his fourth Chapter Pag 788. Chap 14. The answer to his fifth Chapter about Schisme Pag 846. Chap 15. The answer to his sixth Chapter about Heresy Pag 884. Chap 16. The answer to his seaventh Chapter that Protestants are not bound by the Charity which they owe to themselves to reunite themselves to the Roman Church Pag 932. Touching the necessity of diuine Grace for all vvorkes of Christian Piety I. THe necessity I find of premisinge this Introduction giues me iust cause to begin with those sad passages of the Prophet Ieremy c. 9.1 VVho will giue water to my head and to myne eyes a fountayne of teares and v. 18. Let our eyes shed teares and our eye liddes runne downe with waters And c. 13. v. 17. My soule shall weepe because of the pride a S. Aug. l. 2. de peccatorum meritis remiss cap. 18. saieth Ipsa ratio quemlibet nostrum quaetentem vehementer angustat ne â—ic defendamus gratiam vt liberum arbitrium auferre videamur rurlus ne liberum sic asseramus arbittium vt SVPERBA IMPIETATE ingrati Dei gratiae indicemur O England what greater pride then to make humane reason the measure of Christian faith and to beleeue Faith to be only a probable assent because Reason cannot with euidency comprehend how it should be infallibly true O soules deny not the satisfaction of Christ our Lord for our sinnes and his Merit of supernaturall Grace to enable our nature towards workes of Piety Be not eleuated Jerem 13.16.17 but Giue you glory to our Lord your God before it wax darke and before your feet stumble at the darke mountaynes Otherwise you shall looke for light and he will turne it into the shaddow of death and into darknes But if you will not heare this in secret my soule shall weepe because of the pride b S. Anselmus ad illud 1. Cor. 4. Quid habes quod non accepisti sayth Fecit Deus vt esses tu fecisti vt bonus esses absit Si enim Deus dedit vt esses alius tibi dare potuit ut bonus esses melior est ille qui dedit ut bònus esses quam ille qui dedit ut esses Sed nullus Deo melior igÃtur à Deo accepisti esse bonum esse Thus sayth our Lord let not the wise man glory in his wisdome but he that gloryeth let him glory in this because I am the Lord that doe mercy For it is not Rom. 9.16 of the willer nor of the runner but of God that sheweth Mercy by freely offeringe Pardon Grace and Glory Let vs not ô let vs not make vaine the Life Sufferings Death Satisfaction and Merit of God incarnate by setting vp an idol of reason but let vs say with the Apostole Galat. 2.21 I cast not away the Grace of God For if iustice by the Lawe of Mòyses if Faith by reason then Christ dyed in vaine II. But heere some will not faile to aske the reason why I should treate this seeming farre fetchd matter in this occasion The Answer to this demand cannot be so fitly and fully deliuered by me in this place as it will of it selfe appeare in severall occasions through this whole worke For the present I say that the necessity of supernaturall grace being once established the most substantiall parts of M. Chillingworths booke will remaine confuted For jf Divine faith be the Gift of God infused into our soules and that we cannot exercise any one Act therof without the particular grace and motion of the Holy Ghost it followes immediatly and clearly against his fundamentall and capitall heresie that Christian Faith must be infallible and exempt from all possibility of errour or falshood It being an evident and certaine truth that the supreme and Prime Ueritie cannot by his speciall supernaturall motion inspire a falshood S. Iohns aduise 1. Ioan 4.1 is Beleeue not euery spirit but proue the spirits if they be of God But if we find our spirit to be of God and yet maintayne that it may be stayned with errour what further triall can we make must we raise vp the spirit of man and rely on the strength of reason to trye and so perhaps to check and reject the spirit of God though knowne and acknowledged to be his spirit We reade in holy Scripture Deuter c. 18.21.22 If in secret cogitation thou answer How shall I vnderstand the word that our Lord spake not This signe thou shalt haue That which the same Prophet foretelleth in the name of the Lord and cometh not to passe that our Lord hath not spoken but by the arrogancy of his mynd the Prophet hath forged it Which yet were no good or infallible signe if the spirit of God who spoke by the Prophets could inspire a falshood III. This truth is granted even by sectaryes themselues who will not deny to be true what Caluin Jnstit l. 1. c. 7. saith Testimonium spiritus omni ratione praestantius esse respondeo I answer that the testimony of the spirit is to be preferred before all reason And even Chillingworth Pag. 145 n. 33. saieth that Potter ascribes to the Apostles the Spirits guidance and consequently infallibility in a more high and absolute manner then any since them Where we see he proportionates infallibility to the guidance of the Spirit IV. Besides if the Theologicall vertues of Hope and Charity be the Gifts of God and their Acts require supernaturall assistance Faith also by which they are directed must be supernaturall and require Gods particular Grace which excludes all falshood Jf Faith Hope and Charity be Gifts infused by God not acquired by Acts proceeding from our naturall forces and for that reason we can not be assured of their presence by sensible experience as we may be of acquired naturall Habits Jf they be Powers to enable not meere Habits to facilitate vs in order to Actions of Piety we must inferre that they are not to be increas'd or diminishd lost conserved or acquired or measured according to the rate of naturall Habits Which truth being once granted his doctrine that Repentance consists in the rooting out of all vicious habits That Charity may consist with deadly sinne and Faith with heresy and the like Tenets instantly fall to the ground their whole foundation being an imaginary paritie or rather identity of infused and naturall Habits or Gifts as will appeare when such particular points shall offer themselues to be examined V. Heere I cannot forbeare to reflect in what manner they who haue once withdrawne their beleife and obedience from Gods Church and an jnfallible living judge in matters belonging to Faith do runne into extremes Some of them to maintayne the necessity of Grace denie freewill others in direct opposition to these giue all to free-will and denie the necessity of Grace Some reject inherent Justice though infused by God yea they teach that the guilt of sinne still remaining doth stayne all our actions
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 other must be true Indeed Sir I know nor how to reconcile those two sayings of Charity Maintayned because I cannot see how possibly they could ever fall out or be at variance For what disagreement can be imagined in these Propositions Some errours are not Fundamentall as not being repugnant to Fundamentall truths and every Fundamentall errours must haue a contrary Fundamentall truth or rather haue they not a most cleare connexion and parity that
vniversall Why might not the Church of that tyme haue held some vniversall errour and yet haue beene still the Church You must answer your owne Argument which is easy for vs Catholikes to doe by saying 5. First No particular man or Church may hold any sinfull and damnable errour and yet be a member of the Church vniversall Which is a truth to be believed by all Protestants if they vnderstand themselves and as I haue often sayd Potter confesseth that it is Fundamentall to the Faith of a Christian not to disbelieue any point sufficiently knowne to be revealed by God and that he who does so is an heretike and that heresy being a worke of the flesh excludes from the kingdome of Heaven And what a Church would you haue that to be which consists of Heretikes 6. Secondly To put a parity between particular men or Churches and the Church vniversall may very well beseeme some Socinian who makes small esteeme of the Authority of the Church but resolves faith into every mans private judgment and reason and therfore no wonder if such a Church be subject to corruptions no lesse than private men whose naturall witts and reason must integrate as I may say the whole Authority of and certainty in such a Church and therfore if particular persons may fall into errours the Church cannot be free from them yea she must containe in her bosome or rather bowells such corruptions and errours and so many poysons contradictory one to another and yet not breake A noble latitude of hart and a vast kind of hellishlike Charity But for vs your Argument hath no force at all For we belieue the Church to be the Meanes wherby Divine Revelations are conveyed to our vnderstanding and to be the Judge of Controversyes as hath beene proved hertofore at large and this being supposed we must make vse of your owne words Pag 35. N. 7. That the meanes to decide Controversyes in faith and Religion must be endued with an vniversall Infallibility in whatsoever it propoundeth for a Divine Truth From whence it followes that every errour in Faith is destructiue of that infallibility which is required in the meanes to decide Controversyes in Faith and Religion Which is further confirmed by those words of yours Pag 9. N. 6. No consequence can be more palpable then this The Church of Rome doth erre in this or that therfore it is not infallible Therfore say I to affirme that the Church can erre is to say she is not infallible nor can be judge of Controversyes nor the meanes to convey Divine Revelations to our vnderstanding nor could she be a Guide even in matters Fundamentall as we haue proved els where and yourselfe grant