Having set downe these words of S. Irenaeus you vrge them thus Pag 211. N. 41. In which words of Irenaeus it is remarkable that they are spoken by him against some Heretikes that pretended as you know who do now a dayes that some necessary Doctrines of the Gospell were vnwritten and that out of the Scriptures truth he must meane sufficient truth cannot be found by those which know not tradition Against whom to say that part of the Gospell which was preached by Peter was written by S. Mark and some other necessary parts of it omitted had been to speak impertinently and rather to confirme than confute their errour It is plaine therfor that be must meane as I pretend that all the necessary doctrine of the Gospell which was preached by S. Peter was written by S. Mark Now you will not deny I persume that S. Peter preached all therfor you must not deny that S. Mark wrote all In your Margent you cite S. Irenaeus Lib. 3. Cap. 2. 162. Answer you set nor downe the Booke or Chapter for the first place which you cite out of S. Irenaeus I haue found it and find that your ill dealing is so very exorbitant and manifold that I scarcely know where to beginne the discovery or how to exaggerate sufficiently your fraude 163 First In those words which you cite they are Lib. 3. Cap. 1. adversus Haereses it is only sayd that the foure Evangelists wrote their severall Gospells but it is not so much as insinuated that every one or all of them wrote all things necessary to salvation nor any least thing that may seeme to looke that way or to be for your purpose in āy other respect as shall appeare anone But your misery is that still you suppose that all necessary things must be expressed in scripture and in vertue of that begging supposition you extend indefinite Propositions as if they were vniversall and yet did signify not absolutely all as vniversalls are wont to doe but determinately for your purpose all things necessary for salvation wheras S. Irenaeus hath neither the word all nor the words necessary Articles Your chief or only care should haue bene to proue positively a necessity that all things necessary should haue bene written in every one of the Gospells and then you might with some more shew of reason turne indefinite into vniversall propositions but your negatiue way or only asking questions what reason can be imagined that any of them should leaue out any thing which he knew to be necessary c will not satisfy S. Irenaeus teaches that S. Marke delivered to vs in writing those things which had been preached by Peter but doth he say all those things which had bene preached by Peter He neither did nor could say so the thing being in it self manifestly vntrue For S. Peter delivered many things by word of mouth which neither S. Mark nor any other of the Evangelists haue written as we may learne from S. John Chap. 21. and S. Mark omitts divers things which the other Evangelists and canonicall Writers haue written and can you affirme that S. Peter delivered none of those points And in particular could he be silent of the Incarnation and birth and other Mysteryes of our Saviour Christ till his baptisme which yet S. Mark omitts as we noted aboue It is therfor evident that S. Irenaeus could not meane that S. Mark wrote whatsoever S. Peter delivered and therfor he wrote only some and not all This then must be your Argument S. Peter preached all the necessary doctrine of the Gospell and much more but S. Mark wrote only some and not all that S. Peter preached therfor S. Mark wrote all the necessary doctrine of the Gospell and more An Argument like to this God knowes all things Mr Chillingworth knowes some but not all things that God knowes therfor Mr. Chillingworth knowes all things Eusebius Lib. 5. Hist C. 8. cites S. Irenaeus thus Mark the disciple and interpreter of Peter committed to writing those things which he had receaved from him where we see no vniversall but only an indefinite proposition Neither did it make any thing to S. Irenaeus his purpose to treate whether or no the Evangelists or other Canonical VVriters did set downe all necessary points For he wrote against certaine absurd Heretiques whe denyed that God created Heaven and earth or breached some other such pernicious fooleryes which might be confuted out of scripture though it do not containe all other necessary points of Faith And it is too much boldness another would call it impudency in you to say that in the words of Irenaeus it is remarkable that they are spoken by him against some Heretiques that pretended that some necessary Doctrines of the Gospell were vnwritten and that out of the Scriptures truth he must meane sufficient truth cannot be found by those which know not tradition and for this you cite S. Irenaeus Lib 3. Cap 2. and Pag 346. N. 30 you say Irenaeus had to do with Heretiques who somwhat like those who would be the only Catholiques declining a tryall by Scripture as not contayning the Truth of Christ perfectly and not fitt to decide Controversyes without recourse to Tradition c But in this your fraud is intolerable For those Heretiks of whom S. Irenaeus speakes when Catholikes did alledge scripture excepted not against it because it did not contayne all necessary truths or not the truth of Christ perfectly which exception could nothing availe them it being sufficient for confutation of their particular heresy if the scripture did containe as much as was contradictory to their errours supposing they did believe it to be the word of God but their exception was that it was not well written was false and not agreeing with it self as may be seene in that very third Booke and second Chapter which you alledg against vs in the words which now I haue cited out of you and therfor you cannot pretend ignorance for excuse of your want of sincerity Thus then S. Irenaeus in that Lib 3. Cap. 2. the title of which Chapter is Quod neque scripturis neque Traditionibus obsequantur haeretici That Heretiks obey neither Scripture nor Traditions beginns that Chapter with these words When they are convinced out of Scripture they fall vpon accusing the Scriptures themselves as if they were not right nor of sufficient authority and that they did varie from themselves and that truth could not be gathered from them by those who are ignorant of tradition These very words yourself Pag 361. N 40. alledg out of S. Irenaeus and say The Fathers vrged tradition against them who when they were confuted out of Scripture fell to accuse Scriptures themselves as if they were not right and came not from good authority as if they were various one from another and as if truth could not be found out of them by those who know not Tradition for that it was not delivered in writing they did meane say
you 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
certaine things by writing and certaine by tradition with vvhom agrees S. Basile de spiritui sancto Cap. 27. saying some things we haue from scripture other things from the Apostles tradition c both which haue like force vnto godlines that Dr. Reynolds in his conclusions annexed to his conference 1. conclus Pag. 689. ansvvering to these sayings of S. Epiphanius and S. Basil sayth I took not vpon me to control them but let the Church judge if they considered with advise enough c And for other Fathers both Greek and Latine they are so plaine for tradition against the sufficiency of scripture taken alone that as may be seene in Brierley Tract 1. sect 3. subdivis 12. wheras S. Chrysostome saith in 2. ad Thessal Hom 4. The Apostles did not deliver all things by writing but many things without and these be as worthy of credit as the other Whitaker de Sacra Scriptura Pag 678. in answer therto sayth I answer This is an inconsiderate speech and vnworthy so great a Father And wheras Eusebius Lib 1. Demonstrat Evangel Cap 8. is objected to say That the Apostles published their doctrine partly without writing as it were by a certaine vnwritten law Whitaker Pag 668. saith therto I answer that this testimony is plaine enough but of no force to be receyved because it is against the Scripture And of S. Austine Cartwright saith in Mr. Whitgifts Defence Pag 103. If S. Austines judgment be a good judgment then there be some things commanded of God which are not in the Scriptures Yea not to insist vpon every particular Father Kemnitius Exam Part 1. Pag 87.89.90 reproves for their like testimony of vnwritten Traditions Clemens Alexandrinus Origen Epiphanius Hierome Maximus Theophilus Basil Damascen c Fulk also confesses as much of Chrysostome Tertullian Cyprian Austine Hierome c And Whitaker acknowledgeth the like of Chrysost Epiphanius Tertullian Austine Innocentius Leo Basil Eusebius Damascene c. Now sir are not these Fathers and Ancient Doctours who teach that the Apostles haue not delivered all things in writing directly opposite to your contrary Assertion so often repeated but without any proofe which you know is but to begg the Question Of people without succession of Pastours which is the ground of Tradition we may truly say as Optatus saith of the Donatists Lib. 2. cont Parm. Sunt sine Patribus filii c. They are children without Fathers disciples without maisters and in a prodigious manner begotten and borne of themselves 166. I will make an end of this matter if first I haue noted that it is a false glosse of yours like to that which I haue noted aboue and directly against S. Irenaeus that when he sayth those Heretiks taught that truth cannot be found by those who know not Tradition he must meane sufficient truth as if those heretiks had agreed with Catholikes that all truth is not sufficiently contayned in scripture alone wheras S. Irenaeus expressly declares the doctrine of those Heretiks to haue been that the scriptures were not right and came not from good authority but were various one from another as I haue shewed and yourself affirme in those very words which you translate out of S. Irenaeus and so not only sufficient truth could not be learned in the scriptures but they could not assure vs of any truth at all Wheras you say to haue sayd against those Heretiks that part of the Gospell which was preached by Peter was written by S. Mark and some necessary parts of it omitted had been to speake impertinently and rather to confirme than confute their errour I must say that your consequence is no less impertinent than your supposition is false because no body did ever go about to confute those Heretiks by saying that part of the Gospell was written and some part omitted but by proving that the scriptures were true and of infallible authority which they denyed and also that beside scripture there are true Catholique Traditions opposite to the foolish traditions of those Heretiks from which truth may be learned both which Points S. Irenaeus proves and so confutes the double errour of those heretiks that truth could be found neither by the scriptures nor by the Traditions of Catholiques and therby expressly makes good such Traditions and that both out of scripture and Tradition we may learne some Points of Christian Faith which is directly against that very thing for which you alledge him and proves my chief intent that scripture is not the only Rule of Faith To which purpose I beseech you heare your owne words Pag 345. N. 29. where you bring S. Irenaeus Lib. 3. Cap. 2. speaking thus to those Heretiks Your calumnyes against Scripture are most vnjust but yet moreover assure yourselves that if you will be tryed by Tradition even by that also you will be overthrowne For our Tradition is farr more famous more constant and in all respects more credible than that which you pretend to It were easy for me to muster vp against you the vninterrupted Successions of all the Churches founded by the Apostles all conspiring in their testimonyes against you But because it were too long to number vp the Successions of all Churches I will content my self with the Tradition of the most Ancient and most glorious Church of Rome which alone is sufficient for the confutation and confusion of your doctrine c Thus you And though you render very imperfectly both the words and meaning of S. Irenaeus and in some words following those which I haue sett downe falsify his sense And therfor I beseech the Reader to examine the place yet this is sufficient to shew by your owne confession what was the judgment of this glorious Saint and Martyr concerning Traditions and the no-necessity that all Poynts of Faith should haue bene written since we may receyue them from the Church 167. By the way For what mystery do you goe about to proue that S. Mark hath written all things necessary because S. Irenaeus Lib. 3. Cap. 1. saith Mark S. Peters disciple delivered to vs in writing those things which S. Peter had preached and yet do not apply the same proof to S. Luke of whom S. Irenaeus in the same place saith Luke a follower of Paul wrote downe the Gospell which had bene preached by him S. Paul To what purpose would you goe the further way about first proving that S. Mark hath all necessary points and from the nce inferring that S. Luke whose Gospell is larger than that of S. Mark must needs haue written all such things When as you might haue immediatly proved the same thing of S. Luke of whom S. Irenaeus speaks in the very same manner as he speaks of S. Mark 168. From S. Mark you passe to S. John whom Pag. 211. N. 42. you would proue to haue written all necessary points because he saith Many other signes also did Iesus in the sight of his disciples which are not written in this Booke But these
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
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
belieue in Christ having salvation written in their harts by the spirit of God without letters or inke and diligently keeping ancient Tradition doth he S. Irenaeus not plainly shew that the Tradition he speakes of is nothing els but the very same that is written Nothing but to belieâ—e in Christ To which whether Scripture alone to them that belieue it be not a sufficient Guide I leaue to you to Iudge 51. Answer First this your Answer though it were never so true leaves Charity Maintayned in possession of what he endeavoured to proue out of S. Irenaeus against the Title of your Chapter Scripture the only Rule wherby to Iudge of Controversyes to witt that Tradition and therfore not only Scripture is such a Rule For dato non concesso that Scripture containes all Points necessary to be believed it followes not that the Church also may not be infallible and guide vs by Tradition as by Gods vnwritten Word You teach here N. 126. That all the necessary Parts of the Gospell are contained in every one of the foure Gospells And yet you say That they which had â—ll the Bookes of the New Testament had nothing superfluous For it was not superfluous but profitable that the same thing should be sayd diverse tymes and be testifyed by diverse witnesses So say I it had not beene superfluous but very profitable that the same truth should be revealed by God in Scripture and by the infallible Tradition of the Church which you must grant to haue happened in the tyme of the Apostles when the first Bookes of Scripture were Written For as Scripture was not superfluous though it found another infallible Rule before it which also even according to Protestants remained for some tyme with it namely till the Canon of Scripture was perfited so Tradition neither was nor is superfluous though there be another infallible Rule Scripture with it 52. Secondly When you say That the Tradition S. Irenaeus speakes of is nothing els but the very same what is written nothing but to belieue in Christ to which whether Scripture alone to them that belieue it you should add and vnderstand it be not a sufficient Guide I leaue to you to Iudge I must answer as you N. 142. speake to Charity Maintayned I pray walke not thus in generality but tell vs what you meane by believing Only in generall that he is the Messias and that without believing him none can be saved Or else do you vnderstand by believing in Christ all that hath beene taught by him If you meane the first only you say nothing to the purpose because other Articles are necessarily to be believed beside that of Christs being the Messias If you meane the second that is all Points taught by our Saviour and necessary to be believed as you N. 159. say S. Irenaeus tells vs of some babarus Nations that believed the Doctrine of Christ which certainly containes more than that one generall Article of his being Messias as even there you declare that it comprehends the Believing of Christian Religion wholly and entirely that is the matter of the Gospell you know we deny that for all such truths Scripture alone can be a sufficient Guide and to take the contrary without proofe is to begg the question Nay even for that of believing in Christ I wonder you would say that you leaue it to the judgment of Charity Maintayned that Scripture alone is a sufficient Guide in the Principles and proceedings of Protestants seing you know that He knowes and the whole world knowes how vastly they disagree about believing in Christ some believing him to be the Son of God and Consubstantiall to his Father Others denying it Some saying he satisfyed for our sins others denying it as you know the Socinians doe So that take away the Authority and infallibility of Gods Church the agreement of Christians in believing in Christ will terminate in the meere Name of Christ and the Title of Saviour with endless contentions about the Thing signifyed by that Name and Title Put then all your Assertions togeather the strength of them will end in this contradiction that the only Rule of Faith is Scripture and yet that a man may be saved without believing it to be the Word of God yea though he doubt or reject it being proposed by other Parts of the Church as you expressly say in the same N. 159. 53. But you say S. Irenaeus his words are just as if a man should say if God had not given vs the light of the Sun we must haue made vse of candles and torches If we had had no eyes we must haue felt out our way If we had no leggs we must haue vsed crutches And doth not this in effect import that while we haue the Sun we need no candles While we haue our eyes we need not feele out our way While we enjoy our leggs we need not crutches And by like reason Irenaeus in saying if we had had no Scripture we must haue followed Tradition and they that haue none do well to doe so doth he not plainly import that to them that haue Scripture and belicue it Tradition is vnnecessary Which could not be if the Scripture did not containe evidently the whole Tradition 54. Answer You may vnderstand the words of S. Irenaeus and moue others to vndestand them as you please if you will first suppose your owne doctrine to be true that is if to begg the question may passe for a good Rule to interpret Authors If I say you suppose or take as granted that Scripture is the only Rule of Faith and that it containes evidently all things necessary to salvation you may compare it to the Sun to Eyes to leggs and the Church to Candles to feeling out our way to crutches yea if she might erre to the Synagogue of Satan and lastly to Nothing because indeed every errour in Faith destroyes Faith and Church But if you conceaue as you ought that the Church gives Being to the Scripture in order to vs that by Her Eyes or Testimony we belieue Scripture to be the word of God as yourselfe grant that by Her subsistence as I may say it hath beene conserved and subsists you will be forced to invert your similitudes and interpretation of S. Irenaeus and say do not his words import that if candles should faile the Sun will last and as the Prophet David saith Psalm 18. Nec est qui se abscondat a calore ejus And that in Sole posuit tabernaculum suum that is in manifestatione Ecclesiam saith S. Austine If through the difficulty and obscurity of Scripture we cannot feele out our way as the disagreements of Protestants shew they cannot we may see by the eyes of the Church by which we did first see Scripture itselfe and then do not the words of S. Irenaeus plainly import the direct contrary of that which you inferr That to them who haue Tradition as all they must haue who belieue Scripture
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
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
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
in figure only or only by Faith and Apprehension and to be really and substantially receaved was Christ as really exhibited to the Jewes by their figures of him as after his Incarnation by his reall existence No doubt can be moved concerning the manner of his presence vnless first he be supposed to be really present and not only in figure or bare Faith which must presuppose not make that presence which it believes and so the doubt and debate between Lutherans and Sacramentaryes is whether Christs Body be substantially present not how he is present of the substance not of the manner only To say his whole person is every where makes not to the purpose seing the question is not of his Divine Person but concerning his sacred Humanity Howsoever if this Reason be good it will serue for transubstantiation at least as well as for Consubstantiation or vbiquity of which the Protestant Hospinian in Praefat. de Vbiquitate Lutheranorum Anno 1602. sayth Hoc portentum c. This monster for it ought not be called a doctrine or assertion or opinion or even a single Heresy is repugnant to scripture contrary to the Fathers it overthrowes the whole Creed it confoundes the natures of Christ with Eutyches it rayses from out of Hell almost all the old Heresyes and lastly which is strange it destroyes the Sacrament for the maintayning wherof it was invented And yet this poynt is to Potter only a curious nicity Is it not intollerable partiality to excuse Vbiquity or Consubstantiation and yet condemne Transubstantiation but by these examples we see what command Passion hath over their vnderstandings and will And I must still conclude that by these enormous differences amongst Protestants it appeares that scripture in matters of great moment is not cleare 94. 18 You haue least reason of all other to defend the sufficiency of Scripture taken alone who deliver such Doctrines concerning the certainty and infallibility of Scripture it self that it could not be āy Rule at all although it were snpposed to containe evidently all necessary poynts Those Doctrines of yours I will only touch heer as much as belongs to my present purpose intending to speake of them more at large in the next Chapter First then you teach Pag. 62. N. 32. that Scripture is none of the materiall objects of our Faith or Divine verities which Christ revealed to his Apostles but only the meanes of conveying them vnto vs. And Pag. 116. N. 159. having spoken of some barbarous Nations that believed the Doctrine of Christ and yet believed not Scripture to be the word of God for they never heard of it and Faith comes by hearing you add these words Neither doubt I but if the Bookes of Scripture had been proposed to them by the other parts of the Church where they had bene before receyved and had bene doubted of or even rejected by those barbarous Nations but still by the bare belief and practise of Christianity they might be saved God requiring of vs vnder payne of damnation only to belieue the verityes therin contayned and not the divine authority of the Bookes wherin-they are contayned This Doctrine of yours being supposed togeather with that other principle of Protestants that after the Canon of Scripture was perfited the only meanes which Christians haue to know Divine Verityes revealed by Christ is the Scripture which for that very cause they say must containe evidently all things necessary to salvation it followes that if Scripture be not a materiall Object of Faith that is a thing revealed by God and which men are obliged to receyue and belieue as such men are not obliged to believe that meanes by which alone they can come to the knowledg of Divine revealed verityes ād then it clearly followes that they cannot be obliged to that End which they only know by that meanes to the knowledg of which meanes you say they are not bound Neither cā you say that because we are obliged to know those revealed Truths which can be knowen only by Scripture we are consequently obliged to know and belieue the Scripture because our supposition is that we haue no knowledg suspicion imagination or inkling of revealed Truths except by meanes of Scripture alone For if you grant any other meanes you overthrow your maine ground of relying vpon scripture alone and admitt Tradition And therfor antecedently to any possible obligation to know immediatly revealed Truths we must know that meanes which alone proposes them to vs who cannot belieue any necessity of knowing revealed truths but by believing aforehād the scriprure which if we be not preobliged to belieue we cannot be obliged to belieue the verityes themselves which in respect of vs shall remayne as if they had never been revealed like to infinite other truths in the abyss of Gods wisdome which shall never be notifyed to Men or Angels This deduction of myne you cannot deny since it is the same with one of your owne Pag. 86. N. 93. where you say It was necessary that God by his Providence should preserue the Scripture from any indiscernable corruption in those things which he would haue knowen otherwise it is apparent it had not bene his will that these things should be knowen the only meanes of continuing the knowledg of them being perished Now is it not in effect all one to vs whether the scripture haue perished in it selfe or as I may say to vs while we are not obliged to belieue that is it the word of God And the same argument I take from your saying Pag 116. N. 159. that we are not bound to belieue scripture to be a Rule of Faith For since Protestāts hold it to be the only Rule of Faith if I be not obliged to belieue that it is such a Rule I cannot be obliged to any act of Faith But you say we are not obliged to belieue scripture antecedently or for it self Therfor we are not bound to belieue any revealed Truths vnless you grāt some other meanes besides scripture for comming to the knowledg of them and consequētly although we should suppose scripture to be evident in all poynts yet it alone cannot be sufficient for men who are not bound to take notice of it as of the word of God nor to receaue the contens therof as divine revealed truths In a word Either God hath revealed this truth scriprure is the word of God or he hath not revealed it If he haue reuealed it then it is one of the things which we are to belieue and is a materiall Object of Faith against your particular Tenet If God hath not revealed it then we haue no obligation to belieue it with certainty as a divine truth nor consequently the contents of it nor can it alone be sufficient to deliver all things necessary to salvation against the doctrine of all Protestāts And who can belieue scripture to be a perfect Rule if he do not belieue it to be any Rule of Faith Surely if he belieue
