainty in any point fundamentall or not fundamentall as you confess in this Chapt. N. 36. that vnless the Church be infallible in all things we cannot rationally belieue her for her owne sake and vpon her owne word and Authority in any thing For an authority subject to errour can be no firme or stable foundation of my belief in any thing Now that the office of the Church is to teach all Christians you teach Pag. 119. N. 164. in these words Though the visible Church shall alwaies without faile propose so much of Gods Revelation as is sufficient to bring men to heaven for otherwise it will not be the visible Church yet it may sometimes ad to this Revelation things superfluous nay gurtfull nay in themselves damnable And in this Chapter N. 78. you say That the true Church alwaies shall be the maintainer and Teacher of all necessary truths you know we grant and must grant for it is the Essence of the Church to be so and any company of men were no more a Church without it then any thing can be a man and not be reasonable But as a man may be still a man though he want a hand or an eye which yet are profitable parts so the Church may be still a Church though it be defectiue in some profitable truth And as a man may be a man that has some biles and botches on his body so the Church may be the Church though it haue many corruptions both in Doctrine and practice Out of these sayings of yours this argument offers it self The Church is essentially a Teacher of all necessary truths And consequently we are to belieue her in such points But the Church cannot be believed in necessary points vnless we belieue her to be infallible in all that she proposes as matter of Faith This also is our Doctrine Therefore we must belieue her to be infallible in all points So that in denying the vniversall infallibility of the Church you contradict both truth and your owne Assertions 74. And heere I must put you in minde of your saying that there is difference betweene being infallible in Fundamentalls and an infalllible Guide in Fundamentalls and yet we haue heard you say that the Church is an infallible Teacher of so much as is necessary for salvation and what is to be an infallible Teacher or Proposer but to be an infallible Guide And then further seing you say P. 105. N. 139. To make any Church an infallible Guide in Fundamentalls would be to make it infallible in all things which she proposes and requires to be believed we must necessarily infer that de facto the Church which is an infallible Teacher and Guide is infallible in all things which she proposes and requires to be believed 75. This is not all that I am to deduce from your saied Assertions You say in this same Page and Number No Church can possibly be fit to be a Guide but only a Church of some certaine Denomination To which Proposition I subsume But we haue heard you say that it is of the essence of the Church to be a Teacher of all necessary Truths and that she shall alwayes without faile propose so much as is sufficient to bring men to Heaven Therfore you must grant that there is some infallible Church of one denomination which is the direct contradictory of your Title to this
Chapter Moreover how do these things agree with your saying heere N. 78. If we grant that the Apostle calls the Catholique Church the pillar and ground of Truth and that not only because it should but because it alwayes shall and will be so yet after all this you haue done nothing vnless you can shew that by Truth heere is certainly ment not only all necessary to salvation but all that is profitable absolutely and simply All. How I say doth this agree with your saying now cited out of your Pag 105. N. 139. To make any Church an infallible guide in Fundamentalls would be to make it Infallible in all things which she proposes and requires to be believed seing you say also that although it were granted that S. Paule affirmed that the Church shall and will be the Pillar of all necessary truth yet it doth not follow that she is so in all Truth And now how many clustars as I may say of Contradictions may be gathered from your owne words related by me in this small compass 76. First The Church is an infallible Teacher in Fundamentalls and yet is not an infallible guide or if you grant her to be an infallible Guide then Secondly you say to make any Church an infallible Guide in Fundamentalls would be to make it infallible in all things which she proposes and requires to be believed and yet you say the Church is an infallible Teacher or guide in all Fundamentalls and deny her to be infallible in all things which she proposes and requires to be believed Thirdly How can you make a distinction between the Churches being infallible in Fundamentalls and an infallible Guide in Fundamentalls seing you teach that she is both infallible in Fundamentalls and a Teacher of them Fourthly How doe you say That to be a Teacher of all necessary truth is the Essence of the Church and that any company of men were no more a Church without it then any thing can be a man and not be reasonable And yet in this Chapter N. 39. to proue that there is a wide difference betweene being infallible in Fundamentalls and an infallible Guide in Fundamentalls you say A man that were destitute of all meanes of communicating his thoughts to others might yet in himself be infallible but he could not be a Guide to others A man or a Church that were invisible so that none could know how to repaire to it for direction could not be an infallible Guide and yet he might be in himself infallible For these examples if they be to any purpose declare that to be a Guide or Teacher is accidentall and not the Essence of the Church and for that purpose you bring them and yet I never imagined that the Essence of any thing is separable from it as you say it is impossible a thing can be a man and not be reasonable Fiftly If it be essentiall to the Church to be an infallible Teacher or Guide in Funmentalls which you say she cannot be without an vniversall infallibility in all Points seing every errour destroyes that vniversall infallibility which is essentiall to such a Teacher as the Church how can you say that every errour doth not destroy the Church but that she may erre and yet the gates of hell not prevaile against her To what purpose then do you talk of eyes and hands which are not essentiall or necessary parts of a man or of biles and botches which are accidentall to his body and not necessaryly destructiue thereof as you must suppose wheras infallibility is essentiall to the Church of Christ and is destroyed by errour which cannot possibly consist with infallibility that is with certainty never to erre Into how may inextricable difficulties and contradictions do you cast yourself vpon a resolution not to acknowledg the infallibility of Gods Church the only meanes to cleare all these perplexityes And how inconsequently and perniciously and you compare botches and biles to errour against Faith which you confess to be damnable sinnes and without repentance absolutely inconsistent with salvation 77. But to returne to the maine point If the Church were not vniversally infallible Christian Faith could not be infallible as I proved hertofore and so the gates of Hell should prevaile against Christianity which by that meanes should come to want a thing absolutely necessary to salvation necessitate medij to witt divine infallible Faith Your Parity betweene a particular man or congregation and the vniversall Church hath bene answered hertofore and is confuted by what we haue saied heere that infallibility is essentiall to the vniversall Church and nothing can exist without that which is essentiall to it but no such Priviledge of infallibility is necessary or is promised to particular men or Churches Finally seing that according to Potter and other Protestants the Promise of our Saviour that the gates of Hell shall not prevaile against the Church must be vnderstood of the whole Church as well Primitiue as of consequent Ages by what evident Text of Scripture can you proue that the same words must haue different significations in order to the Primitiue Church which was infallible in all Points of Faith and the vniversall Church of following Ages As in a like occasion I saied hertofore Yourself N. 72. speak to Charity Maintayned thus vnless you will say which is most ridiculous that when our Saviour saied He will teach you c and he will shew you c He meant one you in the former clause and an other you in the latter If it be most ridiculous that one word should be referred to different Persons I may say ad hominem why ought it not to seeme most ridiculous that in the same sentence the same words the gates of Hell shall not privaile must signify two differēt kinds of not prevailing one against fundamētall ād an other against vnfundamentall errours in order to one and the same word Church 78. In your N. 71. you pretend to answer the Text which Ch Ma saieth may be alledged for the infallibility of the Church out S. Jo 14. V. 16.17 I will ask the Father and he will give you another Paraclete that he may abide with you for ever the spirit of truth And Jo 16.13 but when he the Spirit of truth commeth he shall teach you all truth You answer first that one may fall into error if this all truth be not simply all but all of some kind Secondly that one may fall into some error even contrary to the truth which is taught him if it be taught him only sufficiently and not irresistibly so that be may learne it if he will not so that he must and shall whether be will or no. Now who can assertaine me that the Spirits teaching is not of this nature Or how can you possibly reconcile it with your Doctrine of free will in believing Thirdly you say N. 72. that these promises were made to the Apostles only 79. Answer These places were alledged by Dr.
appeares out of S. Matth. Cap. 28. where some things belong to the Apostles only as going into Galilee c. and other to the Church in them or to them in the Church as beside Teaching and Baptizing N. 19. Behold I am with you all dayes even to the consummation of the world which signifyes that he would be with them in their Successours who were to continue for all Ages after the death of the Apostles with whom he could not be present in themselves to the consummation of the world who were not to liue to the worlds end as you say heere Did he or could he haue saied to your Church which then was not extant I haue many things to say vnto you but you cannot beare them now So we may apply the like words Did he or could he say to his Apostles I will be with you to the worlds end when they were not to be extant But the truth is when our Saviour spoke to his Apostles our Church was then extant in the Apostles and the Apostles were to liue to the worlds end in their successours and so our Saviours promise is fulfilled of being alwaies with the Apostles in their Successours 81. You object to Charity Maintayned that In the very text by him alledged there are things promised which your Church cannot with any modesty pretend to For there it is saied the Spirit of Truth not only will guide you into all Truth but also will shew you things to come But this is answered by what hath bene saied already Though it were granted that some thing was promised to the Apostles alone it doth not follow that the whole promise was so restrained as I haue shewed aboue Besides Christian Faith teaches vs many things to come as the comming of Antichrist the generall judgement and signes precedent to it The Resurrection of the dead The eternall punishment of the wicked and reward of the just c For this cause S. Anselm apud Cornelium a Lapide in 4. Ephes N. 11. teaches that by Prophets in that Text are vnderstood interpreters of Scriptures because per eas futura justorum gaudia malorumque supplicia hominibus praenunciant If by shewing things to come you vnderstand the Gift of Prophecy Do you hold it as certaine that every one of the Apostles had that Gift as that they were infallible in matters of Faith Are you certaine that every Apostle could haue written the Apocalyps of S. John So that indeed if you will needs haue a full parity between being led into all Truth and knowing of things to come you will be found not to be certaine that the Apostles were infallible in matters of Faith Morover it is to be observed that to be infallible was essentiall to the office of Apostolate or teaching the Church as the Gift of Prophecy is accidentall and was communicated to others as we read in the Acts as also it was accidentall to speak all toungs to haue bene called immediatly by our Saviour as S. Matthias was not and yet was an Apostle to haue inflicted Censure of Excommunication with some visible punishment and the like extraordinary ornaments or Priviledgs And therfore no wonder if infallibility in matters of Faith be communicated to the Church though the knowledg of things to come were not though indeed de facto God hath and ever will communicate the Gift of Prophecy to his Church as is certaine by the vndoubted Authority of the best writers of all Ages You see now that neither Charity Maintayned nor other Catholique writers cite the saied text by halfes as you affirme N. 72. seing the latter clause of shewing things to come makes nothing against them nor alters the sense of the text as I haue shewed But now good Sr. I beseech you reflect whom you impugne while you would perswade men that Charity Maintayned and generally our writers of controversies when they entreate of this Argument cite this text perpetually by hafes seing Dr. Potter Pag 151. cites this very same place and leaves out those words will shew you things to come for which you accuse vs of citing that sentence by halfes especially if you call to mynd that he brings that text to proue that the Church cannot faile in Fundamentall points which as I saied were no proofe if it were meant of the Apostles only as you would proue it was by the words omitted by the Doctor no less than by C Ma he will shew you things to come To all which I add that seing you say that text concerned the Apostles only it must signify an infallibility both in Fundamentall and vnfundamentall Points and therfore seing the Doctor confesses it to be verifyed in the vniversall Church she must be infallible in all Points But it is no wonder that you contradict your Client Potter since you so perpetually contradict yourself 82. In your N. 71. you seeke to divert me to the controversyes about publique service in an vnknowne tongue and communion vnder both kinds But you know Catholique Writers haue answered all that can be objected against vs in these two questoins and whatsoever you can alledg if it were of any moment as it cannot be it could only shew that Scripture even in that which to you seemes so plain is indeed obscure seing so many learned holy and laborious men see no such evidence as you pretend yea they are certaine that your pretended cleare interpretation is an Heresie Yet because you alledge against vs without any cause a greeke word edoke I must not omitt to tell you with truth that Protestants in this Point of the Sacrament shamefully falsify the Greeke Text 1. Cor. 11. V. 27. saying in their Translation Whosoever shall eate this bread and drinke this cup of the Lord vnworthily shall be guilty of the Body and Bloud of the Lord wheras the Greeke word signifyes vel or and so you should say Whosoever shall eate this bread Or drinke the cup c. which fraud you vse to proue the necessity of Communion in both kindes 83. Your N. 73.74 containe no difficulty which hath not bene answered Only I may note that you put some Objection in a different letter which in Cha. Ma. I find not The Promise that the Holy Ghost was to remaine with the Apostles for ever was not restrained to yet is verifyed in them because they remaine for ever in their successours as you will say they remaine in their Writings Your friged interpretation of ever that is for the time of their lives is confuted by what hath bene cited out of S. Matthew Chap. 28.20 I am with you all daies even to the consummation of the world And surely the end of the world signifyes a larger extent than the end of their lives Nay you are not content with limiting all Promises made to them to the tearme of their life but it seemes you make it not absolute but only conditionall even for that short tyme. For you say The spirit would abide
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