this last sequele to be good And in a word she would cease to be that Church which we are sure she is 7. Thus you say that Scripture which alone you hold to be the Rule of Faith and decider of Controversyes must be vniversally infallible and that any the least errour were enough to blast the whole Authority therof As also if the Apostles who were appointed to teach Divine Truths could by word or writting haue taught any falshood we could not haue relyed on their Authority in any point of faith great or little 8. You say Pag 143. N. 30. There is not the same reason for the Churches absolute infalliblity as for the Apostles and Scriptures For if the Church fall into errour it may be reformed by comparing it with the Rule of the Apostles Doctrine and Scripture But if the Apostles haue erred in delivering the Doctrine of Christianity to whom shall we haue recourse for the discovering and correcting their errour These your words prompt vs a ready Answer and disparity between the Church and private persons who if they fall into errour the errour may be reformed by comparing it with the Decrees Traditions and Definitions of Gods Church But if the Church erre to whom shall we haue recourse for the discovering and correcting her errour Nay I do take a forcible Argument by inverting and retorting your owne words For supposing your Doctrine that we belieue Scripture to be true and the word of God for the Authority of the Church and another saying of yours that a proofe must be more knowne to vs than the thing proved otherwise say you it is no proofe I argue thus There is not the same reason for our beliefe of the absolute infallibility of the Apostles and Scripture as for the Church For if false Scripture be obtruded it may be discovered by comparing it with the Tradition and consent of the Church from which we receiue the Scripture as the word of God and consequently all the certainty we haue of the contents therof But if the Church may erre to whom shall we haue recourse for discovering and correcting her errours seing as I sayd to compare it with the Rule of the Apostles doctrine will be to no purpose because that very Rule cā be of no force with vs but for the Authority of the Church which therfore must be as great or greater with vs then Scripture it selfe according to your owne saying The proofe must be more knowne than the thing proved Our B. Saviour sayd Matt 5. Uos est is sal terrae you are the salt of the earth But if the salt leese his vertue wherwith shall it be salted Vpon which words S. Austine L. 1. de serm Domini in monte C. 6. saith Si vos c. If you by whom others are to be as it were seasoned forfeite the kingdome of heaven vpon feare of temporall persecution what other persons shall be found to free you from errour seing God hath chosen you to take away errours from others So we may say If the Church which God hath appointed to teach others and deliver them the Scripture should erre who could be found to discover and correct that errour Your Argument is no better than this If a man may be a man though he be deprived of some vnnecessary part of his Body as fingers feete c. why may he not remaine a man though he want some parts absolutly necessary for the conservation of him in Being as hart head braine c. For infallibility in the Church is a priviledge necessary and as I may say essentiall to her as she is the judge of Controversyes in Faith which office belonging to no private persons infallibility is not necessary for them 9. To your vaine subtility That we say It is nothing but opposing the Doctrine of the Church that makes an errour damnable and it is impossible that the Church should oppose the Church I meane that the present Church should oppose it selfe From whence you would collect that if the Church should erre yet her errour being not damnable as not opposite to the Church herselfe she might still remaine a Church I answer By the same reason you may say the Apostles might erre and yet remaine of the Church and their
which may any way help or conduce to our salvation that may make the way to it more secure or lesse dangerous 76. These demands I say will in all reason be made and since they are but the very same doctrine which you deliver in the same words you must grant them all and then it is easy for vs to infer the necessity of a living infallible judg seeing all profitable poynts cannot according to Protestants be proved evidently out of scripture both because their Argument holds not in this case namely That if all things necessary were not evidently contayned in scripture they could not be necessary since we speake not of necessary but only of profitable and somthing profitable and lesser truths to vse your words And also because experience shewes that Protestants do not agree nor haue any infallible certaine meanes to bring them to an agreement concerning such poynts 77. But here is not an end of the advantages you giue vs against your self adding greater strength to this Argument For Pag 277. N. 61. You teach that such an assistance is conditionally promised vs as shall lead us if we be not wanting to it and ourselues into all not only necessary but very profitable truth and guard us from all not only destructiue but also hurtfull Errours And afterwards speaking of a Church which retaynes fundamentall truth but is regardless of others you say Though the simple defect of some truths profitable only and not simply necessary may consist with salvation yet who is there that can giue her sufficient assurance that the neglect of such truths is not damnable Besides who is there that can put her in sufficient caution that these Errours about profitable matters may not according to the vsuall fecundity of errour bring forth others of a higher quality such as are pernicious and pestilent and vndermine by secret consequences the very foundations of Religion and piety Who can say that a Church hath sufficiently discharged her duty to God and man by avoyding only Fundamentall Heresyes if in the meane tyme she be negligent of others which though they do not plainly destroy salvation yet obscure and hinder and only not block vp the way to it Which though of themselves and immediatly they damne no man yet are causes and occasions that many men run the race of Christian piety more remissly then they should many defer their repentance many goe on securely in sinnes and so at length are damned by meanes and occasion of their Errours though not for them And Pag 218. N. 49. you say I would not be so mistaken as if I thought the errours even of some Protestants vnconsiderable things and matters of no moment For the truth is I am very fearfull that some of their opinions either as they are or as they are apt to be mistaken though not of themselves so damnable but that good and holy men may be saued with them yet are too frequent occasions of our remissnes and stackness in running the race of Christian Profession of our deferring Repentance and Conversion to God of our frequent relapses into sinne and not seldome of security in sinning and consequently though not certaine causes yet too frequent occasions of many mens damnation And Pag 280 N. 66. Capitall danger may arise from errours though not fundamentall And how can an inanimate writing declare for all variety of circūstances whē such danger is particularly to be feared 78. From these your sayings I gather 2. things the one how dāgerous Errours are in matters belonging to Faith though they concerne only profitable Poynts The other That God hath promised an assistance sufficient to lead vs into all not only necessary but very profitable truth if we be not wanting to it From the first I collect as before the necessity of some sure Meanes to avoyd Errours against profitable Truth And that you speake very irreligiously in saying That if controversyes concerning them be continued and increased it is no matter From the second I frame this demonstratiue Argument If God hath promised an assistance for attaining the knowledg of profitable Truths he hath not fayled to leaue some Meanes wherby we vsing our best endeavours may certainly attaine that knowledg by those Meanes But this meanes cannot be scripture alone the interpretation wherof remaynes vncertaine even though we vse all the Rules prescribed by Protestants as we haue proved and they confess Therfor scripture alone cānot be that Meanes wherby we vsing our best endeavours may attaine the knowledg of profitable truths Therfor we must have recourse to an infallible living judg And now I beseech the reader to consider how vnreasonable and vnconscionable a thing it is First to avouch a very great danger of being damned vnless one come to the knowledg not only of necessary but also of profitable poynts and that God hath promised sufficient help and assistance to attaine such a knowledge and yet Secondly that it is impossible for vs to fynd or vse any certaine meanes which God hath left for that end of knowing things not only necessary but also profitable This contradiction or inconvenience cannot be avoyded except as I sayd by acknowledging and submitting to a living judg 79. Before I leaue this poynt I must not omitt to touch some inconsequent sayings of yours and then goe forward You confess Pag 277. N. 61. that Dr. Potter affirmes that God hath promised absolutely that there shal be preserved to the worlds end such a company of Christians who hold all things precisely and indispensably necessary to salvation If this be so why do you not object against the Doctour as you do against vs and aske him whether that company of Christians can resist Gods motions and helps wherby they are preserved in the belief of things necesary As also how do you defend the Doctour since you do not hold it absolutely certaine but only hope that there shal be such a company of Christians to the worlds end wheras the Doctour alledges and relyes on the promise of God for such a stability of his Church and so must hold it for ā article of Faith as he professes to doe Surely this is a poynt of greatest importance and more then only profitable and scriptures speak clearly enough for the perpetuity of Gods Church and yet you two do not agree therin which shewes how impossible it is to decide controversyes by scripture alone 80. Another saying of yours will I belieue hardly be defended from a contradiction For Pag 277. N. 61 having spoken of Errours against profitable truths and declared how extremely dangerous they are you say P. 278. Those of the Roman Church are worse even in themselves damnable and by accident only pardonable Now an errour to be damnable in it self must consist in this that it opposes some truth revealed by God which is intrinsecè matum essentially evill a deadly sin against the will and Command of God and therfor damnable in it self and by accidēt