it to be a perfect Rule he believes it to be a Rule 95. Besides this you deliver another doctrine which overthrowes the sufficiency of scripture taken alone Thus you write p. 144. N. 31. The Apostles doctrine was confirmed by Miracles therfor it was entirely true and in no part either false or vncertaine I say in no part of that which they delivered constantly as a certaine divine truth and which had the attestation of divine Miracles The falshood and danger of this doctrine I will purposely confute herafter For the present I say that it makes Scripture wholly vncertaine and vnfit to be a sufficient yea or any Rule of Faith although it were never so cleare and evident in all necessary points For if once we yield that the Apostles could err in poynts belonging to Religion we cannot belieue them with certainty at any other tyme or in any other article as I demonstrate in the next Chapter and the thing is manifest of it self All Divines and all men by the light of Reason require an vniversall Infallibility in that Authority for which they must belieue with divine Faith and if it could erre at one tyme it might erre at another for ought we could know or if it say one thing to day and the contrary to morrow what certainty can we haue to belieue rather the one than the other And indeed we can belieue neither of them with certainty Besides you seeme to require that every part of Christian doctrine be confirmed by miracles beforwe can be certaine of the truth therof which blastes the credit of all scripture For how do you know that the Apostles wrought miracles to proue immediatly and in particular that scripture is the word of God Or how can you belieue that miracles were wrought severally in confirmation of every rext of scripture And yet we belieue every such Text with an assent of divine Faith Nay wheras protestants alledg some texts to proue that scripture contaynes evidently all necessary points you must shewe that those very texts were confirmed by miracles if you will belieue them with certainty as entirely true which I suppose you will judg to be a Chimericall endeavour and therfor we must inferr that by no text of scripture you can proue it to contayne all necessary poynts of Faith Divers other errours you maintayne against holy scripture which as in the next chapter I will demonstrate make it vncapable of being any Rule at all for Christian Faith and therfor you must either retract those errours or renounce the common principle of protestants that scripture alone contaynes evidently all points necessarily do to believed 96. 19. And lastly I overthrow theit sufficiency of scripture alone by not only answering but also confuting the arguments by which they endeavour to establish it For seeing it lye vpon them positively to prove their Assertion if it be demonstrated that the arguments which they bring are either impertinent or insufficient it wil remayne effectually proved that they cānot avouch Scripture alone to contayne all things necessary to salvation I must therfor of necessity be large in answering their Objections in performing wherof I both Answer and Impugne Defend the truth and Confute my Adversary in one generall poynt which alone implyes or extends it self to all particular controversyes in Faith Your 97. First Objection Pag. 109. N. 144. is taken from a saying of Bellarmin de Verb. Dei L. 4. C. 11. That all those things were written by the Apostles which are necessary for all 98. Answer First Bellarmin even as you alledge him speaks only of things necessary for all that is for every private person not of things necessary for the whole Mysticall body of the Church as if all such things were evidently contained in scripture yea he expressly declares himself to the contrary § Nota Secundo affirming that the Apostles were wont to preach some things only to Prelats Bishops and Priests as of the manner of governing the Church administring Sacraments refuting Heretiques c Secondly he sayes not that all things which are necessary for all are writtren evidently which only could serue your turne but only that they are written which is true though they were writtē obscurely as many things are contained in scripture in particular and yet obscurely and much less doth he say that they are evident without the declaration of the Church and helpe of tradition which only were for your purpose yea that his words can haue no such meaning but the direct and express contrary Bellarm himself will best declare in that very Chapter from which your objection is taken and almost immediatly after the words by you cited Thus he speaks § sed admissa Dico eorum omnium dogmatum c I say that there are found in scripture testimonyes of all those Doctrines which belong to the nature of God ād that we may concerning such Doctrines be fully and plainly instructed out of the scriptures if we vnderstand them aright but that sense of scripture depends on the vnwritten Tradition of the Church Wherfor Theodoret L. 1. C. 8. relates that scriptures were alledged on both sides both by Catholiques and Arians and when the Arians could not be convinced by them scriptures because they did expound those selfsame scriptures otherwise then Catholiques did they were condemned by words not written but vnderstood according to piety and no man ever doubted but that Constātine consented to that condemnation Could any thing haue been spoken more clearly solidly and truly to shew in what sense things of greatest moment as was that article of the Divinity of Christ our Lord against the wicked Arians for defense wherof the church suffered so much and so many Martyrs shedd their bloud are contaynd fully and plainly in scripture that is in those texts which fully and plainly recommend the church and vnwritten tradition as I noted in the beginning And yet further in the same Lib. 4. Cap. 4. § 7. Necesse est c. he saith that oftentymes the scripture is doubtfull and intricate so that it cannot be vnderstood vnless it be interpreted by some who cannot erre therfore it alone is not sufficient which are his express words and then gives divers examples of some chief points even belonging to the nature of God which all good Christians beleeue as matters of Faith and yet cannot be proved by scripture alone And Cap. 7. he saith S. Austine sayd that that Question whether they who were baptized by Heretiques were to be rebaptized could not be decided by scripture before a full Councell of the Church but that after the Councell had declared the doubt and the whole Question there may be taken assured documents from the scripture For scriptures being explicated by the Councell do firmely and certainly proue that which they did not firmely proue before But why do I stand vpon particular passages since in the same Lib. 4. Cap. 3. he speakes vniversally and sayes that we Catholikes disagree
from 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
vnless we belieue it finally and for itself divers verityes contained in scripture shall not be materiall objects of our Faith and in particular all those of which S. John speakes Cap 20. V. 30.31 Many other signes also did Jesus in the sight of his Disciples which are not written in this Booke And these are written that you may belieue that Jesus is Christ the Son of God and that belieuing you may haue life in his name Those Miracles then were written not for themselves but as a meanes to attayne the knowledg of this Truth Jesus is Christ the Son of God and even the belief of this Truth is referred to a further end that believing you may haue life in his name And 1. Pet. 1.9 we read more vniversally that the end of our Faith is the salvation of our soules Besides this Pag 217. and 218. N. 49. 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 Nay is it not apparent that no man at this tyme. can without hypocrisy pretend to belieue in Christ but of necessity he must doe so Seeing he can haue no reason to belieue in Christ but he must haue the same to belieue the scripture 4. Sir Are you a Christian of any profession If you be then it must be manifest to all the world that you must agree with others in the belief of scripture Therfor scripture is one part or Object of your belief and this as you profess vnder paine of damnation and consequently it is not only an object but a necessary object to be believed and you cannot without hypocrisy pretend to belieue in Christ but of necessity you must doe so that is belieue scripture seing you can haue no reason to in Christ but you must haue the same to believe the Scripture If then you teach as you doe that one is not bound to belieue Scripture but may reject it you must grant that by the same reason he may not belieue yea may reject Christ himself And now heare what you say Pag 116. N. 159. If a man should belieue Chistian Religion wholly and entirely and liue according to it such a man though he should not know or not belieue the Scripture to be a Rule of Faith no nor to be the word of God my opinyon is he may be saved and my reason is because he performes the entire condition of the new Covenant which is that we belieue the matter of the Gospell and not that it is contained in these or these Bookes So that the Bookes of Scripture are not so much the Objects of our Faith as the instruments of conveying it to our vnderstanding and not so much of the being of the Christian Doctrine as requisite to the well being of it 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 But these barbarous people might be saved Therfor men might be saved without believing the Scripture to be the word of God much more without believing it to be a Rule and a perfect Rule of Faith Neither doubt I but if the Bookes of Scripture had beene proposed to them by the other parts of the Church where they had bene before receyved and had bene doubted of or even rejected by those barbarous Nations but still by the bare belief and practise of Christianity they might be saved God requiring of vs vnder paine of damnation only to belieue the verityes therin contayned and not the Divine Authority of the Bookes wherin they are contayned In some of these words you may perhaps seeme to speake ambiguously That the Scriptures are not so much the Objects of our Faith as the instruments of conveying it to our vndersting For not so much seemes to signify that they are the objects of our Faith in some degree but this very mincing of things shewes the absurdity of that wherin you are afrayd to declare your mynd plainly or if you belieue as your words seeme most to signify we must say that you hold scripture not to be a materiall Object of our Faith which must consist in indivisibili For if this truth scripture is the word of God be revealed it is no lesse absolutely and rigorously a materiall object of Faith then the verityes contayned in it If it be not revealed it is not only not so much but not at all an object of Faith But your other words neither doubt I but if the Books of Scripture had bene proposed to those barbarous people by the other parts of the church where they had bene before receyved and had bene doubted of or even rejected by them but still by bet bare belief and practise of Christanity they might be saved do either directly signify that scripture is absolutely no materiall Object of our faith nor a thing revealed by God or els cōtaine a most wicked doctrine or rather blasphemy that a truth revealed by God may be rejected which you cōfess is to giue God the ly And that finally this is your opinion scripture is not a materiall object of Faith appeares by your next N. 160 Pag. 117. Where you say This discourse whether it be rationall and concluding or no I submitt to better judgment For you speake of the discourse which I haue now sett downe out of your N. 159. Neither can you avoide this absurdity by saying one may reject scripture if it be not sufficiently propounded For you put the very case that it should be proposed by the other parts of the church where they had bene before receyved As also you expressly put a difference between the verityes contained in scripture ād scripture which contaynes them saying God requires of vs vnderpayne of damnation only to belieue the verityes therin contained and not the divine Authority of the bookes wherin they are contayned and yet it is a thing granted by all and evident of it self that none cā be obliged to belieue the verityes contayned in scripture or any other verityes vnless they be sufficiently proposed and therfor if you will make good the difference you put between scripture and the contents therof and not contradict yourself you must confess that one is not obliged to belieue scripture or the divine Authority therof but may reject it although it be sufficiently proposed yea it will also follow that the contents therof may be rejected the first and last and totall knowledge wherof Protestants pretend to receyue only from the written word For they cannot possibly conceaue any obligation to belieue the contents of scripture if first they be perswaded that they haue no obligation to belieue scripture it self from which alone they can come to know any such obligation And so protestant ministers
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
that we are obliged to belieue the contents or verityes contained in scripture but one of those is that scripture it self is the word of God and inspired by Him therfor we are obliged to belieue scripture to be the word of God The minor is proved out of S. Paul 2. Timoth 3.16 All scripture divinely inspired is profitable to teach c. that the man of God may be perfect instructed to every good worke Which words Protestants and yourself in part alledg to proue that scripture is a perfect and totall Rule of Faith And if it be a perfect Rule certainly it must be a Rule therfor that scripture is a Rule of Faith is a truth contayned in scripture and consequently a materiall Object of our Faith Or if you will needs say that we do not belieue as an Object of Faith scripture to be a totall Rule of faith you overthrow the cause of Protestants and yourself by confessing it cannot be proved out of scripture that scripture is such a totall Rule which is the thing I haue mainly vrged against you in my last Chapter and if this cannot be done why do you goe about to doe it by alledging texts of scripture for that purpose Or out of what ground can you possibly pretend to proue that scripture alone is the Rule of Faith if you graÌ„t it cannot be proved out of scripture on which you profess all matters of Faith to be grounded Yourself P. 143. N. 30. note it is saied in scripture All scripture is divinely inspired Shew but as much for the Church shew where it is written that all the decrâ—es of the Church are divinely inspired and the controversy will bâ—at an end that is you will belieue as a matter of Faith that the decrees of the Church are infallible seing then scripture saith that itself is divinely inspired you must belieue as a matter of faith that it is infallible or the word of God The like argument I take from the doctrine of Protestants and their endeavour to proue out of scripture that it is a Rule evident for all necessary Points for which they are wont to alledg the words of the Psalme 18. V. 9. The precept of our Lord lightsome illuminating the eyes and Psalm 118. V. 105. Thy word is a lampe to my feete and 2. Pet 1. V. 19. which you doe well attending vnto as to a candel shining in a darke place Therfor according to them this Proposition scripture is an evident Rule for all necessary Points is a truth contayned in scripture and a materiall Object of Faith vnless they will grant what we vrge against them that it cannot be proved out of scripture that it is an evident Rule for such Poynts Besides Pag 143. N. 30. you bring the said words of S. Paul All scripture is divinely inspired expresly and immediately to proue that the Apostles were infallible in their writings Therfor it is a truth contayned in scripture and consequently by your owne confession a materiall Object of Faith Morover we read 2. Pet. 1.20.21 vnderstanding this first that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation For not by mans will was prophesy brought at any tyme but the Holy men of God spake inspired with the holy Ghost Therfor we are obliged to belieue as a truth contayned in scripture that the writers therof spoke and wrote inspired by God And what is oftner repeated in the Prophets then the word of our Lord was made to me or the like Therfor one truth contained in scripture is that they wrote by divine inspiration Doth not S. John begin his Apocalyps with these words The Apocalyps of Jesus Christ which God gaue him c blessed is he that readeth and heareth the words of this prophecy Which words declare that he wrote a Prophecy which God gaue him or inspired into his mynd and so it is contained in scripture and a materiall Object of our Faith and his Apocalyps is the word of God Which Truth being declared by S. John men are bound to belieue it as a matter of Faith though they were supposed to know all the contents of the Apocalyps by other meanes for example by immediate Revelation or Inspiration as S. John himself came to know them vnless you will say that men may reject what an Apostle hath set downe in writing Doth not S. Peter also 2. Epist Cap. 3.15.16 teach that S. Paul wrote his Epistles by wisdom and inspiration from God Therfor it is a materiall object of Faith that S. Paules Epistles are the word of God even although one were not bound to know the particular contents of them or had knowne them by some other meanes Therfor your Doctrine that it is sufficient for Salvation to believe the conteÌ„ts of scripture though we deny scripture itself is clearly against scripture and repugnant to a truth contayned therin 24. Ninthly and lastly in stead of an argument I may express a just admiration how such a Doctrine as this could appeare in a Book printed in England and approved as agreeable to the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England Fulke a chief man amongst English Protestants saith plainly in his Confutation of Purgatory Pag. 214. Whosoever denyeth the Authority of the Holy Scriptures therby be wrayeth himself to be an heretike And hitherto all English and other Protestants haue pretended to oppose themselves against the Swenckfeldians who rejected all the Scripture as you say one may doe and yet be saved And certainly if men be not obliged to belieue Scripture as a matter of Faith it imports nothing whether they accept or reject it if also they do not belieue it to be the word of God what certaine credit can they giue to it and if Christians did not belieue it to be such they would account it very great foolishnesse to belieue Mysteryes which seeme repugnant to all Philosophy and naturall Reason and depriue men of those things to which nature is most inclined vpon any Testimony or Authority less then Divine And this your Doctrine is less tolerable because you are not able to bring in favour therof any one argument deserving answer 25. You say indeed Pag 116. N. 159. that without knowing or believing scripture one may performe the entire condition of the new Covenant which is that we belieue the matter of the Gospel and not that it is contayned in these or these Bookes 26. But this is a plaine begging the Question to suppose or affirme without proofe that one condition of the new Covenant is not to belieue scripture to be the word of God Yourself Pag 134. N. 13. expressly teach that among the conditions which Christ requires one is that we belieue what he has revealed when it is sufficiently declared to hane beene revealed by him Now that scripture hath bene revealed by God is proved with the many Miracles which the Apostles wrought to confirme that they were messengers of God and Infallible in all matters which they
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
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