that were not enough to shew that it must haue it in this which is very true For to be affirmed in Scripture but once is as much as to be affirmed a mill yon of tymes and seing you can giue no certaine Rule whether I must vnderstand that one place by those many or contrarily the greater number by that one it appeares even by this how hard a thing it is to know the true sense of Scripture without a Living Guide which was the end for which Charity Maintayned alledged that Text Ephes 4. and the other places of which we haue spoken all which though indeed they be cleare enough for the infallibility of the Church yet we see what evasions you seek to the contrary yea and pretend that your interpretation is evidently true and the interpretation both of Protestants and Catholiques manifestly false 101. The rest of N. 80. about the sufficiency of Scripture alone hath bene confuted in divers occasions Your instance that if Galen Euclid c. had writ compleat bodies of the sciences they professed perspicuously and by Divine inspiration we would then hau granted that their works had beene sufficient to keep vs from errour and from dissention in these matters is but a begging of the Question that Scripture is the only Rule of Faith and because exceptio firmat contrariam regulam and that Scripture is not the totall Rule of Faith we must retort your argument against yourself and say that by Scripture which alone is not a compleat comprehension of all necessary points we cannot be kept from errour and dissention in matters of Faith Besides those Authors might preserue vs from errour and dissention in vertue of Demonstrations evident to naturall Reason wherein all men agree But the Objects of Faith are obscure and Scripture not able to interpret itself though it were supposed to containe all matters of Faith as it doth not and therefore a Living interpreter is necessary besides the written word 102 Your N. 81. containes nothing but Passion with the quintessence of Socinianisme seing you expresly profess that you are willing to leaue all men to their liberty and therfore needs no answer except what hath bene given hertofore You do but cavill at this saying of Charity Maintayned all which words or Texts wont to be alledged for the infallibility of the Church seeme clearly enough to proue that the Church is vniversally infallible as if it had indeed seemed to him that those Texts did only seeme to proue whereas it is evident and so He expresly declared himself he saied so because he did not bring them for proofes but only to shew how hard and impossible it is to determine matters by Scripture alone seing that which seemes to one to be the plaine meaning of Gods Word seemes not so to an other though indeed the saied Texts do effectually proue the necessity of an infallible living Guide But as you began vpon a direct mistake to examine the Texts which Charity Maintayned alledged so it was very congruous you should conclude with the like errour 103. I might omitt the following Numbers as contayning no reall difficulty which hath not bene cleared hertofore Yet I will note some passages to prevent all suspicion of guiltiness tergiversation or artificiall dissimulation of what I could not answer Only I intreate the Reader to reade the words of Charity Maintayned in himself if he chance to find any difficulty In your N. 84. you falsify the words of Charity Maintayned which are N. 23. Scripture is to be vnderstood literally where you leaue of but Charity Maintayned adds as it sounds and you cannot deny but according to the sound of the letter or words our interpretation of our Saviours Promises without any limitation is more agreable to the sound of the words which express or sound no restraint than that of Potter which restraines them to fundamentall points And therefore your telling vs that to literall is not opposed Restrayned buâ— Figuratiue is impertinent seing Charity Maintayned expresly spoke only of what did most sute with the sound of the letter which whosoever restraines without evident necessity doth as ill or worse than if he reduced it to a figuratiue sense yea a reality and a Figure may stand together as limited and vnlimited cannot 104. I say to your N. 87. that you and Dr Potter do not agree about those Texts concerning the infallibility of the Church as I haue shewed and in divers other matters which is a signe you haue no certaine cleare Rule or meanes for interpreting Scripture as also appeares by the innumerable other disagreements of Protestants which experience noe man will deny to be a good proofe But say you If there be no possible meanes to agree about the sense of these Texts whilst we are left to ourselves then it is impossible that Protestants should agree in your fense of them that the Chureh is vniversally infallible Answer You cannot as long as you are left to yourselves be assured with an infallible Act of Faith what the meaning of those Texts is by help only of those Meanes which Protestants prescribe for that purpose seing they cannot exceed probability as Protestants confess whereas we rely vpon other infallible meanes as Tradition and Authority of the Church which we proue to be infallible independently of Scripture which you also profess to receiue from the Church and then we may find in Scripture Texts which being interpreted by the true Church may beare witness to particulars concerning her for there can be no better reason to belieue one than a belief that he is infallible as you will not deny but that if once we belieue Scripture to be the word of God we may proue by it felf truths concerning itself as that it is divinely inspired that it is profitable to teach to correct c. as also you must grant that the Apostolicall primitiue Church which you hold to be infallible could beare witness to it self 105. You vrge Charity Maintayned with this Demand Why then saied you of the selfe same Texts but in the Pags next before these words seeme cleerely enough to proue that the Church is vniversally infallible A sirange forgeâ—fulness that the same man almost in the same breath should say of the same words They seeme cleerely enough to proue such a conclusion true and yet that three indifferent men should haue no possible meanes while they follow their owne reason to agree inche truth of this conclusion 106. Answer is it not a strang thing that you should not distinguish betwixt videri and videre seeming and seeing seeming doth not signify certainty or evidence as seeing doth and he who sees the sunne shine at midday will not say that it seemes cleare enough that the Sunne shines but his very Act of seeing makes it certaine and evident to him that he sees And if this be not true that Charity Maintayned did not absolutely affirme but only saied it seemes cleare enough c. Why
except only by similitude analogy reduction or some such way For example we find not expressed in the Decalogue either divers sinnes as Gluttony Drunkennesse Pride Sloth Covetousnes in desiring either things superfluous or with too much greedines or divers of our chiefe obligations as obedience to princes and all superiours not only Ecclesiasticall but also Civill And the many Treatises of Civilians Canonists and Casuists are witnesses that divers sinnes against the light of Reason and Law of nature are not distinctly expressed in the ten commandements although when by other diligences they are found to be vnlawfull they may be reduced to some of the commandements and yet not so evidently and particularly but that divers doe it in divers manners Thus farr Charity Maintayned Of all this you thought sit to take no notice but only cavill at his words That Summaries Epitomees and the like briefe Abstractes are not intended to specify all particulars of that Science or subject to which they belong against which you reply Yes if they be intended for perfect Summaries they must not omitt any necessary Doctrine of that Science wherof they are Summaries Answer the Creed is a perfect summarie of those Truths which the Apostles intended to deliver therin Now for you to suppose that their purpose was to expresse all necessary points of Faith is to begg the Question in stead of answering the Argument of Charity Maintayned about the Decalogue of commandements though still I grant that the Creed containes all necessary points of Faith in that sense which I explicated in my Observations 16. All that you haue N. 32.33.34.35.36.37.38 makes nothing against the Doctrine of Charity Maintayned but confirmes it because you confesse that defacto there are many points necessary to be believed which belong not immediatly to practice from whence it followes evidently that Protestants doe but cosen poore people in alledging the Creed to that purpose for which they make vse or it as I sayd And besides seeing the particular points which Charity Maintaymed specifies N. 14. are either necessary to be believed by every particular person or at least by the whole Church which cannot erre in such points we must say the Creed doth not containe all necessary Articles of beliefe Morover you cannot be sure but that of those many important points which Charity Maintayned shewes not to be contained in the Creed some are fundamentall seing you confesse that you cannot tell which points in particular be fundamentall and so for ought you know they are fundamentall I obserue that you make mention of other particular points touched by Charity Mairtayned but omit that of Originall sinne because you doe not belieue it and yet Charity Maintayned N. 9. told you that S. Austine de Pec. Orig. Cont. Pelag. L. 2 Chap. 22. teacheth that it belongs to the foundation of Faith Lastly and Chiefly since the Creed alone without the Tradition and declaration of the Church cannot giue vs the true sense of itselfe and that in every one of its Articles are implied divers points not expressed which were afterwards declared by Generall Councels and which all are obliged to belieue it followes that even for those articles which you call credenda the Creed is not sufficient of itselfe To say nothing that for the maine point Dr. Potter and you yield vs as much as we desire to wit that the Creed containes not all Fundamentall points of Faith as Faith directs our manners and practice and so whatsoever you say of points meerely speculatiue imports little for the maine Substance of clearing Protestants from falshood and impertinency in alledging the Creed as they are wont to doe as if all were done which is required to Christians for matter of their vnderstanding and beliefe if they giue assent to the Creed though they differ in other articles of Faith which direct our lives 17. In your N 35. and 36. you make a florish about the Doctrine of Merit which is not a subject to be handled in this place wherof every one may find excellent Treatises in many Catholik Writers Only I say 1. That it is certaine Protestants haue alwayes supposed that they differ from vs in this point and therfor that our disagreement is in that Fundamentall point that God is a Remunerator as S. Paul saith and to this end only Charity Maintayned mentioned this point of Merit not to impugne the doctrine of Protestants in this place and therfor your discourse of this matter is plainly impertinent 2. That you doe not or at least will not vnderstand rightly our Catholik Doctrine about Merit which requires both habituall grace and particular motion of the Holy Ghost who therfor rewards his owne Gifts and you wrong vs in saying we make God a rewarder only and not a giver For this cause we acknowledge our workes of themselves or of their owne nature to haue no proportion with Grace and Glory and that by duty we are obliged to serue God as farr as he commands vs which hinders not but that by his Grace this very serving him may be meritorious a duty and yet a deserving as the servant merits a reward for the workes which he is obliged to doe which is much more evident seing de facto God hath not commanded all that he might haue exacted of vs in rigour 3. As else where so here you take vpon you to declare the doctrine of Protestants about merit without any commission from them who are so divived among themselves that it is impossible for you to speake as you thinke in behalfe of them all without putting yourselfe to maintaine contradictions For how can they pretend to any Merit or Obedience who teach that it is impossible to keepe the Commandements that all our workes are deadly sinnes that we haue no free will and the like 4. That you bring the very same arguments against the merit of Just men which your friend Uolkelius de Uer. Relig. Lib. 5. Chap 20. vrges against the Merit of our Blessed Saviour and therfore English Protestants who against you Socinians belieue that Christ merited and satisfied for mankind must answer your objections against vs. 18. To your N. 39. I say whosoever considers the words of Potter Pag 255. will confesse that he both approves and applauds the words of Dr. Vsher cited by you to which words I neede only answer that it is impossible that they who agree in points receyvea in the whole Christian world and yet disagree in any point of Faith be it never so small can with such a beliefe joyne holy obedience seing it is a deadly sinne and disobedience and as you confesse damnable in it selfe to hold any errour against whatsoever revealed Truth And so your discourse in the beginning of your next N. 40. falls to the ground it being impossible that agreement in Fundamentall points only can joyne men in one communion of Faith while they so differ in other matters as one side must be in a damnable
errour and the same Heaven cannot containe them both wherby your Question why should any errour exclude any from the Churches Communion which will not depriue him of eternall salvation Is clearly inverted and retorted by saying Why should not any errour exclude any man from the Churches communion which will depriue him of eternall salvation The Arguments which you bring in this Number and N. 41.42.43 to proue that every one of the foure Gospells containes all points necessary to be believed haue been confuted at large hertofore 19. To your N. 44. and 45. I answer that Dr. Vshers words are as vniversall as can be whÌ„ he speakes of Propositions which without all controversie are vniversally receaved in the whole Christian world And if you will needs haue his other words the sevrrall professions of Christianity that hath any large spread in any part of the world to be a Limitation of those other which you haue now cited I am content vpon condition that you confesse it to be also a contradiction to those former words of his As for the thing itselfe Cha Ma names places of large extent in which the Antitrinitarians are rife and I feare he might haue added too many in England Holland and other places wher Heresy raignes and even Dr. Porter cites Hooker and Morton teaching that the deniall of our Saviours Divinity is not a Fundamentall heresy destructiue of a true Church neither doth the Doctor disproue them Paulus Ueridicus I grant names the B. Trinity among coinopista not as if Dr. Vsher had affirmed it to be such but as in Truth it is necessary for all or rather indeed he affirmes nothing but only as they say exempligratia by way of supposition which abstracts from the Truth of the thing itselfe For thus you cite his words To consider your coinopista or communiter credenda Articles as you call them vniversally believed by these severall professions of Christianity which haue any large spread in the world These Articles for example may be the vnity of the Godhead the Trinity of Persons the Immortality of the soule c Where you see he speakes only exempli gratia or by a may be according to the Doctrine of Catholiks without regarding whether or no in the opinion of Dr. Vsher the denyall of the Trinity exclude salvation But it is both ridiculous and vnjust in you to call this the greatest objection of Charity Maintayned which he touched only by the way and in order to Dr. Vâ—shers words For concerning the thing itselfe Protestants who deny the infallibility of Gods Church will not I feare hold the denyall of the Trinity to be a fuÌ„dameÌ„tall errour seing so many old heretiques haue denied the Truth of that Article and you with your Socinian brethren doe the same at this day and pretend many texts â—f Scripture for your Heresy If 〈◊〉 had at hand Paulus Ueridiâ—us perhaps I could discover somewhâ—t more against you For I remember he shewes how according to Dr. Vshers discourse and grounds divers Articles of Christian Faith may be cassiered and cast out of the Church and he finds so much matter against the Doctor as it is no wonder if he in his short examination tooke no notice of the contradiction which Charity Maintayned touches as he Charity Maintayned takes not notice of all the advantages or other contradictions which perhaps he might