Fundamentall Points but that Particular Churches ād Persons may But in your doctrine there cā be no such distinction The vniversall Church with you is infallible because if she erre Fundamentally she ceases to be a Church as also Particular Churches if they erre Fundamentally cease to be Churches and the same I say of particular Persons and so particular Churches and Persons shall be no less infallible than the vniversall Church which is contrary to the doctrine of other Protestants and to your owne words also Pag 106. N. 140. We yield vnto you that there shall be a Church which never erreth in some Points because as we conceaue God hath promised so much Now you will not say that God hath promised so much to particular Churches and Persons and therfor you must put a difference between the vniversall and particular Churches which difference cannot stand with this your speculation that the Church is only in fallible in some points because if she erre in them she ceases to be a Church which exoticall kind of infallibility agrees to all particular Churches and persons 87. Hence it is that Protestants ground the Perpetuily of the vniverfall Church not vpon a probable belief or hope that it shall be so or vpon Her actuall not erring Fundamentally as you do but vpon some antecedent Principle namely the Promises of our Saviour Christ and Assistance of the Holy Ghost Dr. Potter in particular whom you vndertooke to defend speakes very clearly to this purpose Pag 105. in these words The whole Militant Church that is all the members of it cannot possibly erre either in the whole Faith or any necessary Article of it For such an errour must needs disvnite all the Members from Christ the Head and so dissolue the Body and leaue Him no Church which is impossible Mark that he sayth not as you doe The Church cannot erre in any necessary Article because therby she should cease to be a Church but contrarily seing it is impossible that she can cease to be a Church and leaue Christ no Church she cannot possibly erre in the whole Faith or any necessary Article of it With what modesty or conscience do you alledg here Dr. Potter as if he did not disagree from you The contrary wherof will appeare more by his words Pag 153.154.155 The Church saith he Vniversall is ever in such manner assisted by the good spirit that it never totally failes or falls of from Christ For it is so firmely founded on the Rocke Matth 16.18 that is on Christ the only Fundation Cor 3.11 that the gates of Hell whether by temptation or persecution shall not prevaile against it And that you may see how far he was from dreaming of your Chimericall infallibility he cites Bellarmine de Eccles Lib 3. Cap 13. saying That the Church cannot erre is proved out of Scripture Matth 16. vpon this rocke I will build my Church and then goes on in these words The whole Church cannot so erre as to be destroyed For then our Lords promise here Matth 16.18 of Her stable edification should be of no value Obserue this And what he hath afterward in these words The Church vniversall hath not the like assurance from Christ that she shall not erre in vnnecessary additions as she hath for her not erring in taking away from the Faith what is Fundamentall and necessary It is comfort enough for the Church that the Lord in mercy will secure her from all capitall dangers and conserue her on earth against all enemyes But she may not hope to triumph over all sinne and error That the Church be never robbed of any truth necessary to the being of the Church the promises of Christ assure vs. Behold First The Church may erre in not Fundamentall but cannot erre in Fundamentall Ponts wheras you say she may erre in both 2. That the reason why she canot erre in Fundamentall Points is because she is firmely founded on the rocke and if she did faile our Lords promise of her stableedification should be of no value And therfore the Lord will even secure her from all capitall dangers and of this the promises of Christ assure vs. And this as I sayd is the common doctrine of Protestants Wherby it appeares that the Church is not sayd to be infallible in Fundamentall Points because she should perish by every such Error but contrarily because she is assisted by the Holy Ghost never to erre in such Points she shall never be destroyed in direct opposition to you who say that she may erre and by erring be destroyed What a kind of Syllogisme must be framed out of this your Doctrine in this manner The Church is infallible or cannot erre in Fundamentall Points because if she did so erre she should cease to be a Church But she may cease to be a Church Therfore she is infallible and cannot erre in Fundamentalls You should in ferr the direct contrary Therfore she may erre and is not infallible I beseech you of what value should our Saviours promises be according to your doctrine That the Church should not erre at least in Fundamentall Poynts of Faith No. You say she can erre in such Points In what then Only in this admirable worke that if she did erre she should be sure to pay for it by perishing For say you To say the Church while it is the Church may erre in Fundamentalls implyes contradiction and is all one as to say the Church while it is the Church may not be the Church This then is the effect of Gods Promises that that shall be which implyes contradiction to be otherwise that is Gods Power and Promise shall only effect that two contradictions be not true as that if some Living sensible creature be a beast he shall not be a man Is not this to be sacrilegiously impious against God and his holy Promises and Providence Is the Church so built vpon a Rocke assisted by the Holy Ghost that the gates of Hell shall not prevaile against Her only to this effect that if she erre she shall perish that is the Gates of Hell shall in the most prevalent way that can be imagined prevaile against her What foolish impietyes are these Let vs therfore inferr out of these Premises That there must be alwayes a true visible Church knowen and discernable from all false ones and therfore of one denomination That even according to Protestants this true Church must be infallible in all Fundamentall Points That if she be infallible in Fundamentall Points we must belieue Her to be infallible in all even according to your owne grant as I haue shewed out of your owne words And so finally we must conclude that there must be alwayes a visible Church of one denomination and infallible in all Points of Faith as well Fundamentall as not Fundamentall 88. And by what hath bene sayd I confute and retort your saying Pag 150. N. 39. A man that were destitute of all meanes of communicating his thoughts to
Errour and embracing the contrary Fundamentall Truth and so cannot be sure that he hath true Repentance vnless he know in particular what Truths and Errours are Fundamentall And you deliver a very pernicious Errour in saying Pag 159 N. 52. whosoever dyes with Faith in Christ and contrition for all sinnes knowen and vnknowen in which heape all his si full Errours must be comprized can no more be hurt by any the most maâ—ignant and pestilent Errour then S. Paul by the Viper which he shooke of into the fire For if he remayne in his Errour about Fundamentall Points he wants the contrary actuall explicite belief of them which is supposed to be absolutely necessary to Salvation and so he will not cast that viper but it will cast him into the fire His Errour then which is supposed to be Fundamentall must be knowen to him and being knowen to be an Errour eo ipso it is rejected since our vnderstanding cannot assent to a knowen falshood and therfore cannot be comprized in the heape of sinfull Errours knowen and vnknowen but must be distinctly knowen and forsaken 22. How can you say that all Protestants agree touching the necessity of Repentance from dead works and Faith in Christ Iesus the Son of God and Savioâ—r of the worâ—d They may agree in the words or Grammaticall signification of them as any boy Turke Jew or Infidell could not but doe if they vnderstood the toung wherin those words were set downe But for the sense you could scarcely haue picked out Articles of greater moment and withall lesse agreed on among Protestants since every word discovers their irreconciliable differences concerning them and yet which is well to be observed they concerne points of practise and things absolutely necessary to salvation as we haue heard you confess and therfore an errour in them is