your flying to such poore signes as these are is to me a great signe that you labour with penury of better Arguments and that thus to catch at shaddowes and bulrushes is a shrewd signe of a sinking cause 59. Answer What greater signe of particular Assistance and as it were a Determination to Truth from some higher cause than consent and constancy of many therin while we see others change alter and contradict one another and even the same man become contrary to himself who yet in all other humane respects haue the same occasion ability and reason of such consent and constancy Tertullian Praescript Chap 28. saith truly Among many events there is not one issue the errour of the churches must needs haue varied But that which among many is found to be one is not mistaken but delivered And the experience we haue of the many great and endless differences of Protestants about the canon of scripture and interpretation therof is a very great argument that the church which never alters nor disagrees from herself is guided by a superiour infallible Divine Spirit as Christians among other inducements to belieue that scripture is the word of God alledg the perfect coherence of one part therof with another 60. Before I passe to your next Errour I must aske a Question about what you deliver Pag 141. N. 28. where speaking of some Bookes of scripture you say Seeing after the Apostles the Church pretends to no new Revelations how can it be an Article of Faith to believe them Canoncall And Pag 142. N. 29. If they some certaine bookes of scripture were approved by the Apostles this I hope was a sufficient definition How I say you who hold that Scripture is not a Point of Faith nor revealed by God can say that to propose bookes of scripture though they had bene proposed before is to propose new Revelations or Definitions of the Apostles But as I sayd hertofore it is no newes for you to vtter contradictions 61. A seventh Errour plainly destructiue both of scripture and all Christianity is taken out of your Doctrine of which I haue spoken hertofore that the Bible was proved to be Divine by those Miracles which were wrought by our Saviour Christ and his Apostles and yet that God may permit true Miracles to be wrought to delude men Which Assertions put togeather may giue occasion to doubt whether those Miracles wherby the Scriptute was confirmed were not to delude men and so we can haue no certainty that Scripture is the word of God 62. To this I will add a Doctrine of yours delivered Pag 69. N. 47. which overthrowes all proof that can be takeÌ„ from Miracles for confirmation either that scripture is the word of God or that other articles of Christian Faith are true Thus you write For my part I profess if the Doctrine of the scripture were not as good and as sit to come from the fountaine of goodness as the Miracles by which it was confirmed were great I should want one maine pillar for my Faith and for want of it I feare should be much staggered in it Doth not this assertion declare that true Miracles are in sufficient of themselves to convince that a thing confirmed by them is true or good vnless men do also interpose their owne judgment that the things in themselves are such which is not to belieue the Miracles or God speaking and testifying by them but to subject the Testimony of God to the judgment of men wheras contrarily we ought to judge such things to be good because they are so testifyed and not belieue that Testimony to be true because in our judgment independently of that Testimony the things are good in themselves which were to vary our belief of Gods Testimony according as we may chance to alter our judgment at different tymes and vpon divers reasons which may present themselves to our vnderstaÌ„ding Do not you in divers places pretend that this reason is aboue all other God sayes so therfor it is true and further do you not say Pag. 144. N. 31. If you be so infallible as the Apostles were shew it as the Apostles did They went forth sayes S. Mark and preached every where the Lord working with them and confirming their words with signes following It is impossible that God should ly and that the Eternall Truth should set his hand and seale to the confirmation of a falshood or of such Doctrine as is partly true and partly false The Apostles Doctrine was thus confirmed therfor it was intirely true and in no part either false or vncertaine If the testimony of God be with you aboue all reason and that by signes or Miracles the Eternall Truth sets his hand and seale to the confirmation of what is so confirmed how comes it that your Faith could be staggered notwithstanding the working of such Miracles if in your judgment the doctrine of the scripture were not as good as the Miracles by which it was confirmed were great Or what could it availe vs to proue our doctrine by Miracles as the Apostles did if the belief of those Points so proved must stand to the mercy of your judgment which as I saied may vary vpon divers occasions and yet this diversity of judgment you must according to this your doctrine follow even against any point though confirmed by Miracle It is therfor cleare That in your Principles you can haue no certainty of the truth of scripture nor of the contents threrof although it were supposed that it alone did expressly and inparticular containe all Points necessary to be believed 63. Your 8. Errour consists in this that beside what I haue sayd already in your second and third Errour that you impeach the certainty of scripture by taking away vniversall infallibility from the Apostles who wrote it and for whose Authority we belieue it I find you do the same in other places You say P. 144. N. 30. The infallibility of the Church depends vpon the infallibility of the Apostles and besides this dependance is voluntary for it is in the power of the Church to deviate from this Rule being nothing else but an aggregation of men of which every one has free will and is subject to passions and errour Change the tearmes and say The infallibility of the Apostles depended â—pon the infallibility of our Saviour and this dependance was voluntary for it was in the power of the Apostles to deviate from this Rule being nothing but a number of men of whom every one has freewill and is subject to passion and errour and that we way be sure of this last in the very next N. 31. you teach That the Apostles themselves even after the sending of the Holy Ghost were and through inadvertence or prejudice aÌ„d P. 137. N. 21. to tinadvertence or prejudice you add or some other cause which gives scope enough to censure the Apostles continued for a tyme in an errour repugnant to a revealed truth notwitstanding
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
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
regeneration Tit 3. And Baptisme is a meane or instrument by which is made the communication of Christs benefits For by Baptisme Christ cleanseth and sanctifyeth Ephes 5. Yea he saith expressly The testimonyes of Scripture are manifest which as they cannot be denyed so they ought not to be shifted of Ephes 5. Clensing her with the laver of water in the Word Joan 3. Vnless one he borne againe of water c. Act 22. Be Baptized and wash away thy sinnes 1. Pet 3. Speaknig of water c He sayth Baptisme being of the like forme of the Arke of Noë saveth vs. And he concludes These being most manifest tectimonyes which expressly ascribe Efficacy to Sacraments and declare what that Efficacy is are not to be perverted by tropes from their simple and native signisication which the proper signification of the words giveth and so the ancient Fathers haue vnderstood these testimonyes simply as they sound Behold the Doctrine of a chiefest Protestant proved out of Scripture and confessed to be the Doctrine of the Ancient Fathers interpreting Scriptures so as our Catholike Doctrine comes to be approved by Protestants by Scripture and by the Ancient Fathers and by Protestants interpreting Scripture all which Poynts are further taught by the Protestant Urbanus Regius In 1. Part Operum in Cathechismo minori Folio 105. confessing that the Scripture and the Authority of the ancient Church constraine him to belieue that children dying vnbaptized are damned The same Doctrine is delivered by Sarcerius ād by Confess Augustana The Protestants of Saxony and sundry other Protestant Writers as may be seene in the Tripl Cord Chap 20. Sect 4. Pag 456. 61. Now we may reflect First seing these Protestants for their Doctrine of the necessity of Baptisme rely vpon Scripture as indeed the words of Scripture are as cleare for this Point as any can be I would gladly know what certaine Ground you or any man can haue that so many learned Protestants to say nothing of all Fathers Antiquity and moderne Catholike Writters haue erred in this their Interpretation of Scripture Is it not your owne Rule That when men truly desirous to know the truth and of vpright meaning I hope you belieue Protestants to be such at least most of them differ about the sense of Scripture it is a signe that such places are not evident And seing we now treat of a Point which at least is necessary to be knowen whether or no it be necessary otherwise we cannot be assured that we want nothing necessary to salvation it followes that Scripture is not evident in all things necessary to be knowen and therfor we must haue recourse to a Living Judg. 2. Seing so many of those whom you call brethren teach our Catholique Doctrine whatsoever you object against vs makes no less against them 3. Your saying That Baptisme is a casuall thing and in the power of man to conferr though yet many learned Protestants hold Baptisme to be necessary is a prophane speech as if God had not a most particular Providence in disposing all rhings for the good of his Elect particularly in things necessary to salvation Why do you not likewise object against all Christians their making the salvation of every one depend on the preaching of the Gospell of which our Saviour spoke when he also commanded his Apostles to conferr Baptisme Matth 28.19 which you may also say is a casuall thing and in the power of man to doe or omitt as if God could not be sure how to order infallibly all events or effects vnless they fall out by necessity Nay I say more Our God is so good and desirous that all be saved that if men did strictly concurre and cooperate with his holy Providence and Grace in all occasions things would so fall out as that mediatè or immediatè proximè or remotè one way or other there would never want sufficient Meanes for infants to be baptized So farr is this matter from being a casuall thing And still we must consider that infants dying without baptisme are deprived of salvation not for the fault of those who omitted to Baptize them nor properly for want of Baptisme itself but for Originall sin once contracted and never abolished by that meanes and instrument which God hath appointed for that End and Effect as he might in his Justice haue left all Mankind in their sins without providing for them a Redeemer according to the proceeding which he held with the apostating Angells and therfore this Doctrine That children dying without Baptisme cannot be saved implyes no cruelty absurdity or strangeness to those who believe other Poynts of Christian Faith Especially if we consider that although they shall not enjoy felicity in Heaven yet they shall lead their life with much content by contemplation and also by considering that perhaps if their Creatour had granted them longer life yea and procured them to be baptized they might haue dyed in actuall deadly sinne and haue bene damned in Hell with Poena Damni Sensus both of being deprived of the beatificall Vision and of insufferable torments of sense and what greater absurdity is it that infants should Misse of salvation for want of intention in the Minister then if they had not bene in the occasion of not being baptized at all by reason of some other impediment And therfor I see no reason why we should for such cases of want of Intention in the Minister or of due Forme or Matter haue recourse to any extraordinary Meanes which should not be extraordinary but ordinary if God did provide it whensoever the infant is not baptized vpon whatsoever occasion or impediment and so indeed Baptisme should never be absolutely necessary to salvation Besides seing there can be no certainty of extraordinary meanes the matter will still remaine doubtfull and objections must be answered some other waie 62. But you will object That at least we differ from Protestants in suspending the salvation of infants on the Baptizers Intention 63. Answer I haue shewed that some learned Protestants of chief note require the same intention which we doe and also that every iudicious man will certainly judg that there is no danger of invalidity in Baptisme for want of intention but rather in respect of the Matter or Forme and yet not only the Protestant Church of England teaches that the Matter and Forme are necessary for Baptisme but also divers other Protestants deliver the same Doctrine as may be seene in The Triple Cord Pag 457. and the thing is evident of it self to every one who vnderstands the termes of Matter and Forme If men may be damned for their Actuall sinnes though they be supposed to be invincibly ignorant of necessary or fundamentall points of Faith as Potter confesses why may not infants be deprived of Heaven for originall sinne though theire want of Baptisme be not immediatly voluntary to any 64. Your last Objection N. 69. is against Our making he Reall Presence of Christ in
and fancyfull opinion hath engaged them vpon so great mistake as without doubt is hath yet the will hath nothing in it but what is a great enemy to idolatry Et nihil ardet in inferno nisi propria voluntas 66. Having thus answered and retorted the Objections wherin you seeme to triumph it is tyme to goe forward in proving the necessity of a Living infallible Judg. 67. Fourthly then I resume the Argument of Charity Maintayned Part 1. Chap 2. N. 23. Pag 67. There was no Scripture for about two thousand yeares from Adam to Moyses And againe for about two thousand yeares more from Moyses to Christ our Lord Holy Scripture was only among the people of Israël and yet there were Gentils indued with divine Faith as appeares in Job and his frends Wherfore during so many ages the Church alone was the instructor of the faithfull by meanes of Tradition The Church also of Christ was before the Scriptures of the New Testament which were not written instantly nor all at one tyme but successively vpon severall occasions and some after the decease of most of the Apostles And after they were written they were not presently knowne to all Churches and afterwardes some were doubted of c 68. To this Argument Pag 100. N. 123. You answer that it is just as if I should say Yorke is not in my way from Oxford to London therfor Bristell is Or a dog is not a horse Therfor he is a man As if God had no other wayes of revealing himself to men but only Scripture and an infallible Church wheras S. Paul telleth vs that men may know God by his workes and that they had the Law written in their harts Either of these ways might make some faithfull men without either necessity of Scripture or Church To this purpose you cite also S. Chrysostome Isid Pelus and S. Paul Heb 1.1 69. You could not but see the weakness of this your Answer since you know that we speake not of extraordinary cases or concurrence but of the ordinary Meanes which God in his Holy Providence is wont to vse helping one man by the ministery of another in governing teaching preaching and the like and making good that truth of the Apostle sides ex auditu Faith comes by hearing Which only way of teaching and Tradition could serue to beget Faith for that tyme wherin no Scripture either of the Old or new Law was written Will you take vp the Apostle for saying Fides ex auditu and tell him that there be other Meanes beside hearing to beget Faith as the Law written in mens harts ād consideration of Gods creatures If this be not the state of the Question to what purpose do you through your whole Booke seeke to establish the sufficiency of Scripture alone and to destroy the necessity of the Churches Declarations and Traditions Since when all is done you may be told in your owne words That without necessity of Scripture or Church there are other Meanes to produce Faith and so all your Arguments will be like this Yorke is not in my way c A dog is not a horse c By this Meanes one may with the Old Heretikes Manichees Valentinians Cerdonists Marcionists and the new Libertines reject Scripture and not be subject to the letter but that they ought to follow the Spirit that quickeneth As likwise the Swenckfeldians rejected the wtitten word as the letter that killed contenting themselves with internall Spirit and might with you alledg that men had the Law written in their harts Yourself say Pag 15◠N. 38. The Churche is though not a certaine Foundation of proofe of my Faith yet a necessary Introduction to it Which you must vnderstand in the Ordinary way Vnless you haue a mynde to contradict your self and say That absolutely there are no other possible meanes to attaine Divine Faith than by the Seripture and the Church as a necessary introduction to it Yourself therfor must answer your owne slighting Instances For if in the ordinary course and as I may say without a kind of Miracle it were true that the way from Oxford to Londō were either Yorke or Bristoll or that a dog must be either a horse or aman were not these consequēces very Good But Yorke is not therfor Bristoll is But a dogg is not a horse therfor he is a man Now the Ordinary necessary meanes to produce Faith being either Scripture or the Church if we subsume But it is not Scripture which is evident for that tyme when there was no Scripture it clearly followes Therfor it is the Church which I Hope you will not deny to haue bene infallible in the Apostles tyme before Scripture was written and so your examples proue against none but yourself 70. We must still remember that Faith being the Gift of God we cannot belieue except in cases wherin God by his Eternall Providence hath decreed to affoard vs his particular Grace for that end which he is not wont to doe vnless the conditions by Him prescribed be performed Since therfor the Church hath bene appointed as the ordinary Meanes to attaine Faith we ought not to promise ourselves the particular assistance of Grace necessary for exercising an Act of true Faith except vnder condition of hearing and submitting to that Church and not by consideration only of Gods creatures or by the Law written in our harts or by extraordinary enthusiasmes private spirits and the like If it had bene Gods holy pleasure to require of men to belieue only that God is and that he is a Rewarder of those that seeke Him or some other few Articles he would haue affoarded his sufficient supernaturall Grace to belieue those Points as also to loue Him repent of our sins and attaine salvation by believing those Pointes only for as much as would belong to Faith But de facto it falls out otherwise and we are to belieue many other Points as yourself pretend to teach Pag 133. N. 13. where you say That they who should belieue the sayd Article That God is and that he is a rewarder of them that seeke him Heb 6.11 might be rewarded not with bringing them immediatly to salvation without Christ but with bringing them first to Faith in Christ and so to salvation Which you endeavour to proue by the story of Cornelius Act 10. of whom you say Pag 134. If he had refused to bel euein Christ after the sufficient Revelation of the Gospell to him and Gods will to haue him belieue it he that was accepted before would not haue continued accepted still because one of the conditions which Christ requires for remission of sins and salvation from him is that we belieue what he has revealed when it is sufficiently declared to haue bene revealed by him This confirmes what I sayd that God doth not giue Grace to Belieue Hope and Loue except vpon those conditions which he appoints and requires which now is not only to belieue some one Article or to
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
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
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
glory of God in the face of Christ Iesus Galat. 5.22.23 The fruit of the spirit is Faith Ephes 1.16.17.18 I cease not to giue thankes for you making a memory of you in my prayers That God of our Lord Iesus Christ the Father of glory giue you the spirit of wisdom and of reuelation in the knowledg of him the eyes of your hart illuminated that you may know what the hope is of his vocation and what are the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the Saints Ephes 2.8 For by Grace you are saued with Faith and that not of yourselves for it is the gist of God Ephes 6.23 Peace to the Brethren and charity with faith from God the father and our Lord Iesus Christ Philipp 1.29 To you it is giuen for Christ not only that you belieue in him but also that you suffer for him Colos 1.2 Giuing thanks to God the Father who hath made vs worthy vnto the part of the lot of the Saints in the light 2. Pet. 1.21 The holy men of God spake inspired with the Holy Ghost XX More Texts of Scripture might be alledged but it is needles since euē all Sectaryes except Pelagius and such as follow him belieue Grace to be necessary for faith and in particular D. Potter to whom Chilling is in this mayne poynt directly opposit as is euident by these his expresse words Pag. 135. Faith is sayd to be diuine and supernaturall in regard of the author or efficient cause of the act and habit of diuine faith which is the speciall grace of God preparing enabling and assisting the soule to belieue For faith is the gist of God alone 1. Cor. 12.34 2. In regard of the object or things belieued which are aboue Philipp 1.29 the reach and comprehēsion of meere nature and reason Philip. 1.29 Thus D. Potter and adds that of these two respects there is no controuersie he meanes betweene Catholiques and Protestāts For by the euēt it is cleare that there is a controuersy betweene him and the Socinians and in particular with Chilling worth his champion But necessity hath no law Charity Maintayned could not with any shew be answered in the grounds of Protestants who therfor chose rather to destroy their owne grounds and the doctrine of all good Christians then to confesse the truth of our Catholik faith though conuicted by euident reasons Besides Pag. 140. D. Potter sayth Humane authority consent and proofe may produce an humane or acquired faith but the assent of diuine faith is absolutly diuine in which words he distinguisheth acquired faith from diuine and consequently holds that this is not acquired but infused Pag. 141. That Scripture is of diuine authority the belieuer sees by many internall arguments found in the letter it selfe though found by the helpe and direction of the Church without and of grace within Mark how besides the externall proposition of the object by the Church he requires internall grace Pag. 142. There is in the Scripture it selfe light sufficient which the eye of reason cleared by grace and assisted by the many motiues which the Church vseth for enforcing of her instructions may discouer to be diuine descended from the father and fountain of light Pag. 143. he teaches that by the ministery of the church in preaching and expounding the Holy Ghost begets a diuine faith in vs. And in the same place he tearmeth the act of faith supernaturall as also we haue heard him tearme it so pag. 135. and it is a plaine contradiction that it should be supernaturall or aboue nature and yet be produced by the forces of nature which were to make it aboue and not aboue nature XXI By the way it is to be noted that D. Potter deliuers a very vntrue doctrine in saying in this pag. 135. that the efficient cause of the act and habit of diuine faith is the speciall grace of God For the speciall actuall grace of God is not the efficient cause of the habit of our faith which is infused by God alone as our naturall acts of vnderstanding or willing do not produce the Powers of our vnderstanding or will and supernaturall Habits of Faith Hope c. are giuen vs not to facilitate but to enable vs to exercise Acts of Faith Hope c For which cause they are compared to supernaturall Acts as the naturall faculties or Powers of our soule are compared to their naturall Acts which they produce and are not produced by them I omit his vnproper speach that the speciall grace of God is the author of an act of faith SECTION III. The necessity of Grace to Hope as vve ought for saluation XXII IF Grace be necessary for euery worke of Christian Pietie and in particular for faith as we haue proued it will be needles to stand long vpon prouing that it is necessary for hoping which is a work of Pietie proceeding from a Theologicall Vertue to which Faith is referrd and of which mortall men considering the sublimity of eternall Happynes and guiltynes of their owne meanes frailty and sinnes stand in need for raising vp their soules towards so supernaturall an Object and preseruing them from dejection pusilanimity and despaire yet we will not omit to alledge some particular Texts of Scripture in proofe of this Truth Rom 5.2 By whom Christ we haue access through Faith into this Grace wherin we stand and glorie in the hope of the glorie of the sonnes of God Where it is cleare that the Apostle placeth hope amongst the gifts of the children of God which we receaue by Christ Chap. 15. V. 4.5 That by the patience and consolation of the Scriptures we may haue hope and the God of patience giue you to be of one mynd Which words declare that God is the author of those gifts 1. Cor. 13.13 And now there remayne Faith Hope Charity Where it appeares that these three Vertues are specially numbred togeather as belonging to the same rank and order Psalm 18.49 Be myndefull of thy word to thy seruant wherin thou hast giuen me hope Thessa◠5.8 But we that are of the day are sober hauing on the brest plate of faith and charity and a helmet the hope of saluation Where wee see the apostle ioynes Hope with Faith and Charity and V. 9.10 declares that it is given for Christ and is ordaynd and conduces to a supernaturall end saying for God hath not appointed vs vnto wrath but vnto the purchasing of saluation by our Lord Iesus Christ who died for vs. 1. Pet. 3.4.5 Blessed be God and the Father of our Lord Iesus Christ who according to his great mercie hath regenerated vs vnto a liuely hope by the resurrection of Iesus Christ from the dead vnto an inheritance incorruptible and incontaminate and that cannot fade conserued in the heauens in you who in the vertue of God are kept by faith vnto saluation SECTION IV. Grace necessary for Charity XXIII IF Grace be necessary for faith and hope much more is it necessary for