haue found and which Paulus Ueridicus observes but that was not the ayme of Ch Ma in his answer to Potter 20. In your N. 46. you say There is no contradiction that the same man at the same time should belieue contradictions Which N. 47. you declare or temper in this manner Indeed that men should not assent to contradictions and that it is vnreasonable to doe soe I willingly grant But to say it is impossible to be done is against every mans experience and almost as vnreasonable as to doe the thing which is saied to be impossible For though perhaps it may be very difficult for a man in his right wits to belieue a contradiction expressed in termes especially if he belieue it to be a contradiction yet for men being cowed and awed by superstition to perswade themselves vpon slight and triviall grounds that these or these though they seeme contradictions yet indeed are not so and so to belieue them or if the plaine repugnance of them be veiled and disguised a little with some empty vnintelligible non-sense distinction or if it be not exprest but implyed not direct but by consequence so that the parties to whose Faith the propositions are offered are either innocently or perhaps affectedly ignorant of the contrariety of them for men in such cases easily to swallow and digest contradictions he that denies it possible must be a meer stranger in the world Thus you after your fashion involuing things in obscurity that one cannot penetrate what you would say but that you may haue an evasion against whatsoever may be obsected As for the thing it selfe There is no doubt but that men may belieue things which in themselves are contradictions wherof we need no other proofe then to shew that it happeneth so to yourselfe if you belieue what you affirme even in this matter wherin I shall demonstrate to be implied plaine contradiction But when men say with one voyce that we cannot assent to contradictions it is to be vnderstood if they be apprehended as such and therfore it might seeme needlesse to spend many words in confutation of this heresie as I may call it against the first principle of Reason Yet because your reasons may perhaps seeme to some to proue more since even in your explication or modification you saie only perhaps and may be of that which all the world holds for certaine and for the ground of all certainty in humane Reason and because if they be well considered they strike at the sublime mysteries of Christian Religion and in regard this is an age of Academiks and Sceptiks who willingly put all things to dispute wherby vnder pretence of freedome in Reason they take liberty against Religion as also to shew how little reason you had to take this vaine occasion of a fond flourish to shew a Socinian wit and lastly because by this occasion I may examine some other points I will both confute your reasons and shew that you contradict yourselfe 21. Only I cannot for beare to reflect how he who resolves Faith into Reason so much extold by him that he relyes theron as Catholiks doe vpon the infallibility of Gods Church or Calvinists vpon the private spirit or on the Grace of God which both Catholiks and Protestants against Pelagius belieue to be necessary for every Act of Divine Faith how I say this man doth now so extenvate Reason that if it indeed were so miserable and foolish as he makes it we might better belieue our dreames than our reason wherby he destroies all that himselfe builds vpon Reason and consequently Faith it selfe which in
to bring one to open contradictions which you confess is very difficult and vnreasonable you should say impossible for a man in his right wits to belieue and so you forsake your two Dr. Vsher and Potter in this Assertion which you say N. 47. the one preached and printed the other reprinted Your second answer is that the latter part of Dr. Vshers words is but a repetition of the former But this answer destroyes the former which yet you do not deny to be good and agreeable to the meaning of the Doctor For if the Second part be a contradiction of the former as according to your first answer it is how can it be only a repetition therof And you tooke not a fitt example out of S. Athanasius his Creed to proue a meere repetition you I say who wickedly hold that Creed which indeed is a Catholique profession of the chiefest Articles of Christian Religion to be but an aggregate of Contradictions And yet that explication of S. Athanasius Neither confounding the Persons c was necessary against some Heresies that grāted a distinction of Persons only quoad nomina ād not in reality For your other vulgar examples to proue that those latter words may be only a repetition of the former you must remember that in matters of Faith all shew or shadow of contradictions or falshood must be carefully avoided as certainly it is a pernicious thing to giue occasion of believing that a damnable Heresie may stand with the belief of all necessary Articles of Faith and so a formall Heretique may be saved and nevertheless you do not deny but that Dr. Vshers words may suppose this Yet Charity Maintayned out of this poyson gathered this wholsome doctrine in the same N. 17. that if one believing all Fundamentall Articles in the Creed may superinduce damnable heresies it followes that the fundamentall truths contrary to those damnable heresies are not contained in the Creed And so the Creed cannot be saied to containe all Points necessary to be believed which is the maine Point in hand You wonder that Ch. Ma. did nor espie an other contradiction in D. Vshers words like to that which He noted but if that other be a contradiction you say it is of the same nature with that which was observed and so it had bene to multiply things without necessity But enough of this which Ch. Ma. N. 17. professed to note only by the way which yet did either trouble you very much for the difficulty of his argument or else you are willing to take anie occasion of making a vaine shew of your skill in Logick and Metaphysick but with how many contradictions and little credit to yourselfe I hope the Reader hath seene by the confutation of all your Reasons 35. In your number 48.49 you are highly offended with Ch. Ma. as if he had said N. 18. that Dr. Potter patches vp a Religion of men agreeing in some few or one Article of beliefe that Christ is our Saviour but for the rest hold conceipts plainly contradictory which you say is a shamelesse calumny not only because D. Potter in this point delivers not his owne judgment but relates the opinion of others M. Hocker and M. Morton but especially even these men as they are related by Dr. Potter to the constitution of the very essence of a Church in the lowest degree require not only Faith in Christ Iesus the Sonne of God and Saviour of the world but also submission to his Doctrine in minde and will Now I beseech you Syr tell me ingenuously whether the Doctrine of Christ may be called without blasphemy scarcely one point of Faith Is it not manifest to all the world that Christians of all Professions agree with one consent in the beliefe of all those Bookes of Scripture which were not doubted of in the ancient Church without danger of damnation And so the truths wherin they agree amount to many millions c. 36. Answer First Ch Ma in the said N. 18. doth not ground his Assertion vpon the Doctrine of Hooker and Morton but vpon the principles of Potter and Protestants who hold that men may be members of the same Church if they agree in fundamentall Articles though they should differ in never so many other points and you cannot deny this not only to be true but the very ground for which they hold themselves to be brethren and capable of salvation notwithstanding their differences in matters not fundamentall From whence it followes that although it were granted that Protestants agree in many Points not fundamentall yet this is meerely accidentall and nothing against the Assertion of Ch Ma because if once you suppose them to agree in all fundamentalls and disagree in all other Points they must still be members of one Church For in this mattet more or fewer cannot alter their case so they keepe with in the compass of non-fundamentalls as contrarily though they were supposed to agree in those many millions which you mention and in as many millions more as you may please to imagine of points not fundamentall yet if they differ but in one fundamentall they cannot be members of the same Church and so your millions of such points can availe nothing either to constitute men members of the same Church or to hinder them from being so and therfor if you agree in never so many such points it helps you no more then if you agreed in none at all according to the ground and Doctrine of Potter and Model of his Church and therfor the saying of Ch Ma is very true who speaks reservedly in this manner According to this Model of Dr. Potters foundation consisting in the agreement of scarcely one Point of Faith what a strange Church would he make of men concurring in some one or few Articles of beliefe who yet for the rest should be holding conceipts plainly contradictory so patching vp a Religion of men who agree only in the Article that Christ is our Saviour but for the rest are like to the parts of a Chimera having the head of a man the neck of a horse c. For there is greater repugnancy betwene assent and dissent then betwene integrall parts as head neck c. These words if you read them with attention doe not affirme what is de facto but only goe vpon a supposition that is what a Church he would make if men agreed only in fundamētall points and for the rest should hold conceipts plainly contradictorie and therfor he vseth the word Model which signifies not necessarily what is but what would be if Potter proceeded according to his owne grounds taking them for a Model of his building Thus Ch Ma doth not wrong Dr. Potter in imputing to him the opinions of others but you misalledge Ch Ma that you may accuse him of calumny created by yourselfe 37. Secondly I answer if Ch Ma had spoken not vpon meere supposition but by way of affirmation as he did not if he committed any
it remaines that all his interrogations were fully answered the very foundation vpon which they stood that the Creed containes all necessary points being demolished and in particular his interrogation What tyranny is it to impose any new necessary matters on the Faith of Christians Seing yourselfe acknowledge that he professes the Creed to containe all necessary points of Faith not absolutely but as it was further opened and explained in some parts by occasion of emergent Heresies in the other Catholick Creeds of Nice Constantinople Ephesius Chalcedon and Athanasius which are his owne words Pag 216. and therfor he must answer his owne demand What tyranny is it to impose any new vnnecessary matters c. Since the declaration of those Councells were long after the Apostles time and for this cause you expresly professe to forsake the Doctour in this his explication of the Creed as we haue seene hertofore 57. To your N. 69.70.71.72.73 I answer Ch. Ma. had reason to say that Potter citing the words of S. Paul Act. 20. V. 27. adds this glosse of his owne needfull for our salvation For the Apostle both in our translation and in the Protestant English Bible hath profitable not needfull and yourselfe here N. 69. grant the same And speaking in rigor that which is strictly profitable is not needfull or necessary nor that which is properly needfull is profitable as profitable and needfull are membra contradistincta as when we distinguish Meanes to some End that some are profitable others necessary and you know it is in Logick no good division wherin one of the membra dividentia includes the other and therfor your saying to Ch Ma I hope you will make no difficulty to grant that whatsoeuer is needfull for salvation is very profitable is spoken with greater confidence then truth But for our present purpose seing the Apostle Uers 20. sayth I haue withdrawen nothing that was profitable and sayth not I haue withdrawen nothing that was needfull it followes that the Apostle taught not only necessary but also profitable things and thence I inferr that when he sayth V. 27. I haue not spared to declare vnto you all the counsel of God he meant not only of necessary but also of profitable points and therfore of more thē are contained in the Creed For which cause he C Ma. had reasō to take notice of this place in particular which clearly shewes out of the very text of Scripture which Potter cites his interrogations to be of no force but only to begg the question by supposing vntruly that whatsoever the Apostles revealed to the Church is contained in the Creed To salue this you say N. 70. It is not D. Potter that beggs the Question but you that mistake it which is not here in this particular place whether all points of simple Beliefe necessary for the salvation of the primitiue Christians were contained in the Apostles Symbol for that and the proofes of it follow after in the next § Pag. 223. of Dr. Potter but whether any thing can be necessary for Christians to belieue now which was not so from the beginning 58. Answer Dr. Potter Pag 216.217 sayeth The Creed of the Apostles is sayd generally by the Schoolemen and Fathers to comprehend a perfect Catalogue of Fundamentall truths and to imply a full rejection of Fundamentall heresies and hath been receaved by Orthodox Christians as an absolute summarie of the Christian Faith For proofe wherof we will first argue ad hominem and teach the Mistaker how to esteeme of his Creed out of his owne Masters And then having alledged divers Catholik Writers to proue his Assertion he adds it were easy to multiply testimonies to this effect out of their late and ancient schoole Doctors if it were not tedious All agree that the Creed briefely comprehends all Fundamentall principles or rudiments of Faith that it is a distinctiue Character severing Orthodox believers from insidels and heretiks that it is a full perfect and sufficient summary of the Catholik Faith Thus he And immediatly after sayth Their judgment that is the judgment of Catholik Authors whom he alledged herein that is for the purpos of proving the Creed to containe all Fundamentall Articles seemes full of reason And his reasons he setts downe in these words immediatly following For how can it be necessary for any Christian to haue more in his Creed then the Apostles had and the Church of their times May the Church of after ages make the narrow way to heaven narrower then our Saviour left it And so he goes on with his interrogations and in the same context hath these words of which we speake The Apostles professe they revealed to the Church the whole counsell of God keeping back nothing needfull for our Salvation What Tyranny then is it to impose any new necessary matters on the Faith of Christians I pray you consider whether he doth not speake expressly of the Apostles Creed when he saith How can it be necessary for any Chrictian to haue more in this Creed then the Apostles had and the Church of their time And doe not you N. 15. expressly vnderstand these words of the Doctor of the Apostles Creed as it is a full comprehension of that part of the beliefe of the Apostles which cōtaines only the necessary articles of simple Faith And consequently when the Doctour askes How can it be necessary for any Christian to haue more in his Creed then the Apostles had his demand must be How can it be necessary for any Christian to belieue more then the Creed containes Which evidently supposes that the Creed containes all things necessary otherwise it might be necessary to belieue some thing not contained in the Creed Besides what connexion can ther be in the Doctours words taken in your sense which will make him argue in this manner No Christian is obliged to belieue more then the Apostles believed who certainly believed more then is contained in the Creed Therfor the judgment of those who teach that the Creed containes all Fundamentall points is full of reason And indeed the Doctor had no occasion at all to proue that it can not be necessary for any Christian to belieue more then the Apostles did belieue neither did Ch Ma say any such thing And why doe you N. 67. exact of C Ma an āswer to D. Potters interrogations if they proue only that no Christiā is obliged to belieue more then the Apostles believed which as I sayd Ch Ma never denied Will you haue him C Ma confute his owne judgment and answer those arguments which were intended only to proue his owne beliefe Thus while you will be clearing the Doctour from begging the question you make him with great paines and pompe of words make many patheticall interrogations nothing to the purpose and grant that which is the only maine point that those his interrogations proue not that all fundamentall points be contained in the Creed Chuse of these inconveniences which you please