damnable without all remedy 23. Let vs cast an eye vpon every word Repentance Protestants are not agreed wherin true Repentance consists as may be seene in Bellarmine de Poenit Lib 1. Chap 7. Lib. 2 Chap 4. and you in particular hold a Dòctrine different from the rest That Attrition alone is sufficient and that whether it be Attrition or Contrition it requires the extirpation of all vicious habits which you say is a thing of difficulty and tyme and cannot be performed in an instant and what sinner though repenting himself never so hartily at the houre of his death can be saved with this your kind of Repentance which at that houre is an impossible thing From dead works What will you vnderstand by dead works You know many chiefe Protestants hold all our best works to be of themselves not only dead but deadly sinnes and so Repentance of dead workes must signify Repentance that ever we haue done any good that we haue believed hoped and loved God and our neighbour obeyed our Parents kept any of the Commandements c And if you consider the person from whom they proceed in case he be predestinated no sin can hurt him whatsoever he doe To the former Repentance is needless to the latter fruitless How then do Protestants agree in the necessity of Repentance from dead workes or in Repentance itself For the second Point Faith in Christ Iesus the Son of God and Saviour of the world there is not one word wherin Protestants agree for the sense Faith You say A probable Faith is sufficient all others deny it professiing that Christian Faith necessary to salvation must be infalible and therfory you cannot be saved by your kind of Faith even by the doome of Protestants and in that respect all men who haue care of their soules ought to detest your Doctrine and Booke But do those other Protestants agree among themselves what Faith is necessary and sufficient for salvation They do not Some hold that Faith necessary and sufficient for Justification is that wherby one believes certainly that his sinnes are forgiven and that they are forgiven even by believing so according to which Doctrine what necessity can there be of Repentance Seing men are justifyed precisely by such a Faith and how then did you tell vs that Protestants agree in the necessity of Repentance from dead works Of which strang kind of Faith He whom you call the learned Grotius in his Discussio Riveriani Apologetici c Pag 2â—0 saith very truly Evangelij vox haec est Resipiscite Facite fructus dignos Poenetentiae adhortamini vosmetipsos per singulos dies donec hodie nominetur vt non obduretur quis ex vobis fallacia peccati Terra proferens spinas tribulos proxima est maledictioni cujus consummatioin combustionem At Riveti eique similium longè alia agendiratio remissa tibi sunt peccata Vnde id sciam Debes id credere At quo Argumento cum non remitantur omnibus Remissa sunt credentibus Et quid credentibus Remissa sibi esse peccata Mirus verò circulus Ita si istos sequimur remissio est causa credendi nihil enim credi debet factum esse nisi quod factum est contra credere causa remissionis quia conditio est requisita ad remissionem Haec verè sunt inextricabilia Faith in Christ Jesus the Son of God and Saviour of the world Who is ignorant how deeply Protestants disagree in these points You Socinians absolutely deny Christ Jesus to be the Son of God and Consubstantiall to his Father and Potter Pag 113.114 cites the doctrine of some whom he termes men of great learning and judgment that all who profess to loue and honour Iesus Christ are in the Visible Christian Church and by Catholikes to be reputed Brethren One of these men of great learning and judgment cited by Potter is Thomas Morton who in his Treatise of the Kingdome of Israel teaches that the Churches of Arians who denyed our Saviour Christ to be God are to be accounted the Church of God because they hold the Foundation of the Ghospell which is Faith in Iesus Christ the Son of God and saviour of the world Which are your very words Wherin appeares your hypocrisy in calling Christ the Son of God which men will conceaue you vnderstand as all good Christians do that he is consubstantiall to his Father wheras you meane only as the Arians did that he was the Son of God by conjunction of will or some such accidentall way aÌ„d so ProtestaÌ„ts do not agree in a point simply necessary Saviour of the world For SociniaÌ„s deny Christ to haue satisfyed for the sins of the world as may be seene in Volkelius Lib 4. Cap 2. and Cap 22. against other Protastants who in an other extreme hold that he alone satisfied so as no satisfaction is required at our hands though wee tell them that such our satisfaction depends on and taks all its valve from his You are an excellent advocate for Potter seing you differ from him in this Point which Pag 242. he calls that most important and
you take away you destroy the vnity of the Church For a Division of that which is essentiall is a plaine destruction Protestants teach the true preaching of the word and due administration of Sacraments to be so essentiall to the Church that without them a Church ceases to be a Church therfore if there be not agreement or Communion in them they cannot be essentially one Church but essentially different and divided one from another This true Principle being setled 4. The first reason which Charity Maintayned Chap 5. Part 1. N. 12. alledges to proue his Assertion is this Seing Schisme consists essentially in leaving the externall Communion of the Visible Church of Christ and that Luther and his Associars did so as he proves by evidence of fact and by the confessions of Protestants Luther saying in Prà efat Oper suorum in the beginning I was alone And Calvin Ep 141. We were forced to make a separation from the whole world besides the sayings of other Protestants it followes that they cannot be excused from Schisme 5. The Answer which may be gathered out of Dr. Potter to this Reason is That they left not the Church but her Corruptions Which evasion Charity Maintayned confutes by willing him to consider that for the present we speake not of Heresy or departing from the Church but of Schisme of leaving her externall Communion which manifestly they did by separating from all Churches and consequently from the Vniversall Church which is the most formall sinne of Schisme And indeed they ought to inferr that the Vniversall Church is not subject to any errour in Doctrine and not tell the world that they forsooke her Communion for her Errours seing her Communion is never to be forsaken and therfore it is not possible that she can giue any cause of such a separation by falling into errour This we learne of S. Austine Cont Parm Lib 2. Chap 11. There is no just necessity to divide Vnity And Ep 48. It is not possible that any may haue just cause to separate their Communion from the Communion of the whole world and call themselves the Church of Christ as if they had separated themselves from the Communion of all Nations vpon just cause And S. Irenaeus Cont Heres Lib 4. C 62. They can not make any so important reformation as the evill of the Schisme is pernicious 6. Secondly Charity Maintayned proves them to be Schismatikes by this Argument Potter teaches that the Catholique Church cannot erre in points of Faith Necessary to salvation and therfore it cannot be damnable to remayne in her Communion although she were falsly supposed to teach some Errours seing they cannot be damnable and consequently cannot yield any necessary cause to leaue her Communion but it is cleare that Luther and the rest left the whole vniversall Church which was extant before them vnder pretense of Errours which cannot be Fundamentall Therfore it is cleare they left Her without any necessary cause Which I confirme by your owne words Pag 220. N. 52. where you say May it please you now at last to take notice that by Fundamentall we meane all and only that which is necessary and then I hope you will grant that we may safely expect salvation in a Church which hath all things Fundamentall to salvation vnless you will say that more is necessary than that which is necessary And Pag 376 N. 57. he that believes all necessary Truth if his life he answerable to his Faith how is it possible he should faile of salvation Therfore say I seing the Church vniversall cannot erre in necessary Points whosoever embraceth her Faith for as much as belongs to Faith cannot faile of salvation vnless you will say that more is necessary then that which is necessary which are your owne words You say also Pag 33. N. 4. If a particular man or Church may hold some particular Errours and yet be a member of the Church vniversall why may not the Church hold some vniversall Errour and yet be shell the Church This parity is none at all yet seing you must make it good I may say much more with all truth and without any dependence vpon your false parity if the Church vniversall may hold some vniversall Errour as you confess she may which yet indeed is impossible and be still the Church why may not a particular man or Church hold some particular errours and yet be a member of the Church vniversall and consequently capable of salvation for as much as concernes his Faith And therfore none can forsake the Church by leaving her Communion and making himself no member of Her for any such errours as are not opposite to a necessary Truth into which kind of errours it is confessed the Church cannot fall To which I may add what yousay Pag 35. N. 7. if some Controversyes may for many Ages he vndetermined and yet in the meane while men be saved why should or how can the Churches being furnisht with effectuall meanes to determine all