seuerall Professions in poynt of Religion And as men ought not to be remooued from belieuing that there is a God though to our weake vndestandings there be presented Arguments touching his Nature Freedom of will Prouidence Preuision and the like of farr greater difficulty to be answered than can be objected against the jnfallibility of Faith so ought we not to deny the jnfallible Truth of Christian Faith notwithstanding those poore objections which this man and his Associates with equall impiety and boldness make against it And therfore both in the beliefe of a God and certainty of Faith Religion and worship of him we are to follow the certaine instinct of Nature and conduct of Piety not the vncertainty of our weake vnderstanding or liberty of will 5. For this cause as I sayd not only all Catholiques with a most Unanimous consent belieue profess and proclaime this truth in somuch as S. BouaueÌ„ture in 3. Dist 24. Art â— Q. 1. auoucheth Faith to be as jnfallible as the Prescience of God and Hâ—â—ensis 3. P. Q. 68. memb 7. affirmeth that Faith can be no more subject to falshood than the Prime Uerity but Protestants also and in particular D. Potter who Pag. 143. speakes clearly thus The chiefe principle or ground on which Faith rests and for which it firmely assents vnto those truths which the Church propounds is diuine Reuelation made in the Scripture Nothing less than this nothing but this can erect or qualify an act of supernaturall Faith which must be absolutely vndoubted and certaine and without this Faith is but opinion or at the most an acquired humane belief And Pag. 140. Humane authority consent and proofe may produce an humane or acquired Faith and infallibly in some sort assure the mynd of the truth of that which is so witnessed but the assent of diuine Faith is absolutely diuine which requires an object and motiue so infallibly true as that it neither hath nor can possibly admit of any mixture of errour or falshood Behold how he affirmes that Christian Faith doth more than only in some sort assure vs of the truth as Chillingworth will say it doth by an assent highly probable but that it must be absolutely diuine which he contradistinguishes from humane Faith making this not that absolutely certaine And indeed to litle purpose should Potter and all other Diuines require an Objest and Motiue jnfallibly true if likewise our assent to it be not jnfallible What auayles it that Diuine Authority be certaine and jnfallible in it selfe if in the meane tyme it remayme vncertaine whether such a Divine and jnfallible Authority interpose it selfe or witness any thing 6. But nothing can be imagined more effectuall and express against Chillingworth who Pag. 325. N. 3. saith That there is required of vs a knowledg of the Articles of our Faith and adherence to them as certaine as that of sense or science is a great errour and of dangerous and pernitious consequence Nothing I saie can be more cleare against this pernitious doctrine of Chillingworth than these words of Potter Pag. 199. Though the assent of Faith be more certaine if it be possible than that of sense or science or demonstration because it rests on diuine Authority which cannot possibly deceiue yet it is also an assent ineuident and obscure both in regard of the object which are thinges that do not appeare Hebr. 11.1 And in respect of the subject the eye of Faith in this state of mortality being dimme and apprehending heauenly things as through a glass darkly 1. Cor. 13.12 What could haue beene spoken more directly of the certainty and yet ineuidency of Faith against Chillingworth who both denyes that Faith is absolutely certaine and that certainty caÌ„ be without euidency as may be seene Pag. 330. N. 7. D Lawd Pag. 227. saith As for morall certainty that 's not stroÌ„g enough in points of Faith and Pag. 360. he directly affirmes that an jnfallible certainty is necessary for that one faith which is necessary to saluation which is the very same with our Title of this Chapter And Pag. 142. he saith That falshood may be the subject of the Catholike Faith were no lesse then blasphemy to affirme and yet Mr. Chillingworths Booke where in this blasphemy is purposely taught is expresly approud as agreable to the Doctrine of the Church of England by euery one of the three Approbators who can best giue account by whose Authority they were induced to so pernicious and foule a fact 7. But why do I alledg particular Persons This of the fallibility of faith is opposd by all Protestants and particularly they who teach that we know the Scripture to be the word of God by the spirit or instinct of the Holy Ghost hold Faith to be infallibly true Thus Caluin Lib. 1. jnstit C. 7. Sect. 4. saith Petenda est haec persuasio ab arcano spiritus testimonio This belief that Scripture is the word of God is taken from a secret testimony of the spirit And afterwards Testimonium spiritus omni ratione praestantius esse respondeo I answer that the testimony of the spirit is to be preferrd before all reason 8. And here is to be obserued that Chillingworth disagreeing from Protestants in this maine generall transcendentall point differs from them for euery particular in an essentiall attribute or perfection of Faith seing an assent only probable is essentially distinguished from an assent absolutely and infallibly certaine and so he opposes them in a higher degree then if he did contradict them in one or more chiefest particular Articles of faith or rather he cuts of at one blowe all the true belief of Christians by making it not certaine wherby men become no Christians as not belieuing in Christ with diuine certaine faith His tenet Pag. 367. N 49. that he who disbelieues one Article may yet belieue an other with true diuine faith is in no wise to be approoud but this his doctrine that Faith is fallible is farr worse as disbelieuing all and positiuely denying that certainty which is essentiall to diuine Faith and distinguisheth it from Opinyon or humane beliefe 9. This fundamentall truth that faith is absolutely certaine is very clearly deliuered in Holy Scripture S. Paule saith Hebr. 11.1 Faith is the substance of things to be hoped for the argument of things not appearing or as the Protestants English translation hath The substance and in the margine the ground or confidence of things hoped for the euidence of things not seene All which signifyes a firme certaine and as I may say substantiall faith stronger than any assent only probable Thus holy S. Bernard Ep. 190. disputing against Abailardus who taught that Faith was but Opinion saith Audis substantiam non licet tibi in fide putare vel disputare pro libitu c Doest thou heare the name of substance it is not lawfull for thee in Faith to thinke or dispute at thy pleasure nor wander hither and thither through the emptynes
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
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
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
that the alteration of the Sabboth from Satterday to Sunday is not proved by scripture but is acknowledged to be an Apostolyque Tradition to be perpetually observed sett tymes of Fasting and from certaine meates appointed not only for politique order but for spirituall considerations the primacy of one over the Church in seuerall Nations and Kingdomes vnwritten traditions necessary to be observed blessing of our meate and forhead with the signe of the crosse and further vse therof in the publike liturgy about which Joannes Creecelius in his descriptio refutatio Ceremoniarum Missae c Printed Magdeburgi An 1603. Pag 118. giveth testimony of the Lutherans doctrine saying We do not disallow the signe of the holy Crosse if once or twice without superstition it be freely vsed in the Divine Service yea if in private our meate and drinke be-signed therwith For when we goe to bed or rise we signe our selves with the Crosse according to the institution of Luther and other godly men And Joannes Manlius Luthers Scholler in loc Commun Pag 636. saith Luther sayd Having made the signe of the Crosse God defend me c As also the Communion-Booke in the tyme of King Edward the sixt penned by advise and approbation of Cranmer Latimer Ridley and other Protestant Divines of that tyme printed Ann 1549. Fol 116. prescribeth the Priests signing of the Sacrament with the signe of the Crosse And Fol 131. it prescribeth the Priests like consecrating the Font of Baptisme with the signe of the Crosse 92. These Poynts and more than these which I omitt Brierley doth punctually demonstrate divers Protestants to hold with vs against their owne Brethren which I haue more willingly set downe that Protestants may see how little reason they haue to esteeme the very name of Papists odious since many of their greatest Divines are Papists in so very many and chiefest Poynts and which ought not to passe without reflexion even in those particular Doctrines which to the vulgar sort seeme most Superstitious and for which they are brought vp in contempt and hatred of our Religion and vs. If our Catholique Religion were as beggarly as that of Protestants which is content to call those Brethren who disagree from them in innumerable Poynts we might easily encrease our number with addition of as many Protestants as we haue rehearsed and of many more than we can easily reckon Certaine it is that Protestants will scarcely be able to object any Poynts of moment against vs but that joyntly they must wound their owne Brethren if indeed they did vnderstand what they say and did not think the name of Papists to be a sufficient cause of hatred whatsoever that name doth signify wherof many are very ignorant But for my purpose I conclude that Scripture alone cannot be cleare seing Protestants in so many and so important matters especially in those very particulars wherin they pretend to differ from vs are indeed so far divided among themselves as that they fall to joyne with vs with whom nothing but meere necessity and force of evident truth could moue them to agree And as the agreeing of so many Protestants with vs shews that the Scripture is not cleare at least in behalf of them who are forsaken by their owne Brethren sō their disagreeing among themselves doth convince the same For how can men if with sinceryty they seeke the truth be so divided having before their eyes one and the same cleare and evident Rule as they pretend scripture to be 93. If any for avoyding the premises adventure to say that those learned protestants who affirme the Ancient Fathers to stand for vs do not vnderstand the meaning of their words ād that for the same cause perhaps protestants do not agree with vs nor differ among themselves so much as their writings not well vnderstood make shewe To this answer although I might reply with those words of Tertullian in Apologet Nemo ad suum dedecus mentitur c No man will lye to his owne shame but rather to his owne credit we sooner believe the confession of men against themselves then their denyall against themselves as also I might say that the testimonies of protestants for the sayd purposes are so evident so many of so different persons and delivered not incidently or by some other occasion but of sett purpose at large and as I may say in cold bloud that they cannot with any modesty be avoyded yet I will only say and the Objection deserves no other answer that if the writings of mē which are infinitely beneath the Majesty and sublimity of the Style and misteryes of holy scripture and proportioned to the weakness of humane vnderstanding be so hard and obscure we ought even from this Objection to conclude that scripture alone cannot be evident Thus the Lutherans do grievously complaine against the Calvinists (a) Gerardus Gieskenius a Lutheran in his Book de veritate Corporis Christi in Coena contra Pezelium Pag 93. so charges the Calvinists because say they you alledge Luthers words against his meaning In like manner the same Lutheran Charges them for that they (b) Vbi supra Pag 77. endeavoured to make the Confession of Augusta which teacheth the Reall presence to be Zuinglian that is against the reall presence exclayming therat if this thing had bene done in Arabia America Sardinta or such like remote Countryes and of former tymes this vsurpation of fraud and historicall falshood were more tolerable But seing the questiō is of such things as be done in our owne tymes and in the sight of all men who with a quiet mynd can endure such lyes In like manner Fulk in his Answer to a counterfaite Catholique Artic 17. Pag. 61. is not ashamed to say that the Lutherans and the Zuinglians do both consent in this That the Body of Christ is receaved spiritually not corporally with the hart not with mouth which all the world knowes to be manifestly vntrue Thus also Dr. Field of the Church L. 3. C. 42. Pag 170. sayth I dare confidently pronounce that after due and full examination of each others meaning there shal be no difference found touching the matter of the Sacrament the Vbiquetary Presence or the like between the Churches reformed by Luthers ministery in Germany and other places and those whom some mens malice call Sacramentaryes And Dr. Potter Pag 90. is not afrayd to say that the Lutherans and Calvinists differ rather in forme and phrases of speech then in substance of Doctrine even in the maine controversy between them about Consubstantiation which after occasioned that of Vbiquity The maine truth on both sides is out of Controversy that Christ is really and truly exhibited to each faithfull communicant and that in his whole person hee is every where The doubt is only in the manner how he is in the symboles and how in Heaven and Earth which is no part of Faith but a curious nicyty Is it all one to be exhibited
alledging some passages of the Old and by alledging them to a certaine purpose they interpret and declare them to signify that for which they alledge them are not alwayes so cleare in every respect as that they may not require some Interpretation or Explication as we see performed by Holy Fathers and Interpreters of scripture who somtyme find difficulty even in fynding in the Old Testament what is cited out of it and we have heard out of a Protestant Doctour that The Apostles and divine Writers bring the same Testimony to divers purposes which shewes that every interpretation doth not adequate the sense yea since some Protestants hold that the same Text of Scripture cannot admit severall true and different senses as Fulk in his Confutation of Purgatory Pag 151. and Willet in his Synopsis Pag 26. they must aknowledg great difficulty in the interpretation of the same places to â—â—vers purposes as Divine Writers haue done and will be forced to giue some interpretation or declaration of those very different interpretations which Canonicall Writers gaue of those Texts of the Old Testament Thus your Arguments being clearly confuted I must put you in mynd of some Points on which I belieue you did not reflect and which will proue that it is not Char Main but yourself who giue a thing with one hand and take it away with the other 186. In your first Answer to an Objection which you make against yourself Pag 55 N. 8. you say God might giue a writing the attestation of perpetuall Miracles that it is a Rule of Faith and the word of God This you giue heer and yet you take it away in your Answer to your Third Motiue to be a Roman Catholike where you say the Bible hath bene confirmed with those supernaturall and divine Meracies which were wrought by our Saviour Christ and his Apostles and add It seemes to me no strang thing that God in his Iustice should permit sometrue Miracles to be wrought to delude them who haue forged so many as apparently the professours of the Roman Doctrine haue to abuse the world The same you expressly deliver Pag 379. N. 69 Now if even true Miracles may be wrought to delude any sort of people certainly they might haue been wrought to delude the Jewes who despised and impugned the Miracles of our Saviour Christ and his Apostles and denyed Christ to be the true Messias and forged false witnesses to put Him to death and discredit his Doctrine Nay what People or what single Person can be sure that their sinnes haue not deserved such a punishment Every deadly sinne vnrepented will certainly be punished with eternall torments which is the greatest evill that can be imagined or rather so great that it cannot be imagined by any mortall man and therfor much more may every such sinne be justly punished by permitting true Miracles to be wrought to delude the sinner if once that be granted which you affirme How then could our Saviour say John 10.38 If you will not belieue me belieue the workes Or doth not this open a way to affirme that the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles haue beene wrought to delude men And finally to come close to our purpose how could God giue any certaine attestation by any Miracle that Scripture is the word of God if true Miracles may be done to delude men And how do you say in your Answer to your sayd Third Motiue to be a Roman Catholike The Bible de facto hath bene confirmed with those Supernaturall and Divine Miracles which were wrought by our Saviour Christ and his Apostles Is not this with one hand to giue Scripture the prerogatiue of being the word of God and with the other to take it away In the meane tyme I challeng all the enemyes of the Roman Church to shew any one Miracle-forged and approved by Her and yourself know that she censures with excommunication broachers of false Miracles as Charity Maintayned Part 1. Chap. 3. N. 9. shewes and you in your Answer deny it not it being notorious to the whole world that such forgers are most severely punished in Catholique contryes 187. In another respect also you giue and take away Here you tell vs that God might giue scripture the Attestation of perpetuall Miracles that it is the word of God and in your Answer to your third Motiue as I sayd even now you say that the scripture hath bene confirmed with those innumerous supernaturall and Divine Miracles which were wrought by our Saviour Christ and his Apostles If this be so we must inferr that as the particular contents of scripture for example the Incarnation Life Death Resurtection and Ascension of our Saviour Christ c being confirmed by Miracles became materiall Objects of our Faith so seing you confesse this Truth The Bible is the word of God to be proved by the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles it followes evidently that it is a materiall Object of Faith no less then the particular Truths which it contaynes Andthis your selfe affirme in this very place in your Second Answer where you say by Scriptures not all things absolutely may be proved which are to be believed For it can never be proved by Scripture to a gainsayer that there is a God or that the Book called Scripture is the word of God Is not this to say that one of the things which cannot be proved by Scripture and yet are to be believed is that Scripture is the word of God Therfor we are to belieue that Scripture is the word of God and what is this but to be a materiall Object of our Faith This I say you teach here But in other places you affirme and take care to proue that Scripture is not one of the materiall Objects of our Faith as shall appeare in my next Chapter 188. You do also overthrow what we haue heard you say that Miracles may be wrought to delude men by the contrary doctrine delivered Pag 144. N. 31. in these words It is impossible that God should lye and that the Eternall Truth should set his hand and seale to the Confirmation of a falshood or of such Doctrine as is partly true and partly false The Apostles Doctrine was thus confirmed therfor it was intirely true and in no part either false or vncertaine But how is this true if the Apostles might haue bene permitted to worke even true Miracles to delude men or how is not their Doctrine vncertaine if you cannot be certaine but that their Miracles were wrought to such an end of deluding men How many wayes are you fallen into that which you objected to your Adversary as direct Boyes-play Giving taking away saying vnsaying and in a vvord contradicting yourself not in any by-point or incident speech as that was which without reason you taxed in Charity Mâ—â—tayned but in a matter of greatest moment as is the certainty and belief of Holy Scripture one of the prime Objects of Christian Faith 189. I knovv not
the Church and the things which she delivers as true you grant the Church to be indued with infallibility as I may say habitually otherwise we could not belieue her Traditions or that the things which she delivers are true though she were supposed to deliver them Now if once it be granted that the Church is infallible not only as a witness of what hath bene done but also of what ought to be done that is of Fact and Faith of Practise and Speculation we haue as much as we desire to wit that the Church cannot erre in her Traditions or in defining what hath bene delivered by the Apostles And in this Whitaker by rejecting S. Chrysostome whom he could not otherwise answer shewes more sincerity then you doe 204. Lastly Wheras you say there are no vniversall Traditions of the Church for matters of Doctrine we haue demonstrated aboue that there are many as for example those which concerne the Governours and Government of the church Forme and matter of Sacraments and other Points of which I spoke hertofore even out of Dr. Field and other Protestant learned Writers And indeed seing S. Chryfostome saith as we haue seene that the Apostles delivered many things without writing who will belieue without any convincing reason to the contrary that not one of those many should be transmitted to posterity considering how many things are not clearly expressed in Scripture even the chief heads of Christian Doctrine as Dr. Field confesses and I haue demonstrated that the very Articles of our Creed are not cleare without the Declaration of the church and it appeares in the experience we haue before our eyes in the contentions of Protestants concerning those principall Articles of the Creed 205. But now let vs returne to answer your assertion out of S. Austine which in effect is done to our hands by Dr. Field who Lib 4. Cap 20. summoneth divers Traditions not contayned in scripture as the chief heads of Christian Doctrine and distinct explication of many things somwhat obscurly contained in Scripture Yea Dr. Potter though he hold all Fundamentall Points of Faith to be contained in the Creed yet Pag 216. he puts this restriction that it must be taken in a Catholike sense that is as it was further opened and explained in some parts by occasion of emergent Heresyes in the other Catholique Creeds of Nice Constantinople Ephesus Chalcedon and Athanasius Now as Heresyes may still arise so still there will be necessity of a new opening or explanation and what would such explications availe vs in order to an Act of Faith if the whole church may erre And therfor when S. Austine is alledged to say that all necessary Points are manifest in scripture he cannot be vnderstood of scripture alone without explication or declaration of the church even for Fundamentall Points and consequently necessary to salvation contayned in the Creed This answer you might haue gathered out of S. Austines words if you had cited them aright as I haue done aboue Illa quae c Those things which are sett downe plainly in them Bookes of Holy Scripture whether they be precepts of good life or Rules of Faith are to be sought out with more industry and diligence of which every one fynds out the more by how much he is of a greater vnderstanding For in those things which are plainly sett downe in scripture all those things are found which contayne Faith and manners Do not these words signify that one must vse great diligence to seeke out the meaning of scripture and that some of greater ability even in things belonging to Faith fynd out more than others which argues that every one fynds not out all poynts of belief ād life for which therfor an authēticall interpreter or Tradition is necessary If it had not bene for tradition how would so many of our moderne sectaries haue believed the Mystery of the B. Trinity and some other Articles of Faith But the truth is we are often obliged to tradition when we least think thereof 206. In the meane tyme I must not omitt to say that in this First answer with falshood you joyne impertinency to divert the Reader from the state of the Question in saying Whosoever refuses to follow the practise of the Church vnderstand of all places and ages though he be thought to resist our Saviour what is that to vs who cast of no practises of the Church but such as are evidently post-nate to the tyme of the Apostles and plainly contrary to the practise of former and purer tymes for our Question is not for the present Whether you deny any vniversall practise or Doctrine of Gods church but in generall whether the traditions of the church be not to be followed and believed whether they concerne Doctrine or practise and consequently whether scripture alone contayne all Objects of Faith and it seemes by this your answer that you do not deny the certainty of the churches vniversall traditions nor that he who refuseth to follow them may be thought to resist our Saviour which is as much as we desire 207. Your last answer That the church once held the necessity of the Eucharist for infants and that therfor the church may erre is a meer vntruth and it is strang that you should so intollerably often alledg this Point and yet never so much as once offer to proue it and to alledg it as the doctrine of S. Austine without bringing one single Text out of him to make it good wheras you cannot be ignorant that Catholique divines alledg all that can be sayd out of S. Austine concerning this subject and solidly demonstrate that the actuall receyving Christs Body and Bloud in the Eucharist was never held by that holy Father to be necessary for infants and you presume too much if you thinke vs obliged to belieue you against greater and better authority than yours can be only by your ego dico I say it 208. Pag. 151. N. 42. You Object against my Argument out of this place of S. Austine Epist 118. If the church through the whole world practise any of these things to dispute whether that ought to be so done is a most insolent madness That it is a fallacy A dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter because S. Austine speakes only of matters of order and decency and from hence I inferr if the whole Church practise any thing to dispute whether that ought to be done is insolent madness As if there were no difference between any thing and any of these things 209. Answer 1. I cited S. Austine These things not any thing 2. If S. Austine did not suppose that the Catholique church cannot erre he could not say that it were a most insolēt madness to dispute against that which she practises For one might doubt whether that which she practises did not containe some errour against Faith or deviation from manners or whether that which you call order and decency or circumstance may not