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
divided in externall communion one of the which true Churches did triumph over all errour and corruption in doctrine and practice but the other was stained with both For to finde this diversity of churches cānot stand with reds of Histories which are silent of any such matter It is against Dr. Potters owne grounds that the Church may erre in points not fundamentall It contradicts the words in which he sayd Pag 155. The Church may not hope to triumph over all sinne and errour till she be in Heaven It evacuateth the brag of Protestants that Luther reformed the whole Church Of these last words you say Let it be so I see no harme will come of it What indeed Is it no harme that it may be sayd with truth that your Protestants are proved bragging false Lyars in saying Luther reformed the whole Church But to omit this these words declare that Ch. Ma. speakes of two Churches wherof one did triumph over all errour and then adds to find this diversity of two Churches cannot stand with records of Histories c where the particles this diversity are referred to two kinds of Churches wherof one did triumph over all sinne and errour and yourselfe explicating the Doctors words say To triumph over errour is to be secure from it to be out of danger of it not to be obnoxious to it This supposed the objection is clearly of no force wherin you say To suppose a visible Church before Luther which did not erre is not to contradict this ground of D. Potters that the Church may erre Vnless you will haue vs belieue that May be and Must be is all one which rule if it were true then sure all men would be honest because all men may be so And you would not make so bad Arguments vnless you will pretend you cannot make better But this whole objection is grounded vpon concealing the words of Ch. Ma. who spoke of a Church triumphing over all errour as we haue seene by his express words and therfor when in the very next consequent period he mentions a Church free from errour it cannot be otherwise vnderstood then of such a freedome as he spoke of immediatly before that is of a Church as indeed the true Church ought to be free from all danger of falling into any least errour against Faith Besides suppose he had spoken of a Church which defacto did not erre in any point fundamentall or not fundamentall from the Apostles time to Luther it had been no ill argument to inferr that she could not erre because morally speaking and without a miracle or particular assistance or infallible direction of the Holy Ghost it had been impossible for so many men in so many Ages of so different dispositions through the whole world to haue agreed in the same beliefe concerning matters not evident of themselves but farr exceeding the light of naturall reason and seeming contrarie to it and therfor if they had not been effectually preserved from errour no doubt but some would haue fallen into it which is so true that Dr. Potter sayth Pag 39. it is a great vanity to hope or expect that all learned men in this life should absolutely consent in all the pieces and partiticles of divine truth The rest of this Number hath been particularly answered heretofore and your weakning the strength of Historie and tradition serves only to call in question all Religion in your ground who belieue Scripture for tradition 17. In your N. 57. you say to those words of Ch. Ma. N. 18. Our Saviour foretold that there would be in the Church tares with choice 〈◊〉 Looke again I pray and you shall see that the field he speaks of is not the Church but the world Answer Ch. Ma. doth not as interpreting our Saviours Parable Matth 31. saie that the field he speaks of is the Church but that he foretold that there would be in the Church tares with choise corne which is very true seing he expresly makes the parable of the kingdom of Heaven which is the Church saying The Kingdom of Heaven is resembled to a man c. and the amplitude of the word world doth not exclude the Church for which and her Pastours he gaue that wholesome Document Sinite vtraque crescere Let both grow vp and I pray where but in the Church can there be the wheat which our Saviour would not haue rooted out And because your owne guiltiness moves you in this occasion to tax Catholiques because they punish obstinate Heretiques you should reflect that the tares are not to be gathered when there is danger least by so doing the wheat may be rooted out and therfore a contrario sensu if there be no such danger yea that by sparing the cockle the good corne will suffer the cockle is rather to be taken away than the corne destroied In your N. 58. may be observed a strange kinde of saying that God is infinitly mercifull and therfor will not damne men for meer errours who desire to finde the truth and cannot Is it mercy not to damne men for that which is no fault And for which to damne one were injustice and therfor not to doe it is not mercy but justice 18. Your N. 59.60 haue bene answered at large in the Chap 7. about Schisme Neither can these propositions be defended from a contradiction The Church of Rome wants nothing necessary to salvation and yet it is necessary to salvation to forsake her For as I haue proved even he who believes she erred yet is supposed to belieue that notwithstanding that error still she wants nothing necessary to salvation and therefore the distinction of persons whereof one believes she errs and the other believes she does not erre cannot saue this contradiction 19. That which you say N. 61. is answered by these few lines Almighty God hath promised to giue his sufficient grace to avoyd all deadly sinne and consequently all damnable errour as you confesse every errour against any revealed Truth to be vnles ignorāce excuse it which cannot happen if as you affirme such an assistance is promised to vs as shall lead vs if we be not wanting to it and ourselves into all not only necessary but very proficable truth and guard vs from all not only destructiue but also hurtfull errours because this assistance supposed the Church if she fall into errour must be wanting to herselfe and her ignorance can not be invincible but culpable and damnable both in it selfe and to her and if her errours be damnable she wants some thing necessary to salvation that is the true assent of Faith contrary to that damnable errour and she hath something incompatible with salvation namely that damnable errour and so indeed that truth which you call only profitable becomes necessary and that errour which you suppose to be only hurtfull is destructiue if your Doctrine be ttue that God gives sufficient Grace to avoyd all sortes of errour and to lead to all very profitable truths
schisme is a division fro that church with which one agrees in matters of faith they doe not distinguish betweene points fundamētall ād not fūdamēntall in order to the negatiue precept of not disbelieving any point sufficiētly proposed as revealed by God ād so in fact all points being fūdamētall in this sense as both you and Potter are forced to confesse more then once though in other occasions you contradict it as even in this place you make such a distinction and vpon it ground your objection whosoever agree truly in all Fundamentall points in this sense agree in all points of truths revealed by God and sufficiently proposed for such If Protestants will faine to themselves another kinde of points not fundamentall in order to the Negatiue precept of Faith Charity Maintayned is not obliged to side with them but may and ought to say that if Protestants pretend to agree with vs in fundamentall Points they must a parte rei agree with vs in all Points sufficiently proposed as divine Truths and that agreement supposed while they depart from our Communion they becocome most formall Schismatiks as Schisme is distinguished from heresy Thus your Sillogisme which you pretend to resemble the argument of Ch Ma is answered For when you say He that obeyes God in all things is innocent Titus obeys God in somethings Therefore he is innocent Your Minor should be Titus obeys God in all things as they who agree in fundamentall points of Faith must agree in all things that is they must not disagree in any revealed truth for to agree in that sense is fundamentall to the Faith of a Christian as Potter confesses By this also your N. 79. is answered Neither doe your N. 80. and 81. containe any difficulty which is not answered by a meere denyall I wish the Reader for his owne good to reade what you omitt in the N. 29. of C Ma where he shewes that Luther was farr enough from intending any reformation with some other points which you omitt or involue in darkness and which being read in him answer all your Objections 23. Your N. 82. gives as great a deadly blow to Protestant Religion as no adversary could haue givē a greater C Ma sayd that Luther ād his Associates did wholy disagree in the particulars of their reformatiō which was a signe that the thing vpon which theyr thoughts first pitched was not any particular Modell or Idea of Relig ō but a settled resolution to forsake the Church of Rome This you not only grant but proue that it could not be otherwise saying to Ch Ma. Certainly it is no great marveile that ther was as you say disagreement between them in the particulars of their Reformation Nay morally speaking it was impossible it should be otherwise And why You giue the reason in these remarkable words the Declination from which originall purity of religiō some conceaving to haue begunne though secretly in the Apostles times the mystery of iniquity being then in worke and after their departure to haue shewed itselfe more openly others againe believing that the Church continued pure for some ages after the Apostles and then declined And consequently some ayming at an exact conformity with the Apostolique times others thinking they should doe God and men good service could they reduce the Church to the condition of the fourth and fift ages some taking their direction in this worke of Reformation only from Scripture others from the writings of Fathers and the decrees of Councells of the first fiue Ages certainly it is no great mervaile that ther was as you say disagreement between them in the particulars of their Reformation nay morally speaking it was impossible it should be otherwise Yet let me tell you the difference between them especially in comparison of your Church and Religion is not the difference between good and bad but between good and better And they did best that followed Scripture interpreted by Catholick written Tradition which Rule the reformers of the Church of England proposed to themselves to follow I know not whether the vncertainty or misery of Protestant religion could haue been described in more lively colours then you haue set it out For if they be vncertaine from whence to beginne their Reformation and for that cause you confesse it was impossible for them not to disagree in the particulars therof it followes that now they haue no certainty what Reformation is true or whether a Reformation ād not rather a Deformation or falshood And indeed the different heades even as you propose them are so confused that it is not easy to vnderstand what they meane and then how hard must it be to take them for a distinct rule how to proceed in the Reformation of the whole world If the principles be doubtfull the conclusion can not be certain You make your Progenitours to resemble perfectly the Genethliaci and judicarij Astrologers who not agreeing in their Principles proue vaine and ridiculous in their predictions You are like to a certaine man who not long a goe in a citty which I could name apprehending himselfe in his climactericall yeare could not be induced to eate as despayring to passe that Criticall time till he was told by a witty Physition that he must count his age from the time of his conception not of his nativity as he had done according to which rate finding as he thought his fatall yeare to be past was presently cured Truly whosoever advisedly and seriously considers this Number of yours can not but forsake Protestantisme if he meane not to forsake his owne soule You endeavoured to perswademen that by the ordinary meanes which are left vs a Church collapsed may be restored to purity which certainly you make impossible to be done by the Doctrine you deliver here Seing confessedly ther is no certainty vpon what Grounds or by what settled directions such a Reformation should proceed nor from whence it should beginne It is also strange to heare you say They did best that followed Scripture interpreted by Catholick written Tradition Which Rule the Reformers of the Church of England proposed to themselves to follow What doe you now tell vs that there be traditiue interpretations of Scripture A thing disclaymed by you through your whole booke denying all other Traditions except that wherby we accept Scripture as the word of God but not the interpretation of it it being as you saie evident of itselfe and ther being no infallible Judge to declare it or any points of Faith which are not contained in it Moreover by what commission or coherence to yourself say you Pag 375. N. 56. That the Bible I say the Bible only is the Religion of Protestants Seing you tell vs here that some of them tooke their direction in this work of Reformation only from Scripture others from the Writings of the Fathers and the Decrees of the Councells for the first fiue Ages and that they did best that followed Scripture interpreted by Catholick written
this case the omission of those observances would be so farr from being evill that the contrary would be a great offence against God and his Church This very same answer serves for your other discourse about a company vniversally infected with some disease and needs only the application from observance to a disease which certainly we should rather endure then make a breach from such a community if by a divine precept we be obliged to remaine therein 27. You cite N. 87. the words of Ch Ma. disadvantagiously He sayth indeed that those few that pretended a Reformation were knowē to be led not with any spirit of Reformation but by some other sinister intention which is very true And N. 29. he shewed it out of Luthers owne words which you thought fit to dissemble and the same may be demonstrated of your other primitiue prime Reformers if it were necessary It is also very true that by going out of the Church no man must hope to be free from those or the like errours for which they left her For they may returne to morrow to their former opinions as heresy is always instable and also to vs Catholiques because out of the true Church they can haue no certaine rule of Faith nor are assisted with plenty of grace for exercising acts thereof as experience teaches vs in the irreconciliable contentions of Protestants and yourselfe say heere P 277. N. 61. The vsuall fecundity of errours is to 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 It is pretty to heare you say N. 88. that the Church is secured from fundamentall errours not by any absolute promise of divine assistance but by the repugnance of any errour fundamentall to the essence and nature of a Church as you may say men are secured from being vnreasonable creatures or beastes because if they were such they could not be men You know very well that when Charity Maintayned sayd N. 31. You teach that no particular person or Church hath any promise of assistance in points fundamentall he meant of an absolute promise of assistance which Potter affirmes the vniversall Church to haue for all fundamentall points and yet grants it not to any particular Person or Church and therefor you had no reason to call that true saying of Ch Ma a manifest falshood Of Luthers opposing himselfe to all I haue spoken heretofore and answered the objection you bring about that matter in your N. 89. 