Controversyes in Religion be necessary to salvation the end itself to which these meanes are ordayned being as experience shewes not necessary O how truly may we say and happy had your progenitors bene if they had done so If for so many Ages before Luthers pretended Reformation but true Schisme men wrought Miracles converted Nations were eminent for Sanctity attained salvation and are esteemed Saints in Heaven by our Adversaryes and this in the belief and profession of those Points which Catholikes now professe how could any Reformation or separation be necessary since the end itself of salvation to which all meanes are ordained was not necessary but was attained without any such Reformation or separation 7. Like to this Argument of Charity Maintayned is another which N. 22. he tooke from these words of Potter Pag 155. It is comfort enough for the Church that the Lord in mercy will secure her from all capitall dangers and conserue her on earth against all enemyes but she may not hope to triumph over all sin and error tell she be in Heaven If it be comfort enough to be secured from all capitall dangers why were not the first pretended reformers content with enough but rent the Church out of a pernicious greedyness of more then enough or a pretended desire to free men from all errour which cannot be hoped for out of Heaven If even the vniversall Church may not hope to triumph over all Errour till she be in Heaven much less can particular Churches and men conceiue any such hope and so you must either grant that Errours not Fundamentall cannot yield sufficient cause to forsake the Churches Communion or you must affirme that all Churches may and ought to be forsaken and that a man cannot lawfully be of any Church yea and that every one is obliged to forsake himself if it were possible for avoyding errours not Fundamentall Besides as it is not lawfull to leaue the Communion of the Church for abuses in life and manners
yeild sufficient cause to forsake her communion which is directly against all those who teach that the Roman Church doth not erre Fundamentally and yet that they had cause to forsake her communion by reason of her errours We must therfore conclude that seing there can be no just cause to depart from the communion of the Church and yet that there might be just cause to do so if she were subject to corruption or errour we must absolutely belieue her to be infallible and that they who teach the contrary and vpon that pretence forsake her communion are guilty of Schisme and heresy 24. And this is a fit place to put you in mynd of your doctrine that the Apostles after the receaving of the holy Ghost and the whole Church with them erred in a point clearly revealed and commanded by our Saviour Christ about preaching the Gospells to gentils For this false doctrine supposed I aske whether or no it had been necessary or lawfull to leaue the communion of that most primitiue Church If it were not lawfull then errours even in Faith affoard not a just cause to forsake a Church If you say it was lawfull to forsake the Apostles and the whole Church of their tyme you blaspheme And yet if the Apostles and the whole primitiue Church did erre they that is all Christians might and ought to haue been forsaken and therfore if it were but to avoide this gross absurdity we must say that neither the Church of that nor of consequent ages could erre 25. Thus much be sayd in the first way That considering things as they are in themselves the Church might be forsaken if she could erre and therfore because it is most certaine that she can never be forsaken we must firmely belieue that she cannot erre though indeed I must add that if she could erre she might and might not be forsaken it being no strang thing that vpon a false supposition contradictoryes may follow wherof more herafter 25. Now let vs see what may be sayd in the second way or consideration that is in order to Protestants and their grounds or ad hominem though I must confess this to be a nice and difficult vndertaking by reason of their inconstancy saying and vnsaying as they are forced by different or contrary occasions which make them doe as they can not what they should and never hold constantly what they ought 27. First then we suppose that the Church out of which Luther departed was a true Church for substance whether it were the Roman or any other Church Otherwise we must say that Christ had no true Church on earth which you Potter and all chiefest Protestants deny and expressly teach that alwayes there hath been is and ever shal be such a Church as we haue seene aboue In so much as D. Lawd Pag 141. saieth All Divines Ancient and Moderne Romanists and Reformers agree in this That the whole Militant Church of Christ cannot fall away into generall Apostasy And Pag 142. he saieth that otherwise falshood in the very Article of the Creed that the Church is Holy may be the subject of the Catholike Faith which were no lesse then Blasphemy to affirme 28. Secondly Hence it followes that she did not erre in any Fundamentall Point every one wherof vtterly destroyes the Church but that her falsly supposed errours were only in Points not Fundamentall or not absolutely necessary to salvation 29. Thirdly That if such errours in Points not Fundamentall do not exclude salvation men may be saved without profession of the contrary truths it being impossible that one belieue an errour and also the truth contrary to that errour and therfore if the errour be not destructiue of salvation it is impossible that the contrary truth be necessary therto 30. Fourthly If therfore we can shew that according to Protestants errours in Points not Fundamentall destroy not salvation it will follow of it selfe that in their grounds they might and ought to haue remayned in the externall communion of the visible Church notwithstanding such errours since by so doing they had wanted nothing necessary to salvation nor done any thing incompatible therwith For which we take your owne words Pag 272. N. 53. It concernes every man who separates from any Churches communion even as much as his salvation is worth to looke most carefully to it that the cause of his separation be just and necessary For vnless it be necessary it can very hardly be sufficient And say I how can it be necessary if one may be saved without it Let vs now see what Protestants hold in this matter 31. I grant that somtyme in words they will seeme to teach that it is necessary to belieue whatsoever is revealed by God if it be sufficiently proposed But if we respect their deeds and consider other grounds of their Doctrine it will appeare that they must hold the contrary ād that in express words they somtyme actually declare so much Neither ought this to seeme any strang thing since Heretiks must say and vnsay to helpe a bad cause as well as their witts will serue them In which respect I could never much approue the great paines which some Catholike Divines imploy to proue that Heretiks hold this or that because somtyme they deliver expressions contrary to that of which it is disputed whether or no it was their Opinion For all that can be inferred from such their different sayings is not that they held determinately this and not that but only that indeed they contradicted and by Gods just judgment destroyed themselves 32. Well then that it is necessary to beleeue whatsoever is revealed by God and sufficiently propounded Potter Pag 245. affirmes in these words It seemes Fundamentall to the Faith and for the salvation of every member of the Church that he acknowledge and belieue all such Points of Faith as wherof he may be sufficiently convinced that they belong to the Doctrine of Iesus Christ For he that being sufficiently convinced doth oppose is obstinate an Hereticke and finally such a one as excludes himselfe out of Heaven wherinto no willfull sinner can enter And Pag 250. It is Fundamentall to a Christians Faith and necessary for his salvation that he belieue all revealed truths of God wherof he may be convinced that they are from God And herupon Chillingworth Pag 11. speaks to Charity Maintayned in this manner It amazed me to heare you say that he Dr. Potter declines this question and never tells you whether or no there be any other Points of Faith which being sufficiently propounded as divine Revelations may be denyed and disbelieved He tells you plainly there are none such Againe it is almost as strang to mee why you should say this was the only thing in question whether a man may deny or disbelieue any Point of Faith sufficiently presented to his vnderstanding as a truth revealed by God Produce any one Protestant that ever did so and I will giue you leaue to say it