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
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
say in your Answer to the Direction where having first set downe your nynth Motive to be a Catholique in these words Because the Protestant cause is now and hath been from the beginning mayntayned with grosse falsifications and calumnyes wherof their prime controversy Writers are notoriously and in high degree guilty Your answer is this N. 43. To the 9. Iliacos intra muros peccatur extra Papists are more guilty of this fault then Protestants Which though it be very false as it touches vs and not so much as offered to be proved by you yet it clearly destroyes your owne kind of Tradition For if both Protestants and Catholiks be notoriously and in high degree guilty of gross falsifications in these tymes why may not the same be sayd to Heretiks in former Ages according to your deduction from the six Ages last past to the six last Ages before them and vpward till we come to Christ himself And so neither Catholikes nor Protestants need now corrupt Authors or Historyes but will find it done to their hands vnless your meaning be that Protestants maintayne their cause with more gross falsifications and Calumnyes and are more notoriously and in a higher degree guilty therof than any Heretiks before them But why do I speak by Inferences and argue by parity of reason Since you also expressly directly and immediatly assirme what I inferred while you say to vs If you take this Authority vpon you vpon the six Ages last how shall we know that the Church of that tyme did not vsurpe the same Authority vpō the Authors of the six last Ages before thē and so vpwards till we come to Christ himself In which words you say much more then I inferrd that by your reasō we could not be sure but that as Protestāts are by your owne confession notoriously guilty of gross falsifications in a high degree so former heretiks haue bene For you speake even of the Church and aske how shall we know that the Church of that tyme did not Vsurpe the same Authority of corrupting vpon the Authors of the last six Ages before them and so vpwards till c And this will appeare more easy to haue bene done in the tymes nearest our Saviour and the Apostles when fewer Authors did write in so much as some Protestants affirme S. Justine to be the first whose Writings are not spurious and that helived Aº 140. And if the first writings and storyes be once corrupted what certainty can we haue of the rest And then Good Sr. If we cannot know but that the Church hath done this what is become of your tradition which for ought you proofess to know will deliver only fained Authors corrupted Storyes forged Miracles Apocriphall Scriptures But in this lyes a mystery not knowen to every one vnless he haue some acquaintance with Socinian Writers who press Protestants with this Argument If the Church might erre and is belieued by you to haue erred in the Ages next precedent to Luther and so vpwards from Age to Age till the first six hundred yeares after Christ which you say were pure what certainty or solid Reason can you alledg why the Church might not also erre in those yeares since you do not hold Her to haue bene Infallible An Argument vnanswerable by Protestants who ther for must either admit the Church in all Ages to be infallible or els can haue no certainty that she did not erre or corrupt or permitted the corruption of Authors and Storyes and Scriptures and forging of Miracles in any Age farr from or neere to the Apostles 83. 3. If the motives of Honour and profit which you Object against the Roman Church Would be very apt to make suspicious men belieue that Christian Religion was a humane invention taught by some cunning Impostors to make themselves rich and powerfull if there were no difference between the Christian and Roman Church I beseech you either informe vs what Christian Church distinct from the Roman or such as agreed with Her against Protestants was there before Luther to wipe away this your cause of suspition Or els giue vs leaue to inferr that you grant there was indeed cause of that suspotion You say Pag 14. N. 14. I know no Protestants that hold it necessary to be able to proue a perpetuall visible Church distinct from yours If this be not necessary it remaynes either that it is not necessary to free Christian Religion from being esteemed a humane invention taught by some cunning Impostors or that you are highly and even ridiculously injurious against the Roman Church as if she a one though not distinct from the Protestant Church could give occasion of any such wicked suspicion and finally that if still you will say there is any thing which would be apt to make suspicious men belieue that Christian Religion is a humane invētion it must be the Christian church herself which is a blasphemy fit for such as you are who reduce our belief of Scripture and the assent of Christian Faith to Probability Opinion and meere humane Tradition and such as being according to your Principles for ought you know corrupted is no better than a humane invention 84. 4. What you say of vs Whose questioned Doctrines none of them came from the fountaine of Apostolike Tradition but haue insinuated themselselves into the streames by litle and litle some in one Age and some in another some more Anciently and some more lately makes as I touched aboue a faire way to say the same of some Bookes or parcells or clauses of Scripture and of any Point of Christian Faith which some insidel or Heretike or other enemy of Christian Religion will say came not from the fountaine of Truth but haue insinuated themselves into the streames by litle and litle c which being once granted as possible to happen and we are not sure but in fact that happened if we deny a Living watchfull Guide assisted infallibly by the Direction of the Holy Ghost Your Tradition will also loose all credit as being subject to the like danger of not coming from the fountaine of Apostolike Tradition but of being corrupted forged and having insinuated itself by litle and litle c For if this may happen so easily to Authors Historyes Tradition and Doctrine your Tradition being confessedly no other but humane Historye is manifestly subject to the same exception and totall vncertainty 85. 5. You say of vs who make a profession of corrupting all sorts of Authors a ready course to make it justly questionable whether any remaine incorrupted I beseech you where or when made we profession of corrupting all sorts of Authors Yourself know this to be a vast vntruth But if it were true and were a ready course to make it justly questionable whether any remaine incorrupted it seemes by this your owne saying you cānot haue your Traditiō frō any sort of Authors which may not be justly questioned whether or no they remaine vncorrupted And is
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
attaine Faith by the mere consideration of Gods creatures or by the Law written in our harts or by immediate extraordinary lights but by the Ministery of the Church and therfor Ephes 4.11.12 Pastours and Doctours are sayd to be given to the consummation of the Saints vnto the worke of the Ministerie vnto the edifying of the Body of Christ Which declares that men cannot be made members of the Body of Christ but by the Ministery of Pastours and Doctours And even those Protestants who rely vpon the private Spirit for knowing true Scripture will grant that the Spirit is not given but when the Churches Ministery precedes as an Introduction or as Potter Pag 139. speakes the present Church workes vpon all whithin the Church to prepare induce and perswade the mynd as an outward meanes to imbrace the Faith to reade and belieue the Scriptures 71. It remaymes then that not Scripture but the Church which was before Scripture and from which we receaue it must be the necessary meanes in the ordinary course which God hath appointed to produce Faith and decide Controversyes in Religion and consequently must be infallible according to your owne Doctrine Pag 35. N. 7. that the meanes to decide Controversyes in Faith and Religion must be indued with an vniversall infallibility in whatsoever it propoundeth for a divine truth For if it may be false in any one thing of this nature in any thing which God requires men to belieue we can yield vnto it but a wavering and fearfull assent in any thing 72. 5. I vrge the Argument of Charity Maintayned Part 1. Chap 2. N. 23. Pag 69. If Protestants will haue Scripture alone for their Judge or Rule let them first produce some Text of Scripture affirming that by the entring therof infallibility went out of the Church 73. To this you answer Pag 104. N. 138. In these words As no Scripture affirmeth that by the entring of it infallibility went out of the Church so neither do we neither haue we any need to do so But we say that it continued in the Church even togeather with the Scriptures so long as Christ and his Apostles were living and then departed God in his Providence having provided a plaine and infallilde Rule to supply the defect of Living and infallible Guides Gertainly if your cause were good so great a wit as yours is would devise better Arguments to maintaine it We can shew no Scripture afsirming infallibility to haue gone out of the Church therfore it is infallible Some what like to his discourse that said it could not be proved out of Scripture that the King of Sweden was dead therfore he is still Living Me thinks in all reason you that chaleng privileges and exemption from the condition of men which is to be subject to errour you that by vertue of this privilege vsurpe Authority over mens consciences should produce your Letter-patents from the King of Heaven and shew some express warrant for this Authority you take vpon you otherwese you know the Rule is vbi contrarium non manifestè probatur presumitur pro libertate 74. This Answer is easily confuted First I must returne it vpon yourself with thankes for your voluntary express grant That no Scripture afsirmes that by entring of it infallibility went out of the Church Remember your owne saying that there are only two Principles common to Christians Reason and Scripture Seing then it is evident that meere naturall Reason cannot determine any thing in this matter and that you grant it cannot be proved by Scripture that infallibility went out of the Church by the entring of Scripture what remaines but that you haue no proofe at all for it And since that you directly grant infallibility to haue continued for some tyme in the Church even togeather with the Scriptures and that neither by reason nor Scripture you can proue that it ever departed from Her we must of necessity conclude that she still enjoyes that priviledge most necessary for deciding controversyes belonging to infallible Christian faith You say God hath provided a plaine and infallible Rule to supply the defect of living and infallible Guides But we haue proved the contrary That Scripture is not plaine in all Points belonging to Faith and though it were so yet yourself confess in this place that infallibility in the Church may stand with the sufficiency and plaines of Scripture and therfore you cannot inferr scripture is sufficient therfore the Church is not infallible You teach Pag 101. N. 126. That though all the necessary parts of the Gospell be contained in every one of the foure Gospells yet they which had all the Bookes of the New Testament had nothing superfluous for it was not superfluous but profitable that the same thing should be sayd divers tymes and be teslifyed by divers witnesses Therfore the Testimony of the Church if she were supposed to be infallible might be profitable although Scripture were cleare and sufficient Protestants pretend that we can proue matters belonging to Faith only by Scripture Wherfore you must either proue by some plaine Text of Scripture that infallibility dyed as I may say with the Apostles or never affirme herafter any such groundless voluntary and pernicious Proposition From Scripture we learne that with out repentance are the gifts of God Rom 11.29 And it is an Axiome of naturall Reason Melior est conditio possidentis God once bestowed vpon the Church the gift of infallibility and therfore without some evident positiue proofe you are not to depriue her of it And we are not obliged to produce any other Argument except to plead Possession which you cannot take from vs without some evident proofe to the contrary And you being the Actor and we the Defendents not wee but you must prove and performe what you exact of vs to shew some express warrant c though it be also most true that we haue great plenty of convincing proofes for the infallibility of Gods Church 75. As for your Instance about the King of Sweden I belieue you will loose your jeast whē I shall haue asked whether this were not a good Argument we can know by Scripture alone whether the King of Sweden be aliue or dead but we know by Scripture he was once Living and know not by any Scripture that he is dead Therfore for ought we know he is aliue and so your example returnes vpon yourself that seing you know by Scripture infallibility to haue bene once in the Church and that by no Scripture which with you must be the only proofe in this case you know that it ever departed from Her you must belieue that still she enjoyes it As for vs we challeng no Priviledges but such as were granted by our Saviour to his Church and which we proue by the same Arguments wherby the Apostles and their Successors proue their Authority as shall be shewed herafter and the Rule Ubi contrarium manifestè non probatur praesumitur pro libertate
this Objection or invention no certainty can be had what the Apostles or other Preachers teach or teach not with infallibility Nor will there remaine any meanes to convert men to Christianity For every one may say that not the Poynt which he apprehends to be false was confirmed by Miracles but those other Articles which he conceaves to be true And so no Heretike can be convinced by Scripture which he will say is not the word of God except for his opinions and so nothing will be proved out of Scripture even for those things which are contayned in it Neither will anie thing remayne certaine except a generall vnprofitable impracticable Notion that the Apostles taught and the Scripture contaynes some things revealed by God without knowing what they are in particular which would be nothing to the purpose and therfore as good as nothing 8. But yet dato non concesso That the Apostles and the Church are to be believed only in such particular Points as are proved by Miracles c we say that innumerable Miracles haue bene wrought in consirmation of those particular Points wherin we disagree from Protestants as may be seene in Brierly Tract 2. Chap 3 Sect 7. subdiv 1. For example of Prayer to Saints out of S. Austine Civit L. 22. C. 8. Worship of Reliques out of S. Gregory Nazian S. Austine S. Hierom S. Basil Greg Turonen Theodoret the Image of Christ Reall presence Sacrifice of Christs Body Purgatory Prayer for the Dead The great vertue of the signe of the Crosse Holy water Lights in the Church Reservation of the Sacrament Holy Chrisme Adoration of the crosse Confession of sins to a Priest and extreme Vnction which miracles Brierly proves by irrefragable Testimonyes of most creditable Authors and Holy Fathers wherof if any Protestant doubt he can do no lesse for the salvation of his soule than examine the matter either by the 〈◊〉 of this Authour or of other Catholique Writers and not only by 〈…〉 clamours and calumnyes of Protestant Preachers in their Ser 〈…〉 Writers in their Bookes And let him take with him for his 〈…〉 thefe considerations 1. That these Miracles were wrought and testifyed before any Protestant appeared in the world And therfore could not be fayned or recorded vpon any particular designe against them and their Heresyes 2. That even Protestants acknowledg the Truths of such Miracles Whitaker cont Duraeum Lib 10. sayth I do not thinke those Miracles vaine which are reported to haue bene done at the monuments of Saints as also Fox and Godwin acknowledg Miracles wrought by S. Austine the Monke sent by S. Gregory Pope to convert England through Gods hand as may be seene in Brierly Tract 1. Sect 5. and yet it is confessed by Protestants and is evident of itself that he converted vs to the Roman Faith But not to be long I referr the Reader to Brierly in the Index of whose Booke in the word Miracles he will find full satisfaction if he examine his allegations that in every Age since our Saviour Christ there haue bene wrought many ad great Miracles both by the Professors of the Roman Faith and expressly in confirmation of it This I say and avouch for a certaine truth that whatsoever Heretikes can object against Miracles wrought by Professors of our Religion and in proofe if it may be in the same manner objected against the Miracles of our B. Saviour and his Apostles and that they cannot impugne vs but joyntly they must vndermine all Christianity 9. To these two considerations let this Third be added that it is evidently delivered in Scripture Miracles to be certaine Proofes of the true Faith and Religion as being appointed by God for that end Exod 4.1 when Moyses sayd They will not belieue me nor heare my voice God gaue him the Gift of Miracles that they might belieue God had spoken to him 3. Reg 17. Vers 24. That woman whose sonne Elias had raised to life sayd Now in this I haue knowen that thou art a man of God and the word of our Lord in thy mouth is true Christ Matt 11. V. 3.4.5 being asked whether he was the Messias proved himself to be such by the Miracle which he wrought The blind see the lame walke the lepers are made cleane the deafe heare the dead rise againe Which words signify that Miracles are not only effectuall but necessary to proue the truth of a Doctrine contrary to what was receyved before Yea Joan 5.36 Miracles are called a greater testimony thē John Marc vlt they preached every where our Lord working withall and consirming the Word with signes that followed 2. Cor 12. V. 12. The signes of my Apostleship haue beene done vpon you in all patience and wonders and mighty deeds Hebr. 2.4 God withall testifying by signes and wonders and divers Miracles But why do I vrge this Point You clearly confess it Pag 144. N. 31. in these words If you be so infallible as the Apostles were shew it as the Apostles did They went forth saith S. Marke and preached every where the Lord working with them and confirming their words with signes following It is impossible that God should lye and that the Eternall Truth should set his hand and seale to the confirmation of a falshood or of such doctrine as is partly true and partly false The Aposiles doctrine was thus confirmed therfore it was intirely true and in no part either false or vncertaine 10. Now put these Truths togeather Many and great Miracles haue bene wrought by professours of the Roman Religion and particularly in confirmation of it Miracles are vndoubted Proofes of the true Church Faith and Religion What will follow but that the Roman Faith and Religion is entirely true and in no part either false or vncertaine Wherfore men desirous of their Eternall salvation may say confidently with B. S. Austine Lib de Vtilit credendi Cap 17. Dubitabimus nos ejus Ecclesiae c. Shall we doubt to rest in the bosome of that Church which with the acknowledgment of mankind hath obtained the height of Authority from the Apostolique Sea by Succession of Bishops Heretikes in vaine barking about her and being condemned partly by the judgment of the people partly by the gravity of Councells partly by the Majesty of Miracles To which not to giue the first place is indeed either most great impiety or precipitous arrogancie 11. Behold the Notes of the true Church Miracles Succession of Bishops Which perpetuall Succession of Bishops is the Ground and Foundation of the Amplitude Propagation Splendor and Glory of the Church promised by God ād foretold by the Prophets as may be seene Isaiae Chap 60. Vers 22. Chap 2. Vers 2. Chap 49. Vers 23. Chap. 54. Vers 2.3 Psalm 2.8 Dan 2.44 Which Promises some learned Protestants finding evidently not to be fulfilled in the Protestant Church which before Luther was none and being resolved not to embrace the Catholique Church wherin alone those Promises are clearly fulfilled fell
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
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
Protestants haue no certaine Rule for interpreting Scripture Your supposition therfore in the consult of Physitians that in the receypt of which they spoke though perhaps there might be some ingredients superfluoous yet not hurtfull cannot be applyed against vs but retorted vpon yourselfe that as in case the whole receypt did containe some things hurtfull no man could in conscience take it so 〈◊〉 being in danger of falling into damnable errours by occasion of interpreting Scripture without dependance or relation to an infallible Guide cannot without manifest danger of their soules hope to find all necessary Points of Faith in Scripture alone and therfore must resolue to seeke a Living Guide the true Church of God which they shall be sure to find if they seeke with great instance constancy and humility 59. Out of what hath beene sayd in this Chapter these Corollaryes are evidently doduced That there are certaine Fundamentall Articles of Faith which vnless a man belieue actually and explicitly he cannot haue the substance of Faith nor can any Congregation be a true Church nor can there be any hope of salvation as all both Catholikes and Protestants affirme That vnless there be some Meanes to be assured what those Fundamentall Articles are none can be certaine that they haue the substance of Faith or be members of the true Church or oanâ—â—pect salvation That hitherto Protestants notwithstanding their â—â—most endeavour could never declare what those Points are That the meanes which Mr. Chillingworth hath invented for being sure not to misse of them is neither sufficient nor possible That indeed it is not possible for Protestants to assigne any such Catalogue That Catholikes 〈◊〉 a most certaine and infallible way to know such Points and all other Truths as occasion shall require by submitting to a Living Judg of Controversyes And therfore That none can be sure that he hath true Faith is a member of the true Church or is in possibility to be saved vnless he belieue profess and obey such an Infallible Judg the One alwayes existent Visible Church of God From which Truth this other evidently followes That whosoever devide themselves from the Communion of that true Church are guilty of the grievous sinne of Schisme And that Protestants haue done so shall be demonstrated in the next Chapter CHAP VII PROTESTANTS ARE GVILTY OF THE SINNE OF SCHISME 1. THE Title of this Chapter having bene made good at large by Charity Maintayned Part 1. Chap 5. against all that Dr. Potter could invent in Defense of Protestants If now I can confute whatsoever you alledg in Defence of the Doctour the Arguments and Reasons of Charity Maintayned must in all right be adjudged to keepe their first possession and this Truth remayne constant That Protestants and all others who separate themselves from the Roman Church must needs be found guilty of the grievous sin of formall Schisme 2. In the beginning Charity Maintayned Part 1. Chapt 5. N. 4. layes this ground That the Catholique Church signifyes One Congregation of Faithfull people and therfore implyes not only Faith to make them Faithfull Believers but also Communion or common vnion to make them One in Charity which excludes Separation and Division or Schisme This is a very evident and certaine Truth and therfore Tertulian de Praescrip Cap. 41. observes it as a property of heretiks that they communicate with all Pacem quoque passim cum omnibus miscent Nihil enim interest illis licèt diversa tractantibus dum ad vnius veritatis expugnationem conspirent Thus we see Protestants will needs call all Brethren who are not Papists Yea many will not haue Papists make a Church distinct from them S. Austine was of an other mynd from Protestants who de Uera Relig Cap 5. condemnes Philosophers because teaching different things of God yet they frequented the same sacrifices and adds So it is believed and taught that it is the principall point of mans salvation that there is not an other Philosophy that is study of wisdome and an other Religion when they whose Doctrine we approue not communicate not in Sacraments with vs. Which Truth S. Austine judges to be of so great valve and necessity and the contrarie so pernicious as he avoucheth Si hoc vnum tantum vitium Christianâ disciplinâ sanatum videremus ineffabili laude praedicandam esse neminem negare oporteret And Lib 19. cont Faust Cap 11 he sayth Men cannot be joyned into any name of Religion true or false vnless they be linked with some signe or fellowship of visible Sacraments Therfore Communion in Sacraments is essentially necessary to vnite the members of One Church and distinguish it from all other In this manner Act 2. 42. it is sayd of those first Christians They were presevering in the Doctrine of the Apostles and Communication of breaking bread and prayer Behold a Communication not only in Faith or Doctrine but also in Sacraments and Prayers Neither do Protestants deny this Truth Molins Lib 1. cont Perron Cap 2. saith The ancient Doctours are wont to vnderstand by the Church which oftentymes they call Catholike the whole Society of Christian Churches Orthodox and sound in Faith vnited togeather in Communion and they oppose this Church to the Societyes of Schismatikes and Heretiks which we will not reject By which words it appeares That the Holy Fathers and even Protestants make vnity in Communion against Schisme no less essentiall to the Church then in Faith against Heresy Field Lib 1. Cap 15. The Communion of the Church consisteth in Prayers and dispensation of Sacraments And Lib 2. Cap 2. Communion in Sacraments is essentiall to the Church 3. The reason of this Truth is very cleare For without Communion in Sacraments Liturgie and publike worship of God the true Church cannot be distinguished essentially from any Schismaticall congregation Because seing Schismatiks as they are distinguished from Heretiks cannot be distinguished by a different Faith wherin they are supposed to agree with Catholiks they can be distinguished only by externall Communion which therfore must be essentiall to the Church as being the thing which alone formally and essentially excludes Schisme S. Austine speakes excellently to this purpose Epist 48. You are with vs in Baptisme in the Creed in the rest of Gods Sacraments in the spirit of vnity in bond of peace finally in the very Catholique Church you are not with vs. Which words declare that the spirit of vnity and bond of peace are necessary and essentiall to constitute men members of One Church All agree that to be one Church there must be vnity in Faith and seing Faith is ordaynd to the salvation of soules 1. Pet 1.9 by the true worship of God vnity in this worship is no less necessary than vnity in Faith The Militant true Church of Christ is a visible congregation and therfore doth essentially require visible signes to distinguish it from all other companyes by Sacraments externall worship of God and a publike Liturgie which if