28. Your N. 91. yealds as much as can be desired against yourself and all Protestants That many chiefe learned Protestants are forced to confesse the antiquity of our doctrine and practice which you doe not deny but goe about to specify some particular points of which learned Protestants doe not confesse the antiquity but indeed they are such that any judicious Protestant will wonder that you did mention them in particular confessing therby that for those which you doe not expresse and they are the chiefest differences betwixt Protestants and vs antiquity stands for vs against Protestants though I must add withall to make vp the number you are forced to bring in some things which are not matters of Faith with vs and some other points which are even ridiculous We deny that any Catholick approved Authour acknowledges the novelty of any of our Doctrines or the Antiquity of yours except in that sense as we are wont to say such were Ancient Heresies and Heretikes But you know Erasmus is no competent witnesse in our account Your Num. 72. containes no new difficulty 29. To your N. 93. In answer that the Profession of true Faith is essentiall to every member of the Church as such but Charity is not and therfor every errour against Faith is incompatible with such a Denomination but not sinnes against Charity If the Church might erre in any point of Faith it is true that ex natura rei and considering only that errour or only that one part of the supposition in itselfe her communion might be forsaken and yet it is also true that taking into consideration all sides ād comparing the greater Inconvenience of leaving the communion of the Church with a lesser of professing an errour not Fundamentall it is necessary to remaine in her communion as minus malum and therefore in case and supposition of perplexity not absolutely and per se loquendo to be perferred and chosen so the saying of Ch. Ma. that the Church might be forsaken if she could fall into any errour against Faith is true per se loquendo and not contrary to his other saying that vpon that impossible supposition it were lesse evill and therfor in case of perplexity necessary not to forsake her all which I explicated heretofore at large For avoyding of which inextricable Labyrinths and perplexities and taking away all shadow of contradiction we must belieue the Church to be infallible and secured from all errour against Faith 30. All that you haue N. 94. hath been answered heretofore when we shewed that to depart from the externall communion of the Church was to depart from the Church Your N. 97 containes no difficulty except against yourself who cannot avoide the Authority brought by Char. Main out of S. Optatus except by saying his sayings are not rules of Faith and I desire the Reader to peruse the words of Ch. Ma. N. 35. that the Protestants departed from the Roman Church and not the Roman Church from them with some other reflections of moment 31. In your N. 98. you grant the thing which Ch. Ma affirmes that the Primacie if Peter is confessed by learned Protestants to be of great antiquity and for which the judgment of divers most ancient Fathers is reproved by them as may be seene in Brereley Tract 1. Sect. 3. Subdivis 10. Which to such as beare due respect to the agreement of so many ancient learned and holy Fathers ought to proue that it is not only ancient but true And I wonder you can say that having perused Brereley you cannot find any one Protestant confessing any one Father to haue concurred in opinion with vs that the Popes Primacy is de Jure Divino wheras he cites divers Protestants confessing forced by evedence of Truth that divers Fathers proved that Primacy out of the Power given and Promise made by our Saviour to S. Peter and that vpon Him he builded his Church And to speak Truth it is no better than ridiculous to imagine that all other Churches did or would or could in prejudice to the Authority of particular Churches confer vpon the sea of Rome an vniversall power over them all to admitt Appeales against them to reverse their decrees c. vnless they had believed such a Power to haue bene granted by a Higher power We see how zealously every one is bent to preserue his owne Right and is more inclined to deny what is due to an other than
be in errour All that Ch. Ma. sayes is That if you erre in judging you cannot be saved in the Roman Church by reason of her errours you must rectify your conscience by judging the errours not to be fundamentall or damnable and therfor not excluding salvation Is this good dealing in you And why doe you say N. 106. A fifth falshood it is that we daily doe this favour for Protestants you must meane if you speake consequently to judge they haue no errours because we judge they haue none damnable Seing Ch Ma sayd most expresly that you doe the favour to other Protestants whome you cannot deny to be in some errours not to judge it damnable to liue in their communion because you hold their errours not to be fundamentall Once againe I must aske whether this be conscionable dealing 46. You are too resolute in this N. 106. to impugne the saying of Ch Ma That according to the Doctrine of all Divines ther is great difference betwixt a speculatiue perswasion and a practicall dictamen of conscience And I feare you doe not well vnderstand this true Doctrine when you say These are but divers words signifying the same thing neither is such a perswasion wholy speculatiue but tending to practise nor such a dictamen wholy practicall but grounded vpon speculation For you should say the contrary that a perswasion purely speculatiue is so far from tending to practice that oftentimes it is joyned with this judgment I cannot frame my practice according to this speculation and consequently my practice can not be grounded vpon such a speculation as Catholike Divines doe learnedly explicate particularly in the matter and forme of Sacraments But this is not a place to handle this matter at large it being sufficient to haue sayd that a speculation taken alone and abstracting from all other considerations of all sides oftentimes would proue pernicious if it were applyed to practice You falsify Ch Ma as if he did affirme that Protestants did only conceaue in speculation that the Church of Rome erred in some Doctrines and had not also a practicall dictamen that it was damnable for them to continue in the profession of these errours For Ch Ma sayth not that Protestants did only conceaue in speculation c. And had not also a practicall dictamen c. but his words are Although they had in speculation conceaved the vissble Church to erre in some Doctrines of themselves not damnable yet with that speculatiue judgment they might and ought to haue entertained this practicall dictamen that for points not suhstantiall to Faith they neither were bound nor lawfully could breake the bond of Charity by breaking vnity in Gods Church You see Ch Ma declares not what dictamen Protestants had but what they might and ought to haue had which are as different things as to say one is an honest man and might and ought to be such an one Ch Ma sayes not that Dr. Potter teaches in express words that Luther was obliged to forsake the Church for an vnnecessary light but that it followes vpon his assertion that he was bound to forsake her externall communion for poinrs not necessary to salvation 47. In your N. 107. your example that Euclide was not infallible yet was he certaine enough that twice two are foure is not to the purpos because such truths are evident by the light of nature as the mysteries of Christian Faith are not Otherwise how were it possible for you to disagree so irreconciliably as the world sees you doe 48. Ch Ma sayth N. 41. Since in cases of vncertaintyes we are not to leaue our Superiour nor cast of his obedience or publickly oppose his decrees your Reformers might easily haue found a safe way to satisfy their zealous conscience without a publick breach especially if with their vncertainty we call to minde the peaceable possession and prescription which by the confession of your owne brethren the Church and Pope of Rome did for many ages enjoy To this you answer by abbreviating the words of Ch Ma thus Your Church was in peaceable possession you must meane of her Doctrine and the Professors of it and enjoyed prescription for many ages and then you add Doctrine is not a thing that may be possessed and the Professors of it were the Church it selfe and in nature of Possessours if we may speake improperly rather then the thing possessed with whome no man hath Reason to be offended if they thinke fit to quit their owne possession But by what commission or warrant doe you say to Ch Ma you must meane of her Doctrine and the Professors of it as if his words must needs be so restrained Wheras the Church of Rome was in possession of Right not to bee opposed in her Doctrine by private persons she was in possession of the good Name and Estimation of being a true Church for which she is commended by S. Paul The Pope was in possession of power and jurisdiction over all Christians of making lawes Accepting appeales gathering Councells c. And both the Pope and Church were in possession of the Professors of her Doctrine that is Christians were their subjects who could not be seduced by fraude Schisme Heresy or violence without offence to God and man as you will not deny all lawfull Communities to haue Right that their subjects should not withdraw and divide themselves from such a mysticall Body Neither is it pertinent whether in this place we take possession as it is defined Detentio rei corporalis corporis animâ—jurisque adminiculo it being sufficient for our present purpose that it be that which is called quasi possessio the having any thing as we are sayd to haue hands feete life c. You say the Professors of the Doctrine were in nature of Possessors if we may speake improperly rather then the thing possessed with whome no man hath Reason to be offended if they thinke fit to quit their owne possession Answer It is strange that no man hath reason to be offended if men quit the possession or forsake the true Doctrine the grace of God or vertue or honesty because he is supposed to possesse them or for a man to depriue himselfe of some member of his body or even of life it selfe Your last words That the possession which the Gouvernours of our Church had for some ages of the party gouverned was not peaceable but got by fraude and held by violence are most injurious to Truth to Gods Church and to God himselfe as if our Saviours promise of a stable Church should be verified only by fraude and violence seing as I haue often sayd ther was no visible Church vpon earth except the Roman and those who agreed with her against the Doctrines which Luther did broach as Ch Ma shewes here Pag 173. and you doe not deny Pag 274. N. 56. where I obserue by the way that you say I know not who they be that say Luther reformed the whole Church wheras Ch
particular Dr. Potter must answer it seing all Christians read in the Holy Scripture in omnem terram exivit Sonus eorum which is to be performed not in an instant but in due time as the Prophets and Apostles did avouch it should and which is most for our present purpose none must deny but that it is impossible for her to faile from all places which is more then even the Donatists taught who pretended that she remained at least in Africa Now as for your Syllogismes make them like to that of Ch. Ma. and they will not be like a rope of sand or vnsyllogisticall but will appeare in this manner To deny the Resurrection is to teach an Heresy but some haue denied the Resurrection Therefore some haue taught an heresy as Ch. Ma. sayd To deny the Church to be de facto vniversall for all times is to teach Ann heresy as even Dr. Potter affirmes but Luther at his first being when he sayd of himselfe Primò solus eram denyed the Church to be vniversall Therfor he taught an heresy But enough of this wherof I haue more heretofore Your bold speech against S. Austine that he was most palpably mistaken I omit as being but agreable to your Socinian Spirit 12. Your N. 15. requires no other answer except a desire that the Reader will peruse the N. 17. of Ch. Ma. which you pretend to answer but leaue out points deserving particular consideration for the matter of which we spoke in the last Number You say to Ch. Ma. that he prosecutes the similitude of Protestants with the Donatists with as much spight and malice as could be devised But by your leaue who is ignorant that the Donatists hated the name of a monasticall life constrained Religious Nunnes to forsake theyr Profession cast the Eucharist to Beasts demolished Altars persecuted Catholiques in all kinds and detracted from their good name accusing them for Traditors you know who haue murthered innocent holy learned Catholiques vnder a most false pretence of Treason as also that the Donatists appealed from Ecclesiasticall to secular Judges in spirituall causes And do not Protestants follow them in these things Which yet Ch Ma did not mention Your Number 16. about the accusation of Donatists that Catholiks set vp pictures vpon the Altar hath been answered at large heretofore 13. Your N. 17. objects to Ch Ma a contradiction as if he sayd the Donatists held the Church to haue perished and yet that the Protestants are worse then Donatists who sayd that the Church remained at least in Africa But certainely no Logick will teach that it is a contradiction to say according to Donatists the Church through the whole world perished except in those who were in their communion or in Africa and yet remained in Africa yea the first part infers the second that their Church remained in Africa And you must object the like contradiction to S. Austin cited and approved by Potter Pag 125. and so the Doctot must be involved in the same contradiction saying de vn it Eccles cap 13. Periisse dicunt de coetero mundo Ecclesiam in parte Donati in sola Africa mansisse And you know very well that Ch Ma in that place speakes not of the perishing or extinction of the Church absolutely but expresly as it was asserted by the Donatists 14. All that you haue N. 18. hath been answered in severall places and it seemes you are too well furnished with leasure when N. 19. to the demand of Ch Ma Pag 251. How can the Church more truly be sayd to perish then when she is permitted to maintaine a damnable Heresy You answer she may more truly be sayd to perish when she is not only permitted to doe soe but de facto doth maintaine a damnable Heresy as if when we say God permitted one to fall into such a sinne it did not signify that de facto he fell into it But here you discover a secret poison that Faith is not the guift of God nor requires his particular assistance to persever therin which if it were substracted ād so we be permitted to fall we shall be too sure to fall de facto otherwise it followes that by our owne naturall forces we may belieue and persever in Faith In the rest of your instances that the Church may be more truly sayd to perish if she fall into Heresy Fundamentall of it selfe you doe but trifle seing that either one truth cannot be more true then an other as divers teach or else you know that for our purpose it is more then sufficient that it be certainly and absolutly and vnavoydably true that the Church must perish if she fall into any damnable errour But the truth is you vse this art to divert the Reader from the Demand of Ch Ma that he might not obserue your not giving Answer thereto and therfor I must returne to make the same demand Whether the Church were not truly sayd to perish if she did fall into any damnable Heresy Or whether Heresy may consist with salvation Or whether it be not Heresy to reject any truth sufficiently propounded as delivered by the word of God Where I must put you in minde that you forget your owne Doctrine that Scripture is not an object of our Faith but that one may be saved though he reject it and yet here you say of the Church She may more truly be sayd to perish when she rejects even those truths out of which her heresies may be reformed as if she should directly deny the Scripture to be the Word of God How will you avoyd but that according to this last saying of yours yourselfe and your associats are no members of any Church seing you teach that the Scripture may be denyed to be the word of God as not being a materiall object of Faith Or how must not your errours be desperate without possibility of being reformed since you may reject those meanes by which alone according to Protestants they can be reformed Or how could you say truly That a Church lapsed may be recovered and reformed by Scripture if you be not obliged to belieue Scripture itselfe by an act of Faith or as an object of Faith 15. In your N. 20. you doe but repeate what you say else where That if the visible Church be an infallible guide it is strange the Scripture doth nowhere say so in plaine termes To which I answer as heretofore that we proue the infallibility of the Church independently of Scripture That Scripture also speakes clearly enough therof That I may as well aske of you why the Apostles and Evangelists haue not delivered clearly these or the like Propositions Scripture alone containes all things belonging to Faith That it is evident in all necessary points c. or Be sure to belieue a certaine man who will come to oppose the errors of the Roman Church called Luther c. Nay though the Scripture had sayd belieue the Roman Church in all things which