is the only thing in question Thus hee 33. To which I answer That the state of the Question being whether both Catholiks and Protestants be capable of salvation in their severall Faiths and Religions and the same reason is of all who differ in any matters of Faith though of themselves they be not Fundamentall and Protestants judging vs to be very vncharitable in saying they cannot be saved seing they hold the Creed and all Fundamentall Points as they conceaue and therfore if they be in errour it is only in Points not Fundamentall Charity Maintayned said that Potter never answered to this Point clearly directly and constantly as he ought to haue done that is he never declared whether different beliefe in Points not Fundamentall doth so destroy the vnity of Faith in persons so disagreeing as that they cannot be sayd to be of one Faith for the substance or of one Church and Religion in such manner as one might absolutly say Catholiks and Protestants are of one Faith and Church and capable of salvation in their severall beliefs and professions of Faith This Potter never did nor in policy durst doe because saith Charity Maintayned Part 1. Pag 3. He was loath to affirme plainly that generally both Catholiks and Protestants may be saved And yet seeing it to be most evident that Protestants cannot pretend to haue any true Church before Luther except the Roman and such as agreed with her and consequently that they cannot hope for salvation if they deny it to vs he thought best to avoid this difficulty by confusion of Language and to fill vp his Booke with Points which make nothing to the purpose Besides if once he grant that difference of belief though it be only in Points not Fundamentall destroy the true Faith Church and Religion he could not pretend that Protestants disagreeing among themselves could be all of one Church or substance of Faith and Religion and capable of salvation What remedy then but that he must contradict himselfe accordingly as he might be pressed by diversity or contrariety of difficultyes and so by vttering contradictions say Nothing at all to the maine question or els speak equally in favour of both Contradictories For what implyes contradiction implyes only nothing But let vs go forward and add to what we haue already cited out of Chillingworth his other words Pag 21. If any Protestant or Papist be betrayed into or kept in any errour by any sin of his will as it is to be feared many millions are such errour is as the cause of it sinfull and damnable The same doctrine he pretends to deliver through his whole Booke wherby it seemes that both he and Potter hold in words that to belieue any errour against Divine Revelation sufficiently propounded is sinfull and damnable and destroyes the fundation of Faith being as Chilling saith P. 11. no less than to giue God the ly 34. Nevertheless it is evident that in reality and deeds yea and in express profession they and other Protestants do and must maintayne the contrary vnless they haue a mynd to contradict themselves in Points of heigh concernment for their cause This I proue by these considerations 35. First The World knowes that nothing is more frequent in the mouth of Protestants than that they all hold the same substance of Faith and retaine the essence of a true Church because they agree in Fundamentall Points which they are wont to proue because they belieue the Apostles Creed and the foure first Generall Councells and Potter in particular Pag 216. teaches that the Creed of the Apostles as it was further opened and explained in some parts by occasion of emerfent Heresyes in the other Catholike Creeds of Nice Constantinople Ephepsus Chacedon and Aranesius containes all fundamentall truths and from thence inferrs Pag 232. that Protestants agree in fundamentalls and Pag 241. he saith the Creed is the perfect Summary of those fundamentall truths wherin consists the vnity of Faith and of the Catholique Church But these assertions were very false and impertinent if it be damnable and even Fundamentall against Faith to belieue any errour repugnant to Divine Revelation though in a Point not Fundamentall of itself For what imports it to belieue all the Articles of the Creed if in the meane tyme they deny some other truths revealed by God and sufficiently proposed for such for example innumerable Texts of Scripture containing no matters Fundamentall of themselves As certainly some Protestants must doe seing two contradictoryes cannot be true Or why do they deceaue men in telling them that by believing the Creed they cannot erre Fundamentally seing they hold that there are millions of truths which to deny were a damnable and Fundamentall errour If therfore they will keepe this ground that they haue the same substance of Faith and hope of salvation because they agree in Fundamentall Points they must affirme that disagreement or errour in a Point not Fundamentall doth not destroy the substance of Faith or depriue men of hope to be saved nor is a Fundamentall errour as Potter and Chilling somtyme say it is as we haue seene and Chilling saith in particular Pag 131. N. 9. If Protestants differ in Points Fundamentall then they are not members of the same Church one with another no more than with you he meanes vs Catholikes Wherfore vpon the matter if to deny Points of themselves not Fundamentall sufficiently propounded be a Fundamentall errour de facto Protestants are not members of the same Church one with another according to Chillingworths owne words If it be not a Fundamentall errour the contrary Truth is not necessary and so one may be saved though he deny some revealed Truth sufficiently propounded which is the thing I intended to proue 36. Secondly Learned Protestants are very desirous and even ambitious that the world should belieue them to be of the same Church with the Roman and this meerly vpon necessity and for their owne sake least otherwise they should be necessitated to affirme that before Luther there was no true Church vpon earth but that he and his followers created a new Church out of nothing from which Potter vtterly disclaimes Pag 59. saying Protestants never intended to erect a new Church but to purge the old the Reformation did not change the substance of Religion And Pag 63. The most necessary and Fundamentall truths which constitute a Church are on both sides vnquestioned And for that reason learned Protestants yield them the name and substance of a Christian Church though extremely defiled with horrible errorurs and corruptions And adds that The very Anabaptists grant it But how can they be of the same Church for substance with vs who they say are defided with horrible errours and corruptions if every errour in any Point of Faith though not Fundamentall destroyes the substance o Faith and Church and possibility of salvation If then they will speake with consequence to themselves they must affirme that errours in Points not Fundamentall
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
may differ and yet preserue the one necessary Faith And Pag 299. he saith I do indeed for my part acknowledge a possibility of salvation in the Roman Church but so as that which I grāt to Romanists is not as they are Romanists but as they are Christians that is as they belieue the Creed and hold the foundation Christ himselfe not as they associate themselves wittingly and knowingly to the grosse superstitions of the Roman Church Behold a cleare confession that the pretended errours of the Roman Church do not exclude salvation and yet they are supposed to be against some revealed Truths Therfore errours in Points not Fundamentall are not repugnant to salvation 40. But what conclusion can we deduce from these Premises that errours in Points not necessary or Fundamentall are not damnable but that one may be saved in them Dr. Lawd hath done it for vs Pag 133. in these words The whole Church cannot vniversally erre in absoute Fundamentall Doctrines and therfore there can be no just cause to make a Schisme from the whole Church And Pag 196. he teaches that by the manifest places in Scripture there may be setled Vnity and Certainty of Beliefe in Necessaryes to Salvation and in Non necessarijs in and about things not necessary there ought not to be a Contention to a Separation And Pag 129. That the whole Church cannot vniversally erre in the Doctrine of Faith is most true so you will but vnderstand it s not erring in Absolute Fundamentall Doctrines And therfore t is true also that there can be no just Cause to make a Schisme from the whole Church Certainly Luther did not follow this advise who began and maintayned a Contention to Separation from the whole World from which Dr. Lawd expressly saith there can be no just Cause to make a Schisme But this is not all For Pag 226. he sayth Suppose a Generall Councell actually Erring in some Point of Divine truth I hope it will not follow that this Errour must be so gross as that forthwith it must needs be knowne to private men And doubtless till they know it Obedience must be yielded Nay when they know it if the Errour be not manifestly against Fundamentall Verity in which case a Generall Councell cannot easily erre I would haue all wise men consider whether externall Obedience be not even then to be yeelded For if Controversyes arise in the Church some end they must haue or theyil teare all in sunder And I am sure no wisdom can think that fit Why then say a Generall Councell Erre and a Erring Decree be ipso jure by the very Law itself invalid I would haue it wisely considered againe whether it be not fit to allow a Generall Councell that Honour and Priviledge which all other Great Courts haue Namely that there be a Declaration of the invalidity of its Decrees as well as of the Lawes of other Courts before priuate men take Liberty to refuse Obedience For till such a Declaration if the Councell stand not in force A. C. Sets vp private Spirits to controll Generall Councells which is the thing he so much cryes out against in the Protestants Therfore it may seeme very fit and necessary for the Peace of Christendome that a Generall Councell thus erring should stand in force till Evidence of Scripture or a Demonstration make the Errour to appeare as that another Councell of equall Authority reverse it For as for Morall Certainty that 's not strong enough in Points of Faith How many Points do these words containe in favour of Catholikes against Protestants 41. 