do not exclude salvation 37. Thirdly Protestants teach that the Church may erre in Points not Fundamentall and yet remaine a Church but cannot erre in Fundamentalls without destruction of herselfe Now if sinfull errours in Points not Fundamentall be damnable Fundamentall and destructiue of salvation they also destroy the essence of the Church and therfore Protestants must either say that the Church cannot erre in any Point though not Fundamentall as she cannot erre in Fundamentalls or else must affirme that sinfull errours not Fundamentall are not damnable or Fundamentall or destructiue of salvation according to their grounds 38. Fourthly Protestants are wont to say and by this seeke to excuse their Schisme that they left not the Church of Rome but her corruptions and that they departed no farther from her than she departed from herselfe But if every errour against a Divine Truth sufficiently proposed be destructiue of the substance of Faith and hope of salvation the Roman Church which you suppose to be guilty of such errours hath ceased to be a Church and is no corrupted Church but no Church at all nor doth exist with corruptions but by such corruptions hath ceased to exist and so you departed not only from her corruptions but from herselfe or rather she ceasing to haue any being your not communicating with her was totall and not only in part or in her corruptions and if you departed from her as farr as she departed from herselfe seing she departed totally from herselfe you also must be sayd to haue departed totally from her which yet you deny and therfore must affirme that sinfull errours not Fundamentall destroy not the Church nor exclude hope of salvation If therfore Protestants will not destroy their owne assertions v.g. That they left not the Church but her corruptions that they departed no farther from her than she departed from herselfe that they left not the Church but her externall Communion that Protestants agree in substance of Faith because they agree in Fundamentall Points that their Church is the same with the Roman that the Church may erre in Points not Fundamentall but not in Fundamentalls if I say Protestants will overthrow these and other like assertions they must grant that sinfull errours in Points not Fundamentall destroy not the substance of Faith nor exclude salvation and consequently that they left the Church for Points not necessary ād so are guilty of Schisme which you grant to happen of when the cause of separation is not necessary as we haue seene out your owne words Pag 272. N. 53. 39. But yet let vs see whether Protestants do not confesse that sinfull errours not fundamentall are compatible with salvation as we haue proved it to follow out of their deeds and principles You say Pag 307. N. 106. That it is lawfull to separate from any Churches communion for errours not appertaining to the substance of Faith is not vniversally true but with this exception vnless that Church require the beliefe and profession of them And Pag 281. N. 67. We say not that the communion of any Church is to be forsaken for errours vnfundamentall vnless it exact withall either a dissimulatiom of them being noxious or a profession of them against the dictate of conscience if they be meere errours And N. 68. Neither for sin nor errours ought a Church to be forsaken if she does not impose and enjoyne them Therfore say I we must immedintly inferr that errours not Fundamentall do not destroy Faith Church salvation For if they did ipso facto the Church which holds them should cease to be a Churche and so she must necessarily leaue all Churches ād all Churches must leaue her shee loosing her owne being as a dead man leaves all and is left by all And here let me put you in mynd that while Pag 307. N. 106. aboue cited you seeme to disclose some great secret or subtilty in saying that it is not lawfull to separate from any Churches communion for errours not appertaining to the substance of Faith is not vniversally true but with this exception vnless that Church requires the beliefe and profession of them you do but contradict yourselfe For if the Church erre in the substance of Faith or but does not impose the belief of them why are you in your grounds more obliged to forsake her than a Church that erres in not Fundamentalls and does not impose the belief of them Especially if we call to mynd your doctrine that one may erre sinfully against some Article of Faith and yet retaine true belief in order to other Points in which why may you not communicate with such a Church Also Pag 209. N. 38. you say You must giue me leaue to esteeme it a high degree of presumption to enioyne men to beleeue that there are or can be any other Fundamentall Articles of the Gospell of Christ than what himselfe commanded his Apostles to teach all men or any damnable Heresyes but such as are plainly repugnant to these prime Verityes Therfore we must inferr that seing errours in Points not Fundamentall are not repugnant to those prime verityes they cannot in your way be esteemed damnable Heresyes and if not damnable Heresyes they cannot be damnable at all since we suppose their malice to consist only in opposition to Divine Revelation which is a damnable sin of Heresy Potter Pag. 39. saith Among wise men each discord in Religion dissolves not the vnity of Faith And P. 40. Vnity in these matters Secondary Points of Religion is very contingent and variable in the Church now greater now lesser never absolute in all particles of truth From whence we must inferr that errours not Fundamentall exclude not salvation nor can yield sufficient cause to forsake a Church or els that men must still be forsaking all Churches because there is never absolute vnity in all particles of truth Whitaker also Controver 2. Quest 5. Cap. 18. saith If an Heretike must be excluded from salvation that is because he overthroweth some foundation For vnlesse he shake or overthrow some foundation he may be saved According to which Doctrine the greatest part of Scripture may be denyed But for my purpose it is sufficient to observe that so learned a Protestant teaches that errours in Points not Fundamentall exclude not from salvation Morton in his imposture Cap 15. saith Neither do Protestants yeild more safty to any of the Members of the Church of Rome in such a case then they doe to whatsoever Heretiks whose beliefe doth not vndermine the fundamentall Doctrine of Faith Therfore he grants some safety even to Heretiks if they oppose not Fundamentall Articles and yet they must be supposed to be in sinfull errour against some revealed truth otherwise they could not be Heretiks Dr. Lawd Pag 355. teaches That to erre in things not absolutly necessary to salvation is no breach vpon the one saving Faith which is necessary And Pag 360. in things not necessary though they be Divine Truths also men
destructiue of salvation being but matters of small consideration in their account Secondly That they can not be excused from Schisme who forsooke all Churches for Points not Fundamentall and of so small moment in which they disagree amongst themselves and in diverse of which many of them agree with vs against their pretended Brethren which is to be well observed Thirdly that Chillingwâ— had no reason Pag 11 to say to Charity Maintayned produce any one Protestant that ever did so that is affirme that every errour not Fundamentall is not destructiue of salvation and I will giue you leaue to say It is the only thing in Question seing I haue proved out of many chiefe Protestants that for which he sayth no one can be produced yea and I can yet produce a full confession of Mr. Chillingworth himself that Errours in not Fundamentalls are not destructiue of salvation nor such as may necessitate or warrant any man to disturbe the peace or renounce the Communion of a Church Thus he speakes in his Answer to the Direction N. 39. Though I hold not the Doctrine of all Protestants absolutely true which with reason cannot be required of me while they hold contradictions yet I hold it free from all impiety and from all Errour destructiue of salvation or in itselfe damnable For the Church of England I am perswaded that the constant Doctrine of it is so pure and Orthodox that whosoever believes it and lives according to it vndoubtedly he shall be saved and that there is no errour in it which may necessitate or warrant any man to disturbe the peace or renounce the communion of it Here I obserue first If the doctrine of Protestanss whom he expressly confesses to hold contradictions and consequently some of them to hold errours at least in Points not Fundamentall be free from all errour destructue of salvation or in itselfe damnable it followes that errours against Points not Fundamentall are not destructiue of salvation nor in themselves damnable which is the thing I intended to proue 2. What he saith of the Errours among Protestants that they are not destructiue of salvation he must also say of our pretended errours both because commonly of disagreeing Protestants one part agrees with vs as also because as I sayd diverse of them stand directly with vs against the common course of the rest and finally because the reason of being or not being damnable is common to all Points not Fundamentall which are supposed to contradict some divine revelation sufficiently propounded which to doe if it be destructiue of salvation must be so for all such Points if not in none at all 3. If the constant doctrine of the Church of England be so pure that whosoever believes it and lives according to it vndoubtedly he shall be saved and that there is no errour in it which may necessitate or warrant any man to disturbe the peace or renounce the communion of it you must say seing Luther and his followers did and do disturbe the peace and renounce the communion of the whole Church of God before his tyme which must be supposed to haue erred only in Points not Fundamentall otherwise it had beene no Church they did and do that for which there was no necessity and for which they had no warrant and therfore cannot avoide the just imputation of Schisme For the same reason also that the Church erred only in points not Fundamentall you must grant that whosoever believes as the Church did and lives accordingly vndoubtedly shall be saved For I am sure you belieue the Church of England to haue erred in diverse Points and in particular in her 39. Articles which was her constant doctrine if she had any constant at all In particular your conscience tells you that you belieue not the Mystery of the Blessed Trinity and much less that our Saviour Christ was true God and consubstantiall with his Father to say nothing of other Points of those 39. articles And is it not ridiculous to heare you talke of purity of doctrine of the Church of England which you belieue to be stayned with such Errours But you wrote for Ends If then salvation may be so assured in the Church of England you must grant the same of that Church which Luther and his associates forsooke and that therfore they certainly exclude themselves from salvation by forsaking the communion of them amongst whom salvation was so certaine and remember your 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 To which proposition if we subsume but it cannot be necessary to separate for avoyding that errour or attaining that Truth which to avoyde or attaine is not necessary to salvation therfore Luther who separated from the Church for Points not necessary cannot pretend any necessary or sufficient cause for such his separation aÌ„d consequeÌ„tly was guilty of the sin of Schisme 4. But yet you will still be making good that in these matters Protestants and yourself in particular haue no constancy but say and vnsay as may best serue their turne You tell vs the doctrine of all Protestants is free from all Errour in it selfe damnable which agrees not with what you say of Protestants Pag 19. If we faile in vsing such a measure of industry in finding truth as humane prudence and ordinary discretion shall advise in a matter of such consequence our Errours begin to be malignant and justly imputable as offenses against God and that loue of his truth which he requires in vt And Pag 306. N. 106. For our continuing in the Communion of Protestants 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 And Pag 279. N. 64. The visible Church is free indeed from all Errours absolutely destructive and vnpardonable but not from all errour which in itselfe is damnable not from all which will actually bring damnation vpon them that keepe themselves in them by their owne voluntary and avoidable fault If the visible Church be not free from errour which in itselfe is damnable how could you say that the Protestant Church of England is free from all errour damnable in itselfe But why do I cite particular passages You giue a generall Rule concerning all Errours Pag 158. N. 52. in these words If the cause of it an errour be some voluntary and avoidable fault the Errour is it selfe sinfull and consequently in its owne nature damnable as if by negligence in seeking the Truth by vnwillingnes to find it by pride by obstinacy by desiring that Religion shoudl be true which sutes best with my ends by feare of mens â—ll opinion or any other worldly feare or
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
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
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
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
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
without Confesion Here you declare that perfect sorrow or Contrition is not a sufficient disposition for remission of sins even at the houre of death A doctrine fit only to make poore sinners despaite Against this Hypocryticall and desperate doctrine of yours I bring these reasons 5. First Wheras you require for remission of sins not only Sorrow and Detestation of offences past with a firme Purpose of amendment for tyme to come but also the Object of such an Act or Purpose that is Actuall amendment which you say being a worke of difficulty and tyme cannot be performed in an instant this Doctrine seemes to be contradicted by your selfe Pag 133. N. 12. In these words For those that haue meanes to find the truth and will not vse them they Protestants conceave though their case be dangerous yet if they dy with a generall Repentance for all their sins known and vnknowne their salvation is not desperate You seeme either to speake of men brought to the houre of death or at least you do not exclude such a case and of men in state of sin proceeding from negligence to find the truth which negligence must be caused by some deadly sinfull Feare Hope or some other vicious humane respect and consequently must haue produced some vicious Habits and yet you seeme to say such men may be saved by a generall Repentance which being only generall cannot descend to all particulars as the mortification of all particular ill Habits must doe yea you suppose that the particular sinfull errours are not known to them and much less can those vicious Habits from which they proceed be mortifyed which cannot be done at that exigent of imminent death And therfore either the doctrine which you seeme to teach that it is possible for such men to be saved at the houre of their death is false or els you must grant that Repentance requires not the mortification of all vicious Habits 6. Secondly As I sayd of your Doctrine concerning the fallibility of Christian Faith and of your Doctrine of Attrition that they could serue only to bring men to damnation so I say of this your Assertion that no sinner who vnderstands and believes it to be true can avoide desperation at the houre of death when he sees that the extirpation of all vicious Habits is impossible and yet Necessary to true Repentance and salvation of his soule Protestants are wont to receiue the Communion at the houre of their death which I suppose you will say ought not to be done without true Repentance of their sins vnless you will suppose all Protestants at the houre of their death to be free from sin which is against that which Protestants themselves suppose as shall instantly appeare and yet it is impossible for them at that tyme to attaine your Repentance by extirpation of all vicious Habits In your Booke of Common-prayer in the Order of visiting the sicke it is sayd Here shall the sicke person make a speciall confession if he feele his conscience troubled with any â—eighty matter Therfore as I sayd Protestants may haue some weighty matter at the houre of their death And then is set downe the forme of Absolution which the Ptiest or Minister is to giue But how can he who feeles his Conscience troubled with any weighty matter truly repent at that last houre by your kind of Repentance which you say is a worke of difficulty and tyme Or how can he be absolved without true Repentance 7. Thirdly This Assertion is contrary to two doctrines very common and as I may say capitall amongst Protestants that Faith only justifyes and that it is impossible to keepe the commandements For that Act of Faith which they call justifying and remissiue of sin is exercised in an instant and would saue a man though he should dy before it were in his power to extirpate all vicious Habits And if it be impossible to keepe all the commandements it is impossible not to committ some sinfull Acts wherby they are broken and which must necessarily leaue after them some vicious Habits and so insteed of extirpating all vicious Habits men must still be producing new ones How then can you say Pag 40â— N. 31. Repentance is an essectuall conversion from all sin to all holynes Is not the breaking of Gods commandements a sin Or can he be converted from all sin to all holyness and to vniversall Obedience as you speake who cannot avoide sin but must still be disobeying 8. Fourthly In your doctrine what shall become of such as being newly converted to the Faith of Christ from Paganisme Judaisme or Turcisme are baptized at the houre of death and yet were full of vicious Habits which they haue no tyme to Mortify or roote out Or will you deny true Repentance and Remission of sin to those who after a life ledd in many grievous sins and after the Production of many ill Habits being suddenly converted to Christian Faith were baptized in their bloud before they could destroy so many vicious Habits 9. Fiftly If you duly consider what you say you will find your manner of Repentance to be impossible not only in the cases which I haue mentioned but to those also who liue a considerable tyme after forrow for their sinnes be it Attrition or Contrition For the Habits of vice as they were produced by frequency of acts so are they not taken away but by multiplication of contrary acts Neither do they consist in indivisibli so as if one degree be destroyed there may not remayne divers others which must be rooted out by little and little and yet while one habit is diminished or destroyed another may remaine entire and even be encreased for example while the habit of injustice is destroyed or diminished the habit of intemperance or impatience or timidity may remaine as they were vntouched or else growe to be more intense by acts of those vices Nay who doth so perfectly and totally vpon the very first onset relinquish any one vice that he is not morally speaking subject to be committing some one act or other of that former vice wherby the Habit will returne to receiue some increase And then how large a space of tyme may chance to slip away before the Habit of one and much more of all vices be perfectly rooted out Especially if it be deeply radicated and seconded and abbetted or rather prevented by some inclination arising from complexion temptation of the divell bad examples false principles of the world and other such causes which make the committing of sin obvious and easy wheras the contrary acts of vertue not only find great resistance for the reasons now mentioned but also because they are of themselves of a sublime nature and require great purity of intention without mixture of profit or pleasure or tincture of selfeloue which vniversall conjuncture and perfect harmony of all good circumstances is so necessary that the want of any one be it never so small depraves the whole
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
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
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
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
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