In your N. 21. you endeavour to answer some Fathers alledged by Ch. Ma. N. 18. to proue that separation from the visible Church is a mark of Heresie namely Uincentius Lirinensis saying Lib. Advers Her Chap. 34. who ever began heresies who did not first separate himself from the Vniversality Antiquity and Consent of the Catholique Church And S. Prosper Dimid Temp. Chap. 5. A Christian communicating with the Catholique Church is a Catholique and he who is divided froâ—â— her is an Heretique and Antichrist S. Cyprian Lib. de Vnit. Eccles. Not we departed from them but they from vs and since Heresies and Schismes are bred afterwards while they make themselves divers conventicles they haue forsaken the head and Origen of truth 20. To these Authorityes you answer That the first and last are meerely impertinent neither of them affirming or intimating that separation from the present visible Church is a mark of Heresy and the former speaking plainly of separation from vniversality Consent and Antiquity And lastly the latter part of Prospers words cannot be generally true according to your owne grounds For you say a man may be divided from the Church vpon mâ—ere Schisme without any mixture of Heresy And a man may be justly excommunicated for many other sufficient causes besides Heresy Lastly a man may be divided by an vnjust excommunication and be both before and after a very good Catholique and therefore you cannot maintain it vniversally true That he who is divided from the Church is an Heretique and Antichrist 21. Answer I haue often put you in minde and the thing is evident of it self and still to be repeated that Luther separated not only from the Roman Church but from all true Churches of the whole world who all agreed with the Roman as also from all true Churches of many precedent Ages which if you once suppose to haue erred against the Word of God the Rule of those Fathers That separation from the Church is a mark of Heresy had bene plainly impertinent and of no vse at all For still the Question would haue remayned whether the Church of all Ages had erred as well as the present Church since we cannot know what the Ancient Church taught except vpon the credit and Tradition of middle ages till our tyme which passage if it be stopt and bridge broken we must liue in ignorance and not be able irregularly and per saltum to reach immediatly from the last to the first Besides you hold all Churches of all Ages to be fallible and not to deliver vniversally any other point except that Scripture is the Word of God and therefore it is a meere evasion in you to make a difference for matters of doctrine betweene the whole present visible Church and the Churches of all Ages and if separation from these be a mark of Heresy separation from that must also be such Yea S. Cyprian speakes expressly of the then present Church Not we departed from them but they from vs and since Heresies and Schismes are bred aftherwards while they make themselves divers Conventicles they haue forsaken the head and origen of Truth As for S. Prosper you do not defend but impugne him But I wonder you will offer your Reader such toyes as you produce for good Arguments against the words of that Saint which are both evidently true and coherent with themselves For as whosoever communicates with the vniversall Church in Faith and externall communion is a Catholique which was the first part of S. Prospers sentence so it is vniversally true that whosoever is divided from the Church in Faith and externall communion is an Heretique as S. Prosper affirmes in the latter parte of his speach and which you know is the thing which Charity Maintayned intends to proue and which makes your talking of meere Schisme without any mixture of Heresy to be wholy impertinent seing we treate of division both in Faith and externall communion though it be also true that Schisme is wont to end in Heresy as Cha. Ma. Part. 1. Chap. 5. N 3. declares out of S. Hierom and others No less impertinent is your objection taken from persons divided from the Church by the Censure of Excommunication which is a kind of Division in many respects far different from separation by Schisme or Heresy as hath bene declared heretofore at large and which is not incurred at all in the sight of God if the Excommunication be vnjust Agreable to this doctrine of these Fathers is that excellent document of S. Optatus Lib. 1. contra Parm. how to judg who be Schismatiques and Heretiques Uidendum est quis in radice cum toto orbe manserit quis foras exierit quis cathedram sederit alteram quaeante non fuerit quis altare contra altare erexerit quis ordinationem fecerit salvoaltero ordinato were there not Protestant Bishops set vp in the place of Catholique Bishops yet living in England quis jaceat sub sententia Joannis Apostoli qui dixit multos Antichristos foras exituros quia non erant inquit nostri nam si nostri essent mansissent nobiscum If you examine the proceeding of your first Protestants by the Rule of this holy and ancient Father you cannot but condemne them of Schisme and Heresy 22. Your N 22. being but a passage to the next Section I neede only saie that there is great difference between Catholiques and Protestants in order to the admitting or rejecting some doctrine of some particular Fathers seing we for interpreting Scripture and all Points of Faith acknowledg an infallible guide to whom even the Fathers themselves humbly submit but when you forsake the Fathers be they never so many the comparison runnes not betwene them and Gods Church but betwene them and every single Protestant and who will not sooner belieue the Holy Fathers for the interpretation of Scripture than such men as can neither agree amongst themselves nor with the whole Church of God And if you will but heare what your owne knowledg and conscience tells you you will confess that you acknowledged the ancient Fathers to stand for vs. 23. Your N. 23. is employed in answering some Authorityes alledged by Ch. Ma. out of S. Hierom wherein you shew the litle reckon you make of the holy Fathers since you do covertly or rather expressly tax this blessed Saint of writing over-truths and you know what it is to write beyond truth which in true Philosophy consist in indivisibili and what is beyond it must be against it The words of S. Hierom Ep 57. ad Damas. are these I am in the Communion of the Chaire of Peter I know the Church is built vpon that Rock Whosoever shall eate the Lambe out of this house he is profane If any shall not be in the Arke of Noe he shall perish in the time of the deluge Whosoever doth not gather with thee doth scatter that is he that is not of Christ is of Antichrist And Lib. 1. Apolog. which doth
of the Gospell Do you not profess through your whole Book that voluntary error against any revealed truth is a damnable sinne And what sinne can it be except the sinne of Heresy But of this particular els where Never was there Writer so repugnant to himself as you are Now for your N. 41. If the true Church cannot be without Succession of Bishops whatsoever Church wants them cannot be a true Church as if speach were necessary to the being of a man as it is not want of it would be a sure argument that he is not a man and so your argument that though speach be a certaine signe of a living man yet want of it is no sure Argument that he is dead is retorted against yourselfe 37. You would drawe me in your N. 42. to enter vpon an vnreasonable discourse wherein you do not so much impugne the Catholique Church as all Christianity and you are still like yourself in despising S. Austine and saying that the places alledged out of him by Ch Ma N. 24. deserue not the name of a proofe and yet S. Austine Lib de Pastorib Cap 8. saieth in express tearmes the thing for which he was alledged namely that not all Heretiques are spred over the face of the â—arth but that Faithfull people are dispersed through the whole world And the arguments which you bring to the contrary are answered by these words of S. Austine in the same place Not all Heretiques are spred over the face of the Earth and yet there are Heretiques spred over the whole face of the earth some heere some there yet they are waÌ„ting in no place they know not one an other One Sect for example in Africa ' an other Heresy in the East an other in Aegipt an other in Mesopotamia In divers places they are divers One Mother Pride hath begot them all as one Mother the Catholique Church hath brought forth all faithfull people dispersed throughout the whole world No wonder then if Pride breed Dissention and Charity vnion To this true distinction of S. Austine we maie add that sometyme when the Fathers speak of the multitude of some particular Sects they meane of some particular place or Country but not comparing those Heretiques with the whole vniversall Church diffused through the whole world You tell vs S. Austine saies Ep. 48. ad Uinc the Professors of error surpassed the Number of the Professors of Truth in proportion as the sands of the Sea doe the starres of the Heaven But I find in that Epistle these words of S. Austine Fortasse non frustra dictum sit de Semine Abrahae sicut stellae Coeli sicut arena quae est ad oram maris vt in stellis Coeli pauciores firmiores clarioresque intelligantur in arena autem maritimi Litoris magna multitudo infirmorum atque carnalium In which words it seemes that S Austine speakes not of Professors of error as you say but of perfect and imperfect Catholiques which is nothing to our purpose 38. Your N. 43.44 containe nothing which hath not bene answered or els is of no consideration You find fault with Ch. Ma that being to proue Protestants to be guilty of Heresie he strikes into an other accusation of them that the Faith even of the Truth they hold is not indeed true Faith But put case it were not does it follow that the having of this Faith makes them Heretiques Aristotle believed there were Intelligences which moved the spheares he believed this with an humane perswasion aÌ„d will you make Aristotle an heretique because he believed so Answer Ch Ma having proved Protestants to be guilty of heresie and consequently not capable of salvation because Heresie is a deadly sinne if everie Heresie haue also this effect that it destroyes all true supernaturall Faith even of all those points wherein they doe not erre and that true supernaturall Faith is necessary to salvation how could Ch. Ma. without prevarication forbeare to infer that seing Protestants are proved to be guilty of Heresie they must be subject to the inseparable effect thereof which is to be deprived of all supernaturall Faith and so be incapable of Salvation vpon a double Title that is both for a positiue error against Faith and for want of supernaturall infallible Faith caused by that error Whatsoever you are pleased to say yet I belieue every one beside your self will conceyue that Ch Ma did not digress if indeed it be true that every Heresie destroyes all Faith as he proved it does but never dreamed that every Heresie makes the true belief though only humane of all other Articles to be Heresie or that Aristotle was an Heretique because he believed only with an humane perswasion that there were Intelligences which moved the spheares but if hee or any other believed all the mysteryes of Christian Faith only with an humane perswasion as he believed those Intelligences no good Christian can belieue that such a perswasion were sufficient for salvation and so your Argument turnes against yourself Neither haue you any reason to say that Ch Ma hath disjoyned his discourse vpon this Point For it was necessary that first the grounds should be laied and the nature of Faith declared before he could by degrees proue Protestants to be Heretiques and thereby to be deprived of all supernaturall Faith necessary to salvation 39. Your N. 45.46 haue bene answered in divers occasions You overlash exorbitantly when N. 47. you say to Ch Ma Do you not see and feele how void of reason and how full of imprety your sophistry is And why Let the Reader judge of the cause Ch Ma saieth Every Protestant as I suppose is perswaded that his owne opinions are true and that he hath vsed such meanes as are wont to be prescribed for vnderstanding of Scripture as praier conferring of divers Texts c This supposition not affirmation being premised that Protestants haue vsed such meanes as themselves prescribe for interpreting and yet that they disagree in many importantmatters of Faith it cleerely followes that the meanes which they prescribe are not certaine nor effectuall seing they being put in practise attaine not that End for the procuring whereof they were prescribed From whence will follow this principally intended conclusion that the only effectuall meanes to compass that end must be to acknowledg an infallible Living Guide And I pray what impiety or sophistry is there in this You say The first of those suppositions that every Protestant is perswaded that his opinions are true must needs be true but the second is apparently false I meane that every Protestant is perswaded that he hath vsed those meanes which are prescribed for vnderstanding of Scripture But that which you collect from these suppositions is cleerely inconsequent and by as good Logick you might conclude that Logick and Geometry stands vpon no certaine grounds because the disagreements of Logicians and Geometricians shew that some of them are deceived 40. Answer If every Protestant be
denieth him in all seing there is one only Christ the same in all The Magdeburgians in Praefat Centur 6. They are Anti-Christs and divels Beza de puniendis haereticis They are infidels and Apostates Mort Lib 1. Apolog. Cap 7. Either you must giue the name of Catholiks to Protestants or we must deny them the name of Christians Yourself Pag 23. N 27. speaking of Uerityes contained in the vndoubted Books of Scripture say He that doth not belieue all can hardly belieue any neither haue we reason to belieue he doth so Which is more than Catholique Divines teach who affirme that an heretique may belieue some articles of Faith by an humane opinion not purelie for Divine Revelation and so you also must vnderstand that he who doth not belieue all that is contained in the vndoubted Books of Scripture can hardly belieue any for the Authority of Scripture but if he belieue them it must be with mixture of some other reason and so fall farre short of Divine supernaturall Faith Wittenbergenses in Refutat Ortodox Consensus As he who keepeth all the Law but offendeth in one is witness saint Iames guilty of all So who believeth not one word of Christ though he seemes to belieue the other articles of the Creed yet believeth nothing and is damned and incredulous Schlusselburgh Lib. 1. Theolog. Calvin Art 1. Most truly wrote S. Chrisostom in 1. Gallat He corupteth the whole doctrin who subuerteth it in the least Article Most truly saied Ambrose E pist ad demetriadem he is out of the number of the Faithfull and lot of Saints who dissenteth in any point from the Catholike Truth Calvin Ephes 4. V. 5. vpon that One God one Faith writeth thus As often as thou readest the word one vnderstand it put emphatically as if he had saied Christ cannot be divided Faith cannot not be parted Perkins in Explicat Symboli Colum 512 Thus indeed fareth the matter that a man failing in one article faileth and erreth in all Wherevpon Faith is termed an entire copulatiue As I saied of your words so I say of these that they containe more than Catholiques affirme and to giue them a true sense they must be vnderstood that he faileth and erreth in as much as he believes not with a divine but only with an humane Faith Spalatensis contra Suarem C. 1. N. 7 Divine Faith perisheth wholy by the least detraction and consequently it is no true Church no not visible in which entire Faith is not kept in publik profession 44. The same is the Doctrine of the ancient Fathers Tertullian de praescrip Cap 2. saieth Heresies are to destroy Faith and bring everlasting death And Cap 37. If they be heretiks they can be no Christians S. Cyprian Epist 73. saieth that both by the testimonie of the Gospell and Apostle Heretiks are called Anti-christs S. Austine Enchirid Cap 5. Christ in name only is found with any Heretiks S. Chrysostom cited by Ch Ma N. 33. in Galat 17. saieth that the least error in matter of Faith destroieth Faith Let them heare sayth this holy Father what S. Paul sayth Namely that they who brought in some small errour had overthrowne the Ghospell For to shew how a small thing ill mingled doth corrupt the whole he sayd that the Ghospell was subverted For as he who clips a litle of the stamp from the kings mony makes the whole piece of no value so whosoever takes away the least particle of sound Faith is wholy corrupted But enough of this You do but cavill and yourself know you doe so in saying to Ch Ma that there is not one Catholique Divine who delivers for true Doctrine this position of yours thus nakedly set downe That any error against any one revealed truth destroies all divine Faith For you cannot be ignorant that when this Question is propounded by Divines it is necessarily vnderstood of culpable error otherwise it could be no Question And whereas you say There is not one Catholique Divine who delivers c. Your self did reade in Ch Ma S. Thomas delivering that Doctrine in the same manner 2. 