1. That knowne Errours in Points not Fundamentall are not only to be tolerated but that Obedience is to be yeelded to the Church or Councell even concerning such Points and Errours How then can Luther be excused from Schisme who was so farr from yielding Obedience to the Church that he opposed himselfe to and made a publike Separation from all Churches And how can Protestants be now excused from Schisme who follow his example defend his doctrine and persist in the Separation and breach which he made 42. Secondly That to profess externally errours in Points not Fundamentall excludes not salvation For to do any thing repugnant to salvation I am sure no wisdom can thinke fit to vse his owne Words And then it cannot be necessary to forsake the Church for avoyding the profession of Errours not Fundamentall and yet this is the reason for which Protestants pretend to be excused from Schisme 43. Thirdly He doth not only affirme but endeavours to proue that externall Obedience must be yielded to the Decrees of Councells because if Controversyes arise in the Church some end they must haue or theyil teare all in sunder Which he sayth no wisdom can thinke fit Which proues very well that some Living Judge of Controversyes is necessary and is directly opposite to Chillingworth who affirmes that there is no necessity of such a Judg because it is not necessary that all Controversyes be ended But then 44. Fourthly It followeth evidently in true Divinity that if such a Judge be necessary He must be infallible in all things belonging to Faith and Religion For seing to dissemble in matters of Faith or profess one thing and belieue the contrary is a grievous sin and a most pernicious ly no man can yield externall Obedience against the judgment and dictamen of his Conscience and yet it being also true that we are obliged to obey the Decrees of Generall Councells we must of necessity affirme that they are infallible and cannot Decree any Errour in Faith Otherwise I must either disobey or speake against my Conscience in matters of Faith which is intrinsecè malum and can never be excused from a damnable sin To these straights Protestants are brought by denying the infallibility of Gods Church May Councells be disobeyed Then there will be no meanes to end Controversyes and theyil teare all in sunder Must they be obeyed Then in case they decree an Errour against Faith as they may doe if they be fallible men must proceed against their Conscience What then remaynes but to belieue that they are infallible and so we securely may and necessarily must obey their Decrees because I am sure that they haue both infallibility not to erre and Authority to command Thus our beliefe and proceeding is cleare smooth and most consequent wheras our Adversaryes denying the said infallibility are forced to great impietyes against God and manifest contradictions with themselves Besides seing he confesses that Morall Certainty is not strong enough in Points of Faith the Judge of Controversyes in such Points must be absolutely infallible otherwise we cannot receiue from him Certaintyes strong enough for Points of Faith And if Controversyes must be ended by Generall Councells as he affirmes their Decrees must be of more than Morall Certainty 45. Fiftly Wheras he sayes that Obedience is not to be yielded if the Errour be manifestly against Fundamentall Verity he ought to consider
that the chiefest malice in Heresy consists not in being against such or such a materiall Object or Truth great or little Fundamentall or not Fundamentall but in the opposition it carryeth with the Divine testimony which we suppose to be equally represented in both kinds of Points Fundamentall and not Fundamentall And therfore he must either say that Obedience is to be yielded in both which were most absurd or in neither And that it may be securely yielded in both we must acknowledg a Judge endued with infallibility Neither doth A. C. Set vp private Spirits to controll Generall Councells which Catholiks belieue to be infallible but that absurdity flowes out of the doctrine of Protestants affirming them to be fallible even in Fundamentall Points and consequently private men are neither obliged nor can rely on their Authority in matters of Faith for which Morall Certainty is not strongh enough but may Judge as they find cause out of Scripture or reason and may oppose their Decrees nor can ever obey them against their Conscience And if all Councells be fallible what greater certainty can I receaue from the second than from the first if we meerly respect their Authority For if I be mooved with some new reason or Demonstration I am not mooved for the Authority of the Councell but for that Reason which seemes good to mee And is not this to set vp private men and Spirits to controll Generall Councells 46. Sixthly He saith A Generall Councell cannot easily erre manifestly against Fundamentall Verity From whence I inferr that seing Luther opposed the whole Church and so many Generall Councells held before his tyme he is to be presumed to haue opposed them not for any manifest Fundamentall but at most for Errours not Fundamentall to speake as Protestants do For indeed Councells cannot erre in either kind in which Points not Fundamentall he sayth men are to yield Obedience and therfore He and all those who formerly did and now do follow his example are to be judged guilty of Schisme 47. Seaventhly He saith It may seeme very fit and necessary for the Peace of Christendome that a Generall Councell thus erring should stand in force till evidence of Scripture or a Demonstration make the Errour to appeare as that another Councell of equall Authority reverse it In these words he gives vs Catholikes no small advantage against the Capitall principle of Protestants that Scripture alone containes evidently all necessary Points For if evidence of Scripture or a Demonstration may be so inevident or obscure to a whole lawfull Generall Councell that it may fall into Fundamentall Errours which in the grounds of Protestants are opposite only to some Truth evidently contained in Scripture it is evident that he and other Protestants say nothing when they talke of evidence of Scripture but that indeed every one makes and calls that evident which he desires should be so And how is it possible that a true Generall Councell should be so blind as not to see that which is evident And this indeed is to set vp private Spirits to controll Generall Councells I will not vrge what he meanes by a Demonstration when he distinguisheth it from Evidence of Scripture A Demonstration implyes an vndeniable and as I may say an Evident Evidence and if it be an Evidence distinct from the Evidence of Scripture which according to Protestants containes evidently all necessary Points of Faith it must be evidence of naturall Reason which is common to all men And how can a Generall Councell erre against such a kind of Evidēce But as I sayd Evidēce with Protestāts is a voluntary word which they make vse of to their purpose Besides Scripture is no lesse evidēt in innumerable points not fundamētall than it is in some which are Fundamentall and therfore all who belieue Scripture are obliged to belieue those no less than these vnless men will say that it is not damnable to belieue and professe somthing evidently knowne to be against Scripture and therfore in this there can be no distinction between Fundamētall ād not fundamētall Points ād so a Generall Councell may as easily erre against Fundamentall Articles as against Points not Fundamentall clearly delivered in Scripture in which case it is destructiue of salvation to erre against either of those kinds I haue beene somwhat long in pondering his words because I vnderstand the booke is esteemed by some and I hope it appeares by what I haue now said out of it that we may be saved that a Living judg of controversyes is necessary that Luther and all Protestants are guilty of the sin of Schisme Three as mayne and capitall Points in fauour of vs against Protestants as we can desire and they feare 48. Herafter we will ponder Mr. Chillingworths words for our present purpose who speaking of Generall Councells saith Pag 200. N. 18. I willingly confess the judgment of a Councell though not infallible is yet so farr directiue and obliging that without apparent reason to the contrary it may be sin to reject it at least not to affoard it an outward submission for publike peace-sake As also we will consider Potters words Pag 165. speaking thus We say that such Generall Councells as are lawfully called and proceed orderly are great and awfull representations of the Church Catholique that they are the highest externall Tribunall which the Church hath on Earth that their Authority is immediatly derived and delegated from Christ that no Christian is exempted from their censures and jurisdiction that their decrees bind all persons to externall obedience and may not be questioned but vpon evident reason nor reversed but by an equall authority that if they be carefull and diligent in the vse of all good Meanes for finding out the truth it is very probable that the good spirit will so direct them that they shall not erre at least not Fundamentally 49. But let vs proceed in proving that Protestants hold Points not Fundamentall not to be of any great moment and much less to be destructiue of salvation It is cleare that Protestants differ among them selves in many Points which they pretēd to be only not Fundamētall ād say they do not destroy the ubstāce of Faith nor hinder thē from being Brethren and of the same Church And why because such Points are small matter as Whitaker speakes Cont ◠Quest 4. Cap 3. Things in different and tittles as King James saith in his Monitory Epistle Matters of no great moment as Andrewes Respons ad Apolog Bellarmin Cap 14. No great matters Apology of the Church of England Matters of nothing as Calvin calls them Admonit Vlt Pag 132. Matters not to be much respected if you believe Martyr in locis Classe 4. C. 10. § 65. Formes and phrases of speech as Potter speaks Pag 90. a curious nicity Pag 91. 50. Out of all which we must conclude both out of the words deeds and principles of Protestants First that errours against Points not Fundamentall are not