do you N. 81. say to Him of the same words Seeing you modestly conclude from hence not that your Church is but only seemes to be vniversally infallible meaning to yourself Therefore I willingly grant your Conclusion But of the intention and meaning of Charity Maintayned in alledging the saied Texts of Scripture for the infallibility of the Church we haue saied enough already 107. I wonder you are so vnjust as to say we proue the Church to be infallible because she is infallible seing our Doctrine is this That we first proue the Church to be infallible and then infer that whatsoever she teaches being true and that among other points she teaches one is her owne infallibility we may beleeue it even for her Authority as I shewed you must say the same of Scripture if once you belieue it to be the word of God CHAP XIII THAT THE CREED CONTAINES NOT ALL POINTS NECESSARILY TO BE BELIEVED IN ANSWER TO HIS FOVRTH CHAPTER 1. REpetition of the same thing will not I hope seeme either needless or fruiteless when it is necessary for some good purpose and effect I doe therfore intreate the Reader now as I haue done heretofore not to looke on the words and arguments of Cha Ma as they are cited and abbreviated and obscured and in a word disadvantaged to say no worse by Mr. Chillingworth but as they are delivered by the Author himself 2. Your first ten Numbers or Sections I omitt as contayning nothing which hath not bene answered already Only I wish you had declared what your vnderstand in your N. 2. by these words Every one of the fundamentall Rules of good life and action is to be believed to come from God and therfore virtually includes an article of Faith For if those Rules be revealed they do not only virtually include an article of Faith but they are properly and formally objects and articles of Divine Faith If they be not revealed by God they are no more articles or objects of Faith than a thing not visible can be the object of our eyes or a thing without sound or not audible the object of our eares c. You say they come from God and therefore include virtually an Article of Faith If you meane they come from God as he is the efficient Cause of all things that is common to all Creatures and therefore not sufficient to include an article of Faith If they come from God as revealing and testifying them to be true they are formall Objects of Faith as I saied and do not only virtually include an Article of Faith But it may be feared that in these words there lurkes some hidden poyson as if the rules of good life and action as they are knowen by the light of naturall Reason and not as they are revealed and so become formall Objects of Faith were sufficient to direct our life for bringing vs to salvation and that no supernaturall knowledg were necessary No less obscure are your other words that Fundamentall Doctrines of Faith are such as though they haue influence vpon our lives as every essentiall Doctrine of Christianity hath yet we are commanded to belieue them and not to doe them For by these words how do you distinguish Credenda from agenda if both haue influence vpon our lives and in neither of them the act of our vnderstanding or assent is that which we doe but only it is the act which directs vs to doe other things and so hath influence vpon our lives But these things I omitt and come to 3. Your N. 11. wherin you say to C Ma Your distinction between points necessary to be believed and necessary not to be disbelieved is more subtile than sound a distinction without a difference There being no point necessary to be believed which is not necessary not to be disbelieved Answer this last is very true For in that case there concurrs both the Affirmatiue precept of exercicing an explicite act of Faith and the Negatiue of not disbelieving any truth revealed by God But that which you ad nor no point to any man at any time 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 is manifestly vntrue For when it is proposed to ones vnderstanding that God hath revealed some Truth he may truly judge that there is no affirmatiue Precept which obliges him at that tyme to exercise any act of Faith about that partioular object and therfore may resolue to abstaine or forbeare to produce any such assent of Faith but think of something els and may haue reason to doe so v.g. if some act of an other vertue be more pressing at that tyme and yet he should sinne damnably if he did positively dissent And so at the same tyme it may be necessary not to disbelieue some Truth and yet not be necessary actually to belieue it It is disputed in the schooles whether the will can stay the vnderstanding from yealding assent to a conclusion deduced evidently from evident Premisses But no man can doubt whether the will may draw our vnderstanding from a positiue actuall assent to the Objects of Faith which are so obscure that they require a pious affection in the will which therfore may dissent ād are so difficult that for every act of faith we need the particular supernaturall assistance of the Holy Ghost and then what wonder is it that we may abstaine from doing that which is not in our sole power to performe and to which we are forced neither metaphysically as I haue shewed nor morally because we suppose there is no affirmatiue precept to exercise such an act of Faith in those circumstances It seemes you haue a mynd against all Divines to make no difference between the affirmatiue and Negatiue Precept of Faith wherof Cha. Ma. speakes Part 1. Chap 3. N. 2. and what he saieth may be applied to our present purpose and who will say That every one is alwayes obliged to be exercising a positiue act of Faith vpon all those objects which he can never disbelieue May not a man reading or hearing some part of Scripture only conceiue it per primam apprehensionem without affirming or denying as when one learnes without Booke or only considers the phrase or writes as at a copie and the like 4. You continue your discourse and say to Charity Maintayned Yet that which I belieue you would haue saied I acknowledg true that many points which are not necessary to be believed absolutely are yet necessary to be believed vpon a supposition that they are knowen to be revealed by God that is become then necessary to be believed when they are knowen to be Divine Revelations But Ch. Ma hath no reason to accept as a favour this explication of yours which containes false doctrine as if all truths became necessary to be believed by an explicite actuall belief when they are known to be divine Revelations
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
vnderstanding or primam apprehensionem and judicium Never the less if you be setled in a resolution to defend that men being out of their right wits may belieue Contradictories I say it imports nothing for our present purpose seing I hope you will not say that the fact of such men can concerne Dr. Vsher to whom Cha Ma objected that some words of his did implie a contradiction Lastly be pleased to reflect that Aristotle speakes of express and knowen Contradictions and yourself confess that it is difficult and men ought not to belieue such and therfore this first Reason of yours proves either too much or nothing at all and so proves nothing at all because it proves too much And I wonder how you say in your N. 46. Pag 215. Though there can be no damnable Heresie vnless it contradict some necessary Truth yet there is no Contradiction but the same man may at once belieue this Heresie and this Truth because there is no Contradiction that the same man at the same tyme should belieue Contradictions Let vs suppose this to be as it is a damnable Heresie Christ is not the Saviour of the world the contradictory is Christ is the Saviour of the world which is a formall contradiction and expressed in termes to which it seeemes by these words you may assent and consequently to express contradictions which yet N. 47. you are forced to moderate But when you say There is no contradiction but the same man may at once belieue this Heresie and this Truth and add this reason or proofe because there is no contradiction that the same man at the same time should belieue contradictions you must giue me leaue to speak ād say that you vtter plaine non-sense yourself talk of some non-sense distinction in proving that one may belieue contradictions because there is no contradiction that one belieue contradictions which causall supposes that we could not belieue them if it were a contradiction to belieue them and consequently that we cannot belieue contradictions and yet in this very sentence you say There is no contradiction but the same man at the same time should belieue contradictions 24. Your second reason is delivered in these words They which belieue there is no certainty in reason must belieue that contradictions may be true For otherwise there will be certainty in this Reason This contradicts Truth therefore it is fals But there be now divers in the world who belieue there is no certainty in reason Therefore there be divers in the world who belieue contradictions may be true 25. Answer 1. Certainly if there be any certainty in Reason it is in this that contradictions cannot be true and seing you hold this not only not certainly true but to be false it is cleare that you are one of those who belieue there is no certainty in Reason and consequently you cannot be certaine even of your owne Assertion that contradictions may be true And so while you draw an Argument from those who belieue there is no certainty in Reason you depriue your owne Assertion of all certainty 2. If once you swallow that absurdity of the truth of contradictoryes when you say This Contradicts truth therefor it is fals the answer might be that it might contradict truth and yet not be fals but true because contradictions may be true And I beseech you tell vs whether you belieue that whatsoever contradicts truth is fals If you say it is not fals you speak absurdly For what is falshood but an errour against truth If you say it must be fals you overthrow your owne Doctrine that contradictions may be true because in contradictions one parte must be opposite to a truth and consequently fals 3. That conceypt that there is no certainty in Reason being fals and injurious to mankind you cannot ground on it any truth except this that it is a very fitt Principle for your absurd Conclusion that contradictoryes may be true and that if you belieue it to be true you are in apernicious errour If you hold it to be fals why do you vrge it against vs this Sceptick doctrine 4. Your Argument proves that one may assent not only to contradictories not perceived to be such but to them expressed in plaine termes because otherwise there would be certainty in this Reason These be express contradictoryes Therefore they cannot both be true Thus still your Reasons either proue nothing at all or against your self 26. Your third Reason is They which do captivate their vnderstandings to the belief of those things which to their vnderstanding seeme irreconciliable contradictions may as well belieue reall contradictions For the difficulty of believing arises not from their being repugnant but for their seeming to be so But you do captivate your vnderstandings to the belief of those things which seeme to your vnderstandings irreconciliable contradictions Therefore it is as possible and easy for you to belieue those that indeed are so 27. Answer 1. What is this but to vndermine Christian Religion wherin we submit and captivate our vnderstandings to Mysteryes which to humane reason seeme impossible and for that very cause we are taught to captivate our vnderstanding to the obedience of Christ And now you tell all Christians that by doing so they belieue Contradictions as well as if they believed reall contradictions which Jewes Turks Pagans and all men in their right wits know to be absurd and impossible and you confess to be vnreasonable and very difficult speaking of express contradictions as heere you speak of such since you expressly speak of things which to ones vnderstanding seeme irreconciliable contradictions I desire the Reader to looke vpon Chr Ma Chap. 9. concerning this matter 2. Therefor as in other Reasons so in this seing you speak of contradictions expressed in termes you contradict what yourself afterward N. 47. teach 3. The necessity that all Christians acknowledg of submitting our vnderstanding to Faith arises from this that they seeme to containe contradictions which could be no reason requiring the captivating our Reason if they did not suppose that contradictions cannot bettue and therefore this very reason which you bring to proue that men may belieue contradictions must suppose they cannot belieue them For if they could it would cost them litle to belieue that which to them seemed a contradiction 4. You say It is as possible and as easy for vs to belieue those things that indeed are reall contradictions as to belieue those things which to our vnaerstanding seeme contradictions which words suppose that it is both possible and easy for vs to belieue those things which to vs seeme contradictions and yet N. 47. you say it is very difficult for a man in his right wits to belieue express contradictions Into how many contradictions do you fall while you treate of conradictions 5. Your Argument scarcely deserves any Answer For who is ignorant that contradiction must involue two sides one affirming the other denying and therefore
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
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
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
And thē further it followes that you must recall your Doctrine and say that if the Church may fall into errour not damnable to her it must be in case it be invincible and yet it cannot be invincible if she haue sufficient Assistance to lead her into all not only necessary but profitable truth and therfore you must deny that she hath such an assistance and we must conclude that by not erring in any fundamentall point she performes her duty to God and so can not be forsakē without Schisme For you doe not deny the proposition of Ch Ma N. 20. that the externall Communion of the Church cannot be forsaken as long as she performes the duty which she oweth to God Besides how doe you not contradict yourselfe in saying Who is ther that can put her in sufficient caution that these errours about profitable matters may not bring forth others of higher quality such as are pernicious and pestilent and vndermine by secret consequences the very Foundations of Religion and piety For if the errours be such as you describe they come to be concerning things not only profitable but necessary as vndermining the very foundations of Religion and therfor to say she erres culpably in them is to say that she erres damnably and fundamentally and you must say she erres culpably if she haue assistance sufficient to avoid them By this discourse and other points handled heretofore is answered your N. 62.63 as also your N. 64.65.66.67.68.69.70.71.72.73 only it is to be observed that N. 64. you paralell the security of private men from errour in fundamentalls to that of the vniversall Church And N. 68. you will not see the reason of a consequence deduced by Ch. Ma. which had been very cleare if you had set downe his words which are these N. 22. P. 185. Since it is not lawfull to leaue the communion of the Church for abuses in life and manners because such miseries cannot be avoyded in this world of temptation and since according to your Assertion no Church may hope to triumph over all sinne and errour and I add what the Doctour sayth Pag 39. that it is a great vanity to hope or expect that all learned men in this life should absolutely consent in all the pieces of Divine truth you must grant that as she ought not to be left by reason of sinne so neither by reason of errours not fundamētall because both sinne and errour are according to you impossible to be avoided till she be in heaven and that it is a great vanity to hope or expect the contrary in this life And is not this a cleare consequence The Church cannot be forsaken for sinnes because they cannot be avoided in this life therfor seing errours at least in not fundamentalls cannot be avoyded in this life the Church cannot be forsaken for them 20. To your N. 72. it is sufficient to say that although we must not doe evill to avoide evill yet when a position is such as evill cannot but follow of it ex natura rei it is a clear argument that such a Position includes falshood and errour Now as Ch. Ma. proves N. 24. your grounds doe of their owne nature giue scope to perpetuall Schismes and divisions And then the consequence is cleare that they are false and erroneous His words which you by abbreviating make ineffectuall are they who separate themselves will answet as you doe prompt that your Church may be forsaken if she fall into errours though they be not Fundamentall and further that no Church must hope to be free from such errours which two grounds being once layd it will not be hard to inferr the consequence that she may be forsaken 21. All that N. 74.75.76.77 you vtter with too much heate is answered by putting you in minde that Ch. Ma. never affirmes that Protestants say the cause of their separation and their motiue to it was absolutely and independently of any separation precisely because they did not cut her of from hope of salvation as you impose vpon him for which foolish reason even Catholiks might be sayd to be Schismatiks from their owne Church because they are sure she is not cut of from hope of salvation but that supposing their separation from vs vpon other causes for example pretended corruptions they pretend to be excused from Schisme and say they did well to forsake her because they doe not hold that she is cut of from hope of salvation Which to be true he C Ma shewes out of Potters words And yourselfe P. 284 N 75. say to C Ma can you not perceaue a difference betweene justifying his separation from Schisme by this reason and making this the reason of his separation And whosoever reads Ch Ma N. 27. will finde that which I say to be true For he expresly sayth that both they who doe and doe not cut of the Church of Rome from hope of salvation agree in the effect of separation Only this effect of separation being supposed without which ther could be no imaginable Schisme they doe alleadge for their excuse that they did it in a different manner because the one part of which we speake conceaved that though they did separate yet they should be excused from Schisme because they did not cut of from hope of salvation the Roman Church ād so this was the motiue or reason for which they judged they might separate from her without the sinne of Schisme and consequently they would not haue done it if they had not had this reason or motiue and consideration wherby to excuse themselves Thus your examples of one saying to his Brother I doe well to leaue you because you are my Brother or of a subject saying to his Soveraigne Lord I doe well to disobey you because I acknowledge you to be my lawfull Soveraigne are meere perversions of Ch. Ma. his words who sayth truly against Potter that if one should part from his Brother vpon some cause and excuse such his departure from fault because he still acknowledges him to be his Brother or if a subject should disobey his Soveraigne vpon some motiue and then should thinke to justify his fact by saying he still acknowledges him to be his lawfull Soveraigne C Ma I say affirmes that such an excuse may justly seeme very strange and rather fit to aggravate then to extenuate or excuse the departure of the one from his Brother and disobedience of the other to his Souveraigne And yet this is our case For both the violent and moderate Protestants agree in the same effect of separation from the Roman Church and disobedience to her Pastours with this only difference that the one sorte sayth that she is cut of from the hope of Salvation and the other sayes she is not and pretend to be excused from Schisme because they say so though they separate themselves from her no lesse then the other doe 22. To your N. 78.79 I answer that when the Fathers and Divines teach that
she proposes you would not haue wanted evasions by saying we should belieue her as far as she agreed with Scripture or in Fundamentall points only as now Protestants say of the vniversall Church 16. Ch Ma Pag 251. N. 18. sayth The Holy Scriptures and ancient Fathers assigne separation from the visible Church as a marke of Heresy which he proves by some textes of Scripture as 1. Joan 2.19 They went out from vs And Actor 15.24 Some went out from vs and Actor 20.30 Out of you shall arise men speaking perverse things This say you is certainly a strange and vnheard of straine of Logick vnless we will say that euery text whe in it is sayd that some body goes out from some body affoards an argument for this purpos and yet you confesse that Hereticks doe alwayes separate from the visible Church but that they who doe soe are not alwayes Heretiks Now if all Heretiks separate from the visible Church ād yet doe not separate from every some body for they doe not separate from themselves and their owne Associates it is a signe that their is great difference betwixt some some body and orhers some body betweene separating from the Church or the Congregation of the Faithfull and frō every other some body But if I proue these propositions every Heretik separates from the Church and every one that separates from the Church is an Heretik to be convertible you will yeald such a separation to be a Mark of Heresy This is easily done by taking your owne grant That Heretiks do always separate from the Church For Heresy being an error against some revealed truth if the Church also may erre against any such truth there is no necessity that an Heretik should separate from the Church but may very well agree with her in such error and so the first part of your assertion that Heretiques do alwayes separate from the Church would be false or if the Church cannot erre every one who separates from her in matters of Faith must be guilty of an errour against Faith and so be an Heretik if therfore the first part of your assertion be true you must grant that the second is false and that as every Heretik separates from the Church so conversivè every one who separates from the Church in matters of beliefe is an Heretik and then it is no wonder if Scripture and Fathers assigne a separation or going out of the Church as a mark of Heresy Which may be further declared in this manner If all Heretiks separate from the Church the reason must be because there is in the Church something incompatible with their Heresy which can be nothing but the true Doctrine and Beliefe which she holds and is opposite to the error which makes thē Heretiks and which whosoever hold are Heretiks and consequently whosoever leaves the Church by occasion of such errors are Heretiks and if they had not held such errors they had remained in the Church Therefore for the same reason for which all Heretiks forsake the Church we must necessarily inferr that whosoever forsake the Churches doctrine are Heretiks that is for the errors which they hold against the truth which the Church is supposed to belieue and if she be supposed to belieue an error an heretique may belieue the same and so goe out of her no more than she goes out of herself For this cause our Saviour saied Matth. 24.26 If therefore they shall say vnto you behold he is in the desert goe you not forth Of which words Henoch Clapham in his souveraigne remedy against Schisme Pag 23. sayth that therby our Saviour forbids going out vnto such desert and corner Ghospells which declares that going out of the Church is Heresy or Schisme and not only that all Heretiks or Schismaticks goe out And now I hope you being convinced by Reason will be better disposed to receiue authority and the true exposition of the text alleadged aboue by Ch Ma of which you say For the first place there is no certainty that it speakes of Heretiks but no Christians and Antichrists of such as denyed Iesus to be the Christ Answer That S. John speakes of Heretiks will appeare by reading Cornelius a Lapide vpon this psace who cites holy Fathers to the same purpos See also the annotation of the Rhemes Testament vpon this Chapter of S. John Uers 18. shewing out of S. Cypriā that all who separate themselves from the Church are called without exception Antichrists Pantaleon in Epist nuncupator Chrongraph saith Tertium locum assignabimus Haereticis qui exierunt de electo Dei populo at non erant ex illo And in Osiander Epitom Histor Ecclesias cent 1. lib 3. cap 1. saith Nota Haereticiex Ecclesia progrediuntur 17. The second place say you It is certaine you must not say it speakes of Heretiks for it speakes only of some who believed and taught an error when it was yet a question and not evident and therfor according to your Doctrine no formall Heresy Answer I see no such certainty as you pretend that the text Act 15.24 Some went out from vs must not speake of Heretiks that is of persons who held an errour against a revealed truth of which some might haue been sufficiently informed before the Councell and Definition or Declaration of the Apostles and that some did proceed in a turbulent and as a man may say Hereticall manner appeares by reading the same Chapter in the Acts. And for our present purpose it is sufficient that separation from the Church is a signe at least of a materiall Heresie or Heretique since the being a formall Heretique depends vpon individuall personall and accidentall circumstances of which to judg in particular is the part of prudence not of Faith though if once the partie know that his opinyon is contrary to the Doctrine of the Church and will yet persist therin and rather leaue the Church than forsake it he cannot be excused from pride singularity and Heresie 18. You say The third sayes indeed that of the Professours of Christianity some shall arise that shall teach Heresy But not one of them all that sayes or intimates that whosoever separates from the visible Church in what state soever is certainly an Heretique Answer we haue shewed that as you say all that are Heretiques goe out of the Church so you must grant that whosoever separates for matter of Doctrine from the visible Church is an Heretique And holy Scripture mentioning so particularly and frequently going out or separation doth clearly put a particular emphasis and force therin as a mark of fals believers and seducers And this to be the sense of the Holy Fathers Ch Ma. hath proved and now we will make good his Proofes by confuting your evasions to the contrary And I must intreate the Reader to consider the words of the Fathers as they are cited in Charity Maintayned with the Inferences which he deduces from them and not as they are interpreted by you 19.