2. Q. 5. à 3. For having propounded the Question Whether he who denieth one Article of Faith may retaine Faith of other Articles in his Conclusion he saieth It is impossible that Faith even informed or Faith without Charity remaine in him who doth not belieue some one Article of Faith although he confess all the rest to be true What say you to this Is not S. Thomas one Catholique Divine or is he not one instar omnium And yet he both proposes and answers this Question supposing not expressing that he speakes of culpable errour and afterward he speaks expresly of Heretiques as also Ch Ma in this very Number expresly specifies Protestants whom you know we belieue to erre culpably against many revealed Truths You goe forward and speak to Ch Ma in this manner They Catholique Divines all require not yourself excepted that this truth must not only be revealed but revealed publiquely and all things considered sufficiently propounded to the erring party to be one of those which God vnder pain of damnation commands all men to belieue But you are more bold than well advised in taking vpon you to know what all Catholique Divines hold and you are even ridiculous in telling Ch Ma what his opinion is I beseech you produce any one Catholique Divine teaching that all Divines hold that the errour which destroyes all divine Faith must be revealed publiquely Who is ignorant that many great Divines teach that he were properly an Heretique who should reject or disbelieue a private Divine Revelation sufficiently knowne to be such by never so secret meanes Do not yourself heere cite Estius whom you stile one of the most rationall and profound Doctors of our Church saying It is impertinent to Faith by what meanes we belieue the prime verity For many of the Ancients as Adam Abraham Melchisedeck Iob receyved the Faith by speciall Revelation Do you not remember that Zacharie was punished for his slowness in believing a revelation made privately to him and of a particular object You speak very confusedly when you say They Catholique Divines require that this Truth be one of those which God vnder pain of Damnation commands all men to belieue For all Catholique Divines agree that it is Heresie to deny any revealed truth proposed by the Church though other wise it be not comāded to be believed ād you do not only teach through your whole Book that it is damnable to disbelieue any Truth sufficiciently propounded as revealed by God but you saie further that whatsoever one is obliged not to disbelieue at any time at the same tyme he is oblged to belieue it which latter part though it be false as I haue shewed heretofore yet it shewes that you must affirme that God vnder paine of damnation commands all men to belieue positively and explicitely all truths sufficiently propounded as revealed by God so that this
your saying is not only confused but false in the opinyon of Catholique Divines and much more in your opinyon 45. You say Thomas Aquinas vainly supposeth against reason and experience that by the commission of any deadly sinne the Habit of Charity is quite extirpated But against this provd Pelagian conceypt of yours I haue proved in the Introduction that Charity being a supernaturall Habit infused only by the Holy Ghost and not acquired by any naturall Acts cannot be knowne by humane experience to be present or absent and being a loue of God aboue all things cannot possibly consist with any least deadly sinne I desire the Reader to see of this matter S. Thomas 2. 2. Q. 24. a 12. Corp where he cites S. Aug saying Quòd homo Deo sibi praesente illuminatur absente autem continuò tenebratur à quo non locorum intervallo sed voluntatis aversione disceditur 46. Concerning the second Reason of S. Thomas you say to C Ma Though you cry it vp for an Achilles and think like the Gorgons head it will turne vs all into stone and insult vpon Dr. Potter as if he durst not come neare it yet in very truth having considered it well I find it a serious graue prolix and profound nothing I could answer it in a word by telling you that it beggs without all proofe or colour of proofe the main Question between vs that the infallibility of your Church is either the formall motiue or rule or a necessary condition of Faith which you know we flatly deny and all that is built vpon it has nothing but winde for foundation 47. Answer What Reader will not conceiue out of your words that Ch. Ma. had vsed some such vaine brag as you express by Achilles Gorgons head insulting c Whereas he without any evenleast commendation saies positively that S. Thomas proves his conclusion first by a parity with Charity which is destroyed by every deadly sinne and then by a farther reason which there he setts downe at large in the words of that holy Saint 2. 2. Q. 5. A. 3. and is comprised in this Summe Ad 2. A man doth belieue all the articles of faith for one and the selfsame reason to wit for the prime verity proposed to vs in the Scripture vnderstood aright according to the Doctrine of the Church and therfore whosoever falls from this reason or motiue is totally deprived of Faith Your pride is intollerable in despising the Reason of S. Thomas as a serious graue prolix nothing and your saying is ridiculous that he beggs the main Question between vs about the infallibility of the Church For how could he begg that Question which when he wrote was granted and taught by all Divines But you do not vnderstand the force of his Argument which consists in this that if one assent to one Object for some motiue or Reason and assent not to another for which there is the same motiue or reason it appeares that he Assents to this other not for that motiue common to both but for some other particular Reason Now though S. Thomas specifie the authority of the Church because de facto she is the proposer of diviue Truths yet his argument is the same though it be applied to Scripture And therfore the same holy Doctor 1. Part. Q. 1. A. 8. Ad 2. without mentioning the Church saieth Innititur sides nostra revelationi Apostolis Prophetis factae qui Canonicos Libros scripserunt and we haue heard yourself saying Pag 23. He that doth not belieue all the vndoubted parts of the vndoubted Books of Scripture can hardly belieue any neither haue were ason to belieue he doth so Yea D. Lawd P. 344. saieth expresly We belieue all the Articles of Christian Faith for the same formall reason in all namely because they are revealed from and by God and sufficiently applied in his word an by his Churches Ministration 48. To this āswer which I haue confuted you add to vse your words a larg confutation of this vaine fancy out of Estius vpon 3. sē 23. dist § 13. But Estius is so farre from saying the Doctrine of S. Thomas to be a vain fancy that he saieth The Question is on both sides by the Doctours probably disputed Which is sufficient for our main Question that according to this Doctor the Protestants cannot pretend to be a true Church which must certainly and not only probably haue Divine supernaturall Faith which is absolutely necessary to saluation necessitate medij Besides his last express words shew that the Faith which remaines in an Heretique is not sufficient for salvation and therefore Protestants and all Heretiques even for want of necessary Faith cannot be saved His words are Neque tamen propterea fatendum erit Haereticos aut Judaeos Fidem habere sed Fidei partem aliquam Fides enim significat aliquod integrum omnibus suis partibus completum vt sit idem Fides simpliciter Fides Catholica Quae nimirum absolutè hominem fidelem Catholicum constituat Vnde Hereticus simpliciter infidelis esse Mark Fidem amisisse juxta Apostolum 1. Tim. 1. Fidei naufragium fecisse dicitur licet quaedam eâ teneat firmitate assensus promtitudine voluntatis qua ab alijs omnia quae fidei sunt tenentur Neither is the argument of S. Thomas sufficiently confuted by Estius in saying It is impertinent to Faith by what meanes we belieue the prime Uerity For although now the ordinary meanes be the Testimony and preaching of the Church yet it is certain that by other meanes faith hath bene given heretofore and is given still This discourse I say doth not confute the Argument of S. Thomas being vnderstood as I declared formally that whosoever disbelieves any article sufficiently propounded as a divine Truth the same man cannot belieue an other sufficiently propounded to him by the same meanes whatsoever that meanes be 49. To the other argument of S. Thomas taken from a parity of faith with the Habit of Charity which is lost by every deadly sinne Estius doth not answer and I am sure he would haue bene farr from saying as you doe that by the commission of any deadly sinne the habit of Charity is not quite extirpated And this Argument is stronger than perhaps appeares at the first sight For Faith hath no less connection and relation to the object of Faith than Charity to the object of Charity And therfore as Charity doth so loue God aboue all things that it cannot stand with any sinne whereby God is grievously offended so we must say of the habit of Faith that it is not compatible with any error whereby his Prime Uerity is culpably rejected and as it is essentiall to Charity as long as it exists to overcome all temptations against the Loue of God so Faith must of its owne nature beate downe and reject all errour against the Divine Testimony or Revelation that both for will and vnderstanding we may say
with Pelagius and free-will with Calvin c. 1 n. 65 p. 82 seq Many hideous Tenets of his concerninge Faith discovered in all the first Chap He holds that Charity may stand with deadly sinne I. n. â—1 p. 35 c 15 n. 45 p. 925 That the contents of Scripture are not more certaine then humane Histories I. n. 18 p. 13 14 That we are not bound to belieue Scripture to be of Divine authority c. 2 n. 58 p. 159 alibi And it is evident in his grounds that God is no more to be believed then man if God give no better reason for what he sayes then man doth c. 1 n. 101 p. 108 That it is no matter if controversies concerning truths only profitable be continued and increased c. 2 n. 78 p. 182 That Scripture is no materiall object of Taith and that there is no obligation to beleeue it c. 3 n. 4 p. 281 and in other numb before and after Also c. 13 n. 39 p 818 That the Apostles after the cominge of the Holy Ghost erred in a point clearly revealed c. 7 n. 24 p. 472. 473 c. 3 n. 28 p. 298 He brings all Christian Faith to a humane invention c. 3 n. 83 p. 344 seq He puts such a contrition for salvation which a sinner cannot possbly haue at the hower of death c. 4 n. 50 p. 384 That all Scripture is not divinely inspired c. 12 n. 38 p. 735 That our Saviours promise that the Holy Ghost should remaine with the Apostles was not for their successoâ—s but only for the terme of their lives nor that but conditionally c. 12 n. 83 p. 771 He revives VViclifs Heresie n. 85 p. 774. That contradictoryes may both be true with many horrid impietyes which strike at the roote of Christian Religion c. 13 n. 20 p. 802 seq His insolent treatie of S. Tho of Aqui c. 15 n. 45 46 47 p. 925 926 His little considence in his owne Religion c. 16 n. 11 p. 939 His absurdity in contending that it is all one to say Though such a thing be so and though it were so n. 21 p. 945 946 His impudent callinge God to witnesse of his sincerity in writing his Booke to confirme the infallible Religion of our Saviour which he strives in his whole Booke to prooue fallible c. 16 n. 23 p. 948 Many other of his pernitious Tenets appeare in this whole Booke and his errours against Scripture toto c. 3. His contradictions are so frequently shewed that no particular place needs be cited The like is of his continuall begging the question or asking impertinently in place of proofe why may not such athing be with out any proofe Church To follow the Church is to follow Scripture which recommends the Church vnto vs c. 2 n. 201 p. 270 To her recourse must be had not to be deceaved in interpreting Scripture Ibid Her vniversall practice is to be held an Apostolicall Tradition Ibid Many things are to be done for her authority without expresse Scripture n. 209 p. 274 She ceases not to be a Church for sinnes of Manners but of Faith c. 7 n. 85 p. 517 seq Vnity necessary to be members of one Church must be in all points sufficieÌ„tly proposed sundamentall or not fundamentall n. 74 p. 505 seq And in externall Communion Ibid which in divine service is vnlawfull with those of a different Faith n. 82 p. 511 It is all one to leaue the Church and to Ieaue her externall Communion nor can any separate from her and remaine a part of her n. 73 p. 503 sequen He not only separates from the Church who separates from her externall Communion but alsomorally from himselfe n. 110 p. 532 seq No Church no Schisme n. 93.94 p. 523 If the Church be infallible in fundamentalls she must also be so in vnfundamentalls n. 126 p. 547 548 He can be no member of the Church who disbeleeves any poynt sufficiently proposed as revealed by God c. 10 n. 5 p. 635 Nor can the Church remaine a Church with any such errour n. 6 p. 635 seq She beinge infallible it is damnable to oppose her n. 9 p. 637 638 She determines controversies as emergent occasions require and is for them eudued with infallibility n. 11 p. 639 640 Her fallibility for one age discredits her for all c. 11 n. 26 p. 667 The true Church easy to be found by her notes in every age n. 31 p. 670 seq Many disparityes between the Church and the Synagogue n. 38 p. 674 The Church having approved Scripture for Canonicall proves out of it particular truths concerning her selfe n. 67 p. 697 In what sense she is an infallible keeper of Scripture c. 3 n. 52 p. 320 seq She never questioned or rejected any thing of Scripture which the had once defined for Canonicall n. 54 p. 322 The true Church wanted not evident notes and proofes before Scripture was c. 4 n. 24 p. 365 toto c. 5 She is viâ ordinariâ the meanes for matter of Religion c. 4 n. 67 p. 396 seq The Church was before Scripture Ibid passim alibi She was never devested of infallibility c. 4 n. 72 p. 399 sequen She cannot perish nor be invisible nor deceaved in points belonging to Salvation She is the ordinary meanes to teach and therefore to be sought n. 79. p. 403 sequen Infallibility granted her for all points belonging to Religion but nor for curiosityes n. 95 p. 418 sequen She vsed disputations and discourse for her definitions n. 99 p. 424 42â— She essentially requires vnity in Faith and in in the externall worship of God Divivision from her in Faith is heresie in externall communion is Schisme c. 7 n. 2. 3 p. 458 459 460 If she be not infallible but falls into errour all must shun her communion n. 22 p. 471 472 She is indued by Christ with all requisits for the whole mysticall body for every degree for every particular person c. 2 n. 2 p. 122 seq She is recommended by him for the interpretation of Scripture and who refuses it resists him n. 28 p. 124 She must haue infallible meanes to declare with certainty things though only profitable n. 73 p. 176 seq It would be damnable in her to neglect truths only profitable n. 77 p. 181 If she should out of negligence mistake or be ignorant her errour would be damnable c. 14 n. 17 p. 724 seq She is extensiuè of equall infallibility with the Apostles but not intensiuè i.e. in the manner num 35 p. 731 seq If her authority be câ—â—taine for Scripture it must be the like for whatsoevet she proposes n. 52 p. 746 She being once prooved to be infallible may giue irrefragable testimony of her owne infallibility n. 107 p. 787 How the Church is alwayes visible c. 14 n. 4 p. 848. 849 VVhat right and power she had and for many ages had bene peaceable possessed of at Luthers cominge n.