any other worldly hope I betray my selfe to any errour contrary to any Divine revealed truth that errour may be justly stiled a sin and consequently of it self to such a one damnable And if he dy without Contrition this errour in it selfe damnable will be likewise so vnto him I haue set downe your words at large that Protestants may learne by them how to examine their conscience about what care they vse to find the true Church ād Religion which imports them no less then the eternall salvation or Damnation of their soules And that every one may clearly see that you do not only grant more than once the errours of Protestants to be in themselves damnable but also a reason for it namely because all errours in Faith are contrary to some Divine Revelation which reason is common to Protestants to the Church of England and to all who erre in matters of Faith And then with what sincerity could you affirme that whosoever holds the doctrine of the Church of England and lives according to it vndoubtedly he shall be saved Can one who is in an errour damnable of itselfe be vndoubtedly saved without repentance Haue we not heard you say To him who dyed without contrition the errour in itselfe damnable will be likewise so vnto him Do you not say Pag 138. N. 23. For ought I know all Protestants and all that haue sense must grant that all errours are alike damnable if the manner of propounding the contrary Truths be not different Therfore you must grant that as errours against Fundamentall Truths sufficiently propounded are damnable so also errours against not Fundamentall Truths are damnable if both be equally proposed How then are the Errours of all Protestants and of the Church of England in particular not damnable 51. Thus we haue sufficiently confuted your first Memorandum and shewed that the separation of Protestants was causeless both in reality and ad hominem or according to the principles and professions of Protestants themselves In reality because there can never be just reason to separate from the Church of God which therfore must be infallible and free from all corruptions and errours Ad hominem because according to the principles of Protestants errours not Fundamentall being not destructiue of salvation cannot yield sufficient cause of separation nor free any from yielding obedience even in the supposed vnfundamentall errours as they confess ours to be and if somtyme Protestants say the contrary at other tymes they contradict themselves which serves only for their greater condemnation in leaving the communion of all Christian Churches vpon vncertaintyes in which themselves do waver somtyme affirming somtyme denying And vpon this very ground of vncertainty I go forward to proue more and more that their separation was causlesse 52. For Pag 308. N. 108. you do not disallow the saying of Cha Ma Part 1. Pag 207. In cases of vncertainty we are not to leave our Superiour nor cast of his obedience nor publikly oppose his decrees And Hooker cited by you in your Pag 310. 311. N. 110. teaches two things to our present purpose The one That an Argument necessary and demonstratiue is such as being proposed to any man and vnderstood the mynd cannot chuse but inwardly assent The other that in case of probability only or vncertainty Lawes established are to be obeyed and men are bound not to obserue those Lawes which they are perswaded to be against the law of God but for the tyme to suspend their perswasions to the contrary and that in otherwise doing they offend against God by troubling the Church This ground being layd I subsume besides what hath now been sayd of the variousness ād vncertainty of Protestants about Points not Fundamentall Protestants cannot possibly haue evidence or certainty against Catholiks therfore they offended against God by dividing theselves from vs and troubling the peace of all Churches The subsumption or Minor I proue diverse wayes abstaining from examination of particular Controversyes and 53. First in this manner An Argument necessary and Demonstratiue is such as being proposed to any man and vnderstood the mynd cannot chuse but inwardly assent saith Hooker If therfore the arguments of Protestants against vs were necessary and demonstratiue learned Catholiks could not chuse but inwardly assent and vnless they were extreme wicked dissemblers against their conscience would also publikly professe And yet we see that all Catholiks in all Ages and places learned holy wise and such as God vsed for instruments in working many great and evident Miracles and in converting nations to the Faith of Christ all these I say did and do and ever will dissent from the Arguments and conclusions of Protestants therfore it is cleare that their reasons against vs are not necessary nor demonstratiue and so according to Hooker the Lawes established were to be obeyed and Protestants were bound to suspend their perswasions to the contrary Truly this is an Argument which must convince any man of a mynd not perverse and resolved to persever in his errour 54. Secondly I prove that they cannot produce against vs any necessary or demonstratiue Argument in regard of the Antiquity of our doctrine confessed even by our Adversaryes as may be seene in Brierley P. 129. seqq Edition Ann. 1608. now how could these doctrines haue passed the search and examine of so many learned men and watchfull Prelats for the space of so many ages if any necessary or demonstratiue argument to which men cannot but assent could haue been produced against them 55. Thirdly Learned Protestants confess that the Fathers hold with vs against them in many and chiefest Points of Doctrine controverted in these dayes as we haue seene hertofore which could not happen if the Arguments of Protestants against the Fathers and vs were necessary and demonstratiue 56. Fourthly In all our chiefest differences diverse most learned Protestants agree with vs against their pretended Brethren as we haue also demonstrated hertofore Now these men being learned could not but see and assent to necessary and demonstratiue Arguments if any could haue been alledged against vs and being Adversaryes would not haue fayld to make vse of them nor would they haue ever left their Brethren and joyned with vs if evidence of truth and reason had not forced them therto or if they could haue espyed any even probability in the grounds and Doctrines of their Brethren wherby it appeares that the tenets of Protestants are so farr from being evident or their Arguments necessary and demonstrative that they are not so much as probable Who I pray will belieue that you could haue any necessary demonstratiue Arguments for your so many changes of Religion and for your ending in Socinianisme which you never durst openly profess and yet men are not wont to be ashamed of truths proved by necessary and demonstratiue Reasons One demonstration or evidence cannot be contrary to another and yet no doubt but you pretended evidence for all your alterations to contrary
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
Fundamentalls I cannot in wisdome forsake her in any Point or parte from her Communion If you thinke it impossible not to sorsake her Communion in case she fall into Errours not fundamentall and yet belieue that you must not forsake her which is a plain Contradiction there remaines only this true and solid remedy against such an inextricable perplexity that you belieue her to be infallible in all Points be they Fundamentall or not FundameÌ„tall which is a certaine Truth and followes from the very Principles of Protestants that the Church cannot erre in Fundamentalls if they vnderstand themselves though you be loath to grant this so necessary a Truth Yea my inference that you must belieue the Church to be infallible in all Points even not Fundamentall if you belieue her to be infallible in Fundamentalls is your owne Assertion P. 148. N. 36. Where you expressly grant that vnless the Church were infallible in all things we could not rationally belieue her for her owne sake and vpon her owne word and Authority in any thing For an Authority subject to errour can be no firme or stable foundation of my beliefe in any thing And if it were in any thing then this Authority being one and the same in all proposalls I should haue the same reason to belieue all that I haue to belieue one and therfore must either do vnreasonably in believing any one thing vpon the sole warrant of this Authority or vnreasonably in not believing all things equally warranted 127. You say the Church of Rome was only a Part of the Church vnerring in Fundamentalls before Luther arose But I would know what other Church could be such an vnerring Church except the Roman and such as agreed with her against the Noveltyes which Luther began to preach Certainly there was none such and therfore since Protestants profess that the vniversall Church is infallible we must say it was the Roman togeather with such as were vnited in her Communion This Ground being layd and your maine Objection being retorted against your selfe let vs now examine in particular your other Objections 128. You aske Pag 164. N. 56. Had it not been a damnable sin to â—rofess errours though the errours in themselves were not dâ—mnable Then N