ventis vocatur Ecclesia Quomodo vocatur Vndique in Trinitate vocatur Non vocatur nisi per baptismum in nomine Patris Filij Spiritus Sancti Will you now limit vndique to places round about or adjacent and not grant that it signifies the whole world The learned Fevardentius in his Annotations vpon this place of S. Irenaeus not only affirmes that by eos qui sunt vndique fideles all Churches of the whole world are vnderstood but proves it with much clearness and erudition observing among other things that it is saied Ad hanc Ecclesiam not ad vrbis amplitudinem populorum frequentiam non ad imperij culmen non ad Caesarum majestem sed ad hanc Ecclesiam Thus your first objection being proved to be grounded meerely vpon a confidence that vndique must be taken in this place as you would haue it and withall perceiving that even this will not come home to your purpose without an other voluntary alteration for it is no less difficult a sense to say The Apostolike Tradition hath alwayes bene conserved there froÌ„ those who are euery where than to say The Apostolike Tradition hath alwayes bene conserved there from those who are round about you fall vpon a conjecture that in all probability in stead of conservata it should be observata although no copie either printed or manuscript reads it in that manner and suppose it were observata the difficulty would still remaine what observata might signifie whether observed that is kept and maintayned and then it were all one with conserved or observed that is marked found perceived or the like as you would haue it not considering that by this conceypt you wholy alter the Argument of S. Irenaeus and substitute an other For whereas that holy Bishop and Martyr grounds his proofe against Heretiques vpon the Authority and succession of the Roman Church you make him vrge these Heretiques only by the Testimony of people round about that Citie because they never observed any alteration of doctrine in that Church which therefore according to this your fiction must be judged by the neighbouring people and not they directed by her which kind of reasoning had bene a meere begging the Question and no effectuall confutation of those Heretiques who would instantly answer that both Rome and the adjacent people had altered the Apostlike Tradition by holding doctrines contrary to theirs nor could they haue bene confured otherwise than by supposing that the Roman Church was by the Promise of our Saviour Christ secured from all errour against Faith and to vse your owne lately recited words to say that the people about Rome would haue observed it if there had bene any alteration in the Church of Rome had bene but to giue for a reason that which was more questionable then the thing in question as being still to vse your owne words not evident in it self according to the principles of Protestants who de facto hold that many errours crept into the Church without being observed and plainly denied by S. Irenaeus his adversaries and not proved by him especially if we consider that as yourself speak The Church of Rome had a Powerfull principality over all the adjacent Churches it had bene more probable that she might haue led them into errour which they would haue embraced as an Apostolicall Tradition than that they would or could haue corrected her if indeed she had bene conceyved to be subject to errour no less than the adjacent Churches Now as for the difficulty of those words In which the Tradition which is from the Apostles hath alwayes been conserved from those who were every where yourself must answer it seing you hold your conjecture of observata to be but probable and that all hitherto haue read it and do still reade it conservata and that even though you reade it observata it will be a hard sense to say In which Church the Tradition which is from the Apostles hath alwaies bene observed from those who are every where and if in stead of from you say by hath bene observed by those who are every where though in that acception you must take Ab in a different sense when it is sayd ab Apostolis from and when it is saied ab his qui sunt vndique by we may also say hath bene conserved by those who are every where and the sense will be that in the Roman Church there hath alwaies bene the Tradition from the Apostles which hath also bene conserved in all Churches and in which they must agree with Her propter potentiorem Principalitatem and because she hath an evident and certaine succession as being founded vpon a Rock and in this sense we may also say that the Tradition receyved from all Churches hath bene conserved in the Roman Church as the center of Ecclesiasticall vnity to vse the words of the most learned Perron in his Reply Lib. 1. cap 26. 31. In your N. 30. after other discourses which containe no difficulty which may not be answered by what hath bene saied in divers occasions you come to your old cramben of the Chiliasts or Millenaries of which you say Justine martyr in Dial. cum Tryphon Professeth that all good and Orthodoxe Christians of his time belieued it and those that did not he reckons amongst Heretiques Sr. we haue no â—eason to belieue your word without some proofe And that you may not â—â—use my proofe against you as proceding from one who being a partie may be suspected of partiality I oppose to you a learned ProtestaÌ„t Doctor Ham in his Uiew of c Pag 87.88.89 who convinced by evidence of truth not only confesses and proves the weakeness of that place in S. Iustine to conclude any thing against Catholique Tradition but also demonstrates that your allegation is an egregious falsification while you say Iustine martyr professeth that all good and Orthodox Christians of his time believed it and those that did not he reckons amongst Heretiques For S. Justine expresly affirmes that many doe not acknowledg this doctrine of the 1000. yeares and those many Christians that are of pure and pious opinyon or judgment and that those whom he calls nominall Christians Atheists impious hereticall leaders are they who denyed the resurrection not those that acknowledg the resurrection and denyed the Millennium And the Doctour concludes in these very words By Iustine it cannot be concluded that the 1000. yeares was a matter of Catholike belief in his time but only favourd by him and many others and consequently though that were after condemned in the Church would it not be from this testimony inferred that a Catholick Doctrine much lesse a Tradition were condemned And he gives vs a Rule whereby we may answer all that can be objected out of S. Irenaeus or any other ancient Author saying Pag 91. I confess I acknowledg my opinion that there were in that age men otherwise minded as out of Iustin it appeared I could cite an other highly
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
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
private persons and as representing the Church musâ— be differently vnderstood c. 12. n. 80. p. 767. and seq Their authority must be believed before we can belieue what they spake or wrote c. 3. n. 22. p. 294. n. 31. p. 300. passim Apostles for the essentiall are and alwayes must be in the Church c. 12. n. 99. p. 782. All the Apostles commanded to preach none to write c. 2. n. 25. p. 131. The Apostles being the salt of the earth atheistically explicated by I hil c. 12. n. 91. p. 777. Apprehension taken for the first operation of the vnderstanding agrees not to Faith which is an assent or judgment taken in generall as knowledge often is it agrees to Faith as knowledge doth c. 15. n. 4. p. 886 887. How argumeÌ„ts of credibility may be elevated to produce certainty and in what sense they are the word aÌ„d voyce of God c. 1. n. 79.80 p. 95.96 Attrition without absolution insufficient for salvation VVhat conditions it must haue to obtaine absolution c. 8. n. 3. p. 597. seq S. Austin rejected and alleadged by I hil for the selfe same poynt and shewed to be adversary to I hil c. 2. n. 193. p. 265. and seq His advise for the vnderstanding of Scripture n. 201. p. 269. his sense of Tradition and of the practice of the Church n. 209. p. 274. c. 11. n. 26. p. 667. and seq VVhy he is an eyesoare to the Socinians c. 7. n. 123. p. 544. He is defended against I hil his forgery c. 12. n. 57. p. 749. and seq c. 2. n. 207. p. 273. alibi saepius B. Baptisme acknowledged by Protestants neâ—essary and as required by Scripture and Antiquity c. 4. n. 60. p. 389. and seq It is to be given to children by the authority and practice of the Church ibidem p. 389. and seq The difference and absurdityes amongst Protestants concerning Baptisme c. 2. n. 39. p. 146. seq It is validly administred by Iewe or Gentill if they intend to doe what Christians doe c. 4. n. 42. p. 377. 378. Baptisme in tho Doctrine of divers Protestants pardons all sinnes past present and to come c. 2. n. 85. p. 187. Beatificall vision if Faith be naturall and only probable is also naturall and may be a meere fiction c. 1. n. 113. p. 118. 119. To belieue only that Iesus is the sonne of God is acknowledged even by heretiques insufficient for salvation c. 2. n. 169. p. 245. 246. VVho believes not one poynt sufficiently propounded can haue no supernaturall Faith about any other c. 11. n. 13. p. 658. c. 15. n. 43. p. 922. and seq This proved by Heretiques and Catholiques ibidem Not to belieue any revealed truth sufficiently propounded is a mortall sinne n. 49. p. 927. I believe not the speaker wheÌ„ I only asseÌ„t for the reason he gives or for some other authority cited by him c. 12. n. 49. p. 744. alibi Bellarmine viudicated from I hil his cavills c. 2. n. 98. p. 201. and seq VVhat Byshop or Episcopus signifyes cannot evidently be knowne by Scripture alone c. 2. n. 11. p. 126. That Byshops in the Church are not juris divini is an heresy c. 5. n. 4. p. 429. seq Doctor Andreweâ— his contradictioÌ„ in this poynt ibidem Bishops haue no succession in England ibidem Bookes published to forwarne I hil to cleare himselfe of his vnchristiaÌ„ doctrines which he would never be induced to doe pr. n. 4. p. 2. C Caiphas in Chillingworthes doctrine spoke truth when he wickedly sayd that our Saviour blasphemed c. 11. n. 38. p. 675. Canon of Scripture cleered from Chill his malicious imputation c. 11. n. 22. it should be 21. p. 663. seq The Canonicalness of the bookes of Scripture is to be taken from the declaration of the Church c. 11. n. 6. 7 p. 653. falsly put 953 passim alibi every Canonicall writer wrote all that was necessary for the end inspired him by the holy Ghost not all that was necessary for salvation or for the Church to belieue c. 2. n. 136 p. 223 seq ac alibi Causabons miserable end c. 6 n. 9 p. 444 Catholiques by the confession of Protestants may be saved c. 2 n. 83 p. 185 c. 7 n. 145 p. 563 seq ac alibi No visible Church but the Catholique Romane out of which Luther departed c. 7 n. â—1 p. 522 Reasons why the Catholique Church is not to be forsaken n. 124 p. 545. 546 If she could erre her errours were rather to be professed then her Communion forsaken n. 132 p. 551 deinceps Catholiques judge charitably that Protestancy vnrepented destroyes salvation aÌ„d PiotestaÌ„ts if they hold their Religion true should judge the like of Catholiques c. 9 n. 2 p 624 Catholiques guided by the infallibility of the Church cannot be prejudiced by translations of Scripture nor feare corruptions c. 11 n. 16 p. 659 The Catholique Church an easy way to find Christs doctrine c. 3 n. 89 p. 348 She is infallible or all Christianity a fiction c. 4 n. 1 p. 352 Not Catholiques but LutheraÌ„s exposed to idolatry c. 4 n. 65 p. 393. Catholiques freed by Protestants from that imputation Ib. p 395 Catholiques prooue their Faith without a circle Toto c. 5 but Sectaryes cannot Ibid And particularly n. 14 15 p. 437 438 Also c. 2 n. 55 p. 158 Catholiques falsly charged by Chill that they hold Faith to haue no degrees of perfection c. 1 n. 43 44 p. 68 69 Catholique writers falsly cited by Potter as holding that Catholiques and Protestants doe not differ in the essence of Religion c. 7 n. 148 p. 567 Catholiques though falsly suposed to err their errour must be invincible c. 7 n. 158 p. 578 seq Causes by divine power may be elevated to produce effects nobler then themselves as also by concauses c. 1 n. 79 p. 94 Certainty in the vnderâ—â—anding forces not the will c. 1 n. 62 p. 80 seq Ceremonies vide Rites Charity Maintayned alledged and impugned by I hil either with falsification or ommitting his arguments or with some other fraud is often shewed through this whole Booke His Booke is not answeared by I hil but new heresies broached and old fetched from Hell to overthrow all Christianity Pr n. 3 p. 1. 2 Charity highly broaken by Protestants in judginge Catholiques vncharitable c. 9 n. 7 p. 628 It is ordered either according to the Phisic all perfection of the things loved or the morall obligation of loving imposed by God c. 16 n. 6 p. 935 936 Chillingworths Tenets and consequences He holds that Faith is only a probable rationall assent I. n. 16 p. 11 seq and c. 10 n. 13 p. 640 641 That to hold Christian faith infallible is presumptuous vncharitable erroneous doctrine of dangerous and pernicious consequence c. 1 n. 1 p. 37 And that it excludes all progress in charity n. 71 p. 86 That Faith may stand with Heresie I. n. 51 p. 35 He rejects grace
48 p. 880. The commandements may be kept with the grace of God but not without it J. n. 26. p. 20. 2. No communion in Divine service can be lawfull with those of a different Faith c. 7 n. 82 p. 511 VVho leaves to communicate in what all agree leaves the communion of all And in what all otherwise devided doe agree must be true n. 118 p. 538. 539. Communion of Protestants is composed of contradictory members and consistent with all sorts of Heretiques n. 67 p. 501 sequen In what sense a Community can oblige it selfe c. 11. n. 47 p. 680 Private Confession averred by Protestants to be necessary and that otherwise Christ had given the power of the eyes in vaine c. 2 n. 17 p. 128 It is a Divine precept c. 16 n. 17 p. 943 Consequences probably only deduced out of points of Faith are not points of Faith c 10 n. 21 p. 646 Contradictoryes not vnderstood to be such may be be beleeved c. 1. n. 54. p. 76. Concerning centradictoryes Chill Doctâ—ine is discussed disproved and the bad consequences of it shewed c. 13. n. 20. p. 802. sequentibus The Councell of Trent sufficient to convince the truth of Catholique Religion J. n. 10. p. 7. Generall councells if not infallible cannot end controversies of Faith c. 2. n. 45. p. 483. The Doctrine of Lawd concerning Generall Councells and sequels drawne from it in favour of Catholiques c. 7. n 40. p. 481. sequen Also from the Doctrine of I hil and Potter concerning the same n. 160. P. 579 sequen aÌ„d n 48 p. 48â— Of the Creed through all the c. 13. It is averred by Chil. to be receaved by vniversall tradition independent of Scripture and that the principles of Faith may be knowne by it independent also of Scripture and yet teaches that only Scripture is receaved by vniversall Tradition and that it is necessary to know the principles of Faith c. 13. n. 5. p. 791. Proved that it cannot be a sufficient Rule of Faith seeinge Potter graunts it needs a new declaration for emergent heresies n. 6. p. 792. D Doctrine may be taught effectually and yet resistibly c. 12. n. 79. p. 766. The Donatists had a Bishop at Rome to seeme true Catholiques by communicating with the Bishop of Rome c. 15 n. 11. p. 894 Their hatted to Catholiques imitated by Protestants n. 12. p. 895. They were justly sayd to be confind to Africa having no where else any considerable number n. 36. it should haue been 35. p. 916. which is put 816. They had no Divine Faith c. 16. n. 19. p. 943. 944. Their heresy of rebaptization Ibid A doubt properly taken destroyes probability c. 1. n. 53. p. 75. 76. Reflected vpon and embraced it is not vnvoluntary n. 54. p. 76. Apprchended but rejected is no voluntary doubt Ibid E Errours in themselves not damnable cannot be damnable to be held c. 14. n. 44. p. 877. 878. The Evangelists did not themselves put the Titles of their Gospells c. 2. n. 158. p. 235. Evangelists alwayes in the Church c. 12. n. 100. p. 783. Eucharist altered in matter and forme by heretiques c. 2. n. 40. p. 147. 148. Never held necessary by the Church to be given to Infants n. 207. p. 273. If in the Eucharist Christ be present Protestants expose theÌ„selves more to sinne then Catholiques if he be not present c. 4. n. 65. p. 394. 395. Evidence of things contained in Scripture diversly vnderstood e. 2. n. 6. p. 123. seq In what sense Catholiques may affirme that all things necessary for the church are evidently contayned in Scripture n. 9. p. 125. Evidence to Sectaryes is what they fancye c. 7. n. 56. p. 491. Of Evils the lesser may and must be to llerated for avoiding greater c. 12. n. 57. p. 751. And n. 59. p. 753. Uide Perplexity Excommunicaton doth not first separate a Schismatique from the church but presupposes his owne voluntary separation which also may remaine a though the excommunication were taken of c. 7. n. 64. p. 499. deinceps Chilling must separate from the church of England which exeommunicates whosoever affirmes that the 39. Articles containe superstâ—â—â—oÌ„ or errour n. 66. p. 501. The difference betwixt excommunication and Schisme n. 64. p. 499. and n 104. p. 529. F Faith of Christians proved infallible c. 1. per totum VVithout a circle c. 5. per tonum Infallible Faith strictly commanded as the first stepp to all merit c. 1. n. 95. p. 103 The infallibility of it is taught by the light of reason and instinct of nature as that there is a God n. 2. 3. 4. p. 38. 39. Acknowledged by Protestants n. 5. p. 39. sequent It is proved by Scripture by Fathers by reason n. 9. p. 30. sequen It is required for acts of supernaturall vertues and consequently it selfe is supernaturall n. 98. p. 105. It takes its essence from Diuine Revelation c. 12. n. 20 it is put 14 p. 720. It is of its essence indivisible but divisible in intension c. 1 n. 44 p. 68 seq It is an intellectuall vertue repugnant to errour n. 28 p. 59 It determines to truth and corrects reason c. 1. n. 29 p. 60 Compared with naturall science an act of Faith is most certaine but the acts of Faith compared amongst themselves may exceed one another in graduall perfection c. 1 n. 44 p. 68 seq Supernaturall Faith may be without Charity but cannot overcome the world without it n. 61 p. 80 Nor is it an efficient cause of the habit of Charity n. 67 p. 83 84 The certainty of it takes not away free will n. 62 p. 81 seq The infallibility of Faith is only requisit for the generall groundsâ— for the particular applicatioÌ„ or matter of fact a morall certainty suffices c. 4 n. 11 p. 357 seq and n. 30 p. 376 377 what is necessary for the eâ—ercising a true act of Faith n. 13 p. 359 Heretiques opposit doctrines about Faith c. 1 n. 1 p. 38 Potter and I hil directly opposit about the infallibility of it n. 6 p. 40 The Faith of I hil and the sequels of it in his owne grounds paraleld with the Catholique and convinced to be most preiudiciall to salvation n 75 p. 88 89 90 Fallibility of Christian Faith is scandalous to Iewes Turks and Painims n. 1 p. 37 It brings to Athisme Ib and n. 100 p. 107 casts into agonyes and perplexityes Those that hold it dare not declare themselves Ib I hil would seeme to admitt of infallibility n. 39 p. 66 67 and supernaturality n. 93 p. 103 His examples to shew that fallible Faith is sufficieÌ„t for salvation are examined and convinced to proue the contrary A nu 102 p. 109 ad finem capit Fallible Faith is alwayes ready to destroy it selfe n. 105 p. 111 112 It was cause of I hil so often changes Ibid He acknowledges that in such a Faith nothing caÌ„ be settled n. 22 p. 54 55 He
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
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.
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