Church acknowledged to be Infallible in Fundamentall Points rather than forsake her communion for Points not necessary to salvation especially with danger of forsaking her in some necessary Point Or if you say It is Fundamentall to the Faith of a Christian to belieue whatsoever is sufficiently propounded as revealed by God as Dr. Potter grants and the thingh it selfe is evidently true then you must either affirme that the Church did not erre in any Point of Faith or els that she erred Fundamentally and ceased to be a Church which is against your present supposition and against Potter who P. 126. teaches that to say the church remayned only in the part of Donatus was an errour in the matter and nature of it properly hereticall And much worse must it be to say she remayned no where and so while you pretend to fly the fained errours of the Church you fall into a formall and proper heresy 131. If we consider what may be inferred not absolutely but vpon some impossible supposition That the Church erres in Points of Faith not Fundamentall we must inferr that she may be forsaken because she erres in matters of Faith and yet may not be forsaken because as we have seene out of the Holy Fathers it is never lawfull to forsake the Church What then is to be concluded but that as I haue sayd hertofore she cannot erre and therfore cannot be forsaken vpon any termes Divines teach that at least per se loquendo non potest dari perplexitas that is there cannot happen a case wherin a man whatsoever he doth is sure to commit some sinfull thing because it is a first principle in nature that nothing is is more in our freedome than to sin or not to sin And yet this cause of perplexity must perpetually happen if the Church could erre that is one must judge that she were to be forsaken and not to be forsaken and so remaine miserably perplexed We must therefore for avoyding this absurdity conclude that the Church cannot erre in any matter of Faith 132. But yet to come to the last part of my Advertisement If we persist in the supposition That one is perswaded the Church doth erre must he therfore forsake her communion as Luther and his fellowes did In no case For then we must call to mynd the Doctrine of Divines in case of perplexity that if one be in a vincible or culpable errour for one of the contradictory parts it is in his power and he is obliged to depose that errour which if he do not he shall not be excused from sin notwithstanding his perplexity and seeming excuse of a necessity to sin whatsoever he does If we suppose his errour to be invincible for example he beleeves the Church may not in any case be forsaken and yet that she erres and that he should sin in pro fessing those supposed errours this supposition I say being once made I dispute not whether such a perplexity be possible in this particular matter or no then enters the Doctrine of all Divines that he is obliged to embrace the lesser evill and to follow the generall Axiome exduobus malis minus est eligendum as we see nature exposes the arme to defend the head And in dubijs pars tutior est eligenda And therfore your saying Pag 283. N. 72. We must not do evill to avoide evill taken vniversally and in all cases is manifestly false against the light of Reason and your allegation of Scripture Pag 168. N. 63. you must not do evill that good may come theron is not to the purpose For we speake not of attaining a voluntary greater good but of avoiding a greater evill necessary to be committed vnless a lesser evill be embraced This then being certaine that in case of perplexity one is obliged to embrace the lesser evill the Question may remaine whether by doing so he is excused from all fault or only from being guilty of that greater sin which he avoides by choosing the lesser Certaine it is that he committs not so grievous a sin as if he had betaken himselfe to the other part But diverse great Divines as Amicus Tom 3. D. 15. Sect 3. N. 43. Tho Sanch Tom 1. in Decalog Cap 11. N. 14. alij are of opinion that he commits no sin at all because in that case of invincible Perplexity it is not in his power to avoide that which otherwise were a sin and can be none in him because every sinne essentially requires freedome of will He harh say they freedom to chuse either of those two parts taken as it were materially or considered per modum naturae but not formally and morally so to chuse them as to avoide sin absolutely seing he must of necessity chuse one side and therfore by embracing the lesser evill he does as much as lyes in his power to doe for avoiding sin and consequently is not culpable or blameworthy Now according to these Doctrines whosoever leaves the Church vpon pretence of errours not Fundamentall cannot be excused from Schisme because to profess such errours had been either a lesse sin than to leaue the Church and so in the opinion of all Divines he was obliged to embrace that less evill and not leaue the Church or it had been no sin at all in the opinion of diverse good Divines and then much less can he be excused for leaving the Church without any necessity at all Yea seing this last opinion is probable he might prudently conforme his conscience to it and by that meanes free himselfe from not only sin but also from danger therof by following a probable and prudent dictamen that to profess errours not Fundamentall were no sin at all in that case and vpon that supposition of insuperable perplexity Nay I say more that if this latter opinion of Divines be true a man shall not sin though he be of a contrary mynd and thinke in his conscience that he sins by choosing the lesser evill though not so grievously as he had done by adhering to the other part My reason is because this latter opinion is grounded vpon the impossibility which the perplexed person hath to avoide sin and one cannot sin in doing that which he cannot avoide though by an erronious conscience he judge that he sins as if one cannot heare Masse vpon a holy day or kills a man with a weapon violently put into his hand and with his hand by like violence carryed to that fact in those or the like cases no sin is committed though the partyes should thinke they sin And this is true though that part or less ill which is embraced be intrinsecè malum evill of it self or of its nature which is well to be observed for our case of professing knowne errours which of it selfe is evill because no sin of any kind can be committed when it is impossible to avoid it According to which considerations to elect the profession of errours rather then the desertion of the
erre he cannot be certaine that he doth not erre vnless you add this necessary restriction he cannot be certaine that he doth not erre as long as he grounds himselfe only vpon that Principle which he believes to be fallible and subject to errour though for other things or vpon other certaine and infallible Grounds he may be and is sure that he neither doth nor can erre while he relyes vpon those infallible Grounds 72. For better vnderstanding of this matter We may distinguish a double infallibility The one may be termed Personall or belonging to or accompanying the Person The other we may call Reall or taken from the thing itselfe If God promise his assistance to some person that he shall never erre even in things of themselves obscure this man shall be sure never to erre not in vertue of any intrinsecall evident Principle but by reason of that Divine assistance But if one haue no such promise or Priviledge yet is directed by some Principle evident to humane Reason he is certaine that he neither doth nor can erre by a certainty derived from evidence of the Thing it selfe as long as he relyes vpon that certaine ground Now to our purpose You cannot be certaine of this proposition Scripture alone is the totall Rule of Faith by evidence of sense or some Principle knowne to naturall Reason but only by certainty proceeding from infallible supernaturall Assistance And therfore seing you deny any such Assistance to the vniversall Church and much more to particular Churches or private persons for Points not Fundamentall as you acknowledge this to be it followes that you can haue no certainty of it which is the thing that Charity Maintayned affirmed and so it proves to be very true that whosoever may erre cannot be certaine that he doth not erre if he depend vpon Grounds subject to falshood and errour as contrarily whosoever doth not erre because he relyes vpon evident Principles or vpon some extrinsecall Authority being in it selfe and being believed to be Infallible he is sure he cannot erre in such matters though he may erre in other knowne by some probable reason or fallible Authority If you say A thing may be certainly knowne or believed because it is evidently contained in Scripture which we belieue to be infallible This evasion answers not my argument For if you imagine a thing to be so evident in Scripture that there is required no more than evidence of sense or Reason to see and read and know the Grammaticall signification of the word then whosoever does so he is certaine not only that he doth not but that he cannot erre seing he is evidently certaine that he sees reades and vnderstands the Grammaticall signification of the word If beside the sayd knowledge or ability to see read c. there be other meanes required as certainly there are to know what is not the Grammaticall signification but the meaning of the word intended by the Holy Ghost in that place then if those meanes be fallible and only probable no man can by the assistance of them alone be certaine that he doth not erre But if the meanes be and be believed to be infallible he is sure that he neither doth nor can erre by vsing those meanes and so to erre in a way in which one is certaine that he doth not erre and yet may erre as long as he retaines the meanes of that Certainty and followes them is an impossible thing Thus your owne Objection turnes vpon yourselfe and makes good the discourse of Charity Maintayned 73. But you vrge vs and say Vpon this Ground what will hinder me from concluding that seing you also hold that neither particular Churches nor private men are in fallible even in Fundamentalls that even the Fundamentalls of Christianity remaine to you vncertaine 74. Answer Your inference were very good if in the beliefe of the Fundamentalls of Christianity we did rely vpon the Authority of particular Churches or private men But we rely vpon the Authority of the vniversall Church which is absolutly infallible Contrarily for you who rely vpon no infallible Authority of any Church but vpon your owne fallible discourse or the Scripture interpreted by fallible meanes nothing I am sure can hinder vs from concluding that even the Fundamentalls of Christianity remaine to you vncertaine Still you are wounded with your owne weapons And to turne also against you your owne similitudes A Judge may possibly erre in judgment if he proceed only vpon probable reasons that he Judges according to Law neither can he haue assurance that he hath judged right if his sentence be grounded vpon such reasons only If in some other case he haue assurance that he hath judged right it must be grounded vpon certaine and evident reasons which can never faile nor he ever can fall into errour by following such reasons or rules Neither can your London Carryer or any other in the middle of the day when he is sober and in his witts mistake the waie which he knowes with absolute certainty and evidence as you aboue all others must grant who say that we need no Guide for Controversyes of Faith because as you pretend you haue a cleare way namely Scripture which therefore if you can mistake and know the meaning therof only probably you must confess the necessity of some Guide to direct and keepe you in that way Your owne caution in the middle of the day might haue put you in mynd that Faith is obscure and like a light in a darke place as S. Peter speakes which therfore is a way which may not only be mistaken but cannot be assuredly found without the direction of some infallible Guide How many wayes do your Arguments strongly recoyle against yourselfe without the least hurt to your Adversary Even your vaine conclusion these you see are right worthy consequences and yet they are as like your owne as an egg to an egge or milke to milke must be applyed against yourselfe that as one egg is really different from another so your consequences are really different from those of Charity Maintayned though to your friendes they may perhaps haue seemed to be all one But indeed being examined proue to be as like to those of Charity Maintayned as an apple to an oyster 75. By what I haue sayd your N. 161. is fully answered and your Examples appeare to be clearly impertinent For these Propositions the snowe is black the fire is cold c are false and the contrary true as is evident to sense and reason not so that Scripture is the totall Rule of Faith the truth or falshood wherof must be tryed by some other meanes and you can haue none certaine if you take away the infallibility of Gods Church And I wonder you can say concerning these words of Charity Maintayn for the selfe same reason Protestants are not certaine that the Church is not Judge of Controversyes the Ground of this Sophâ—sme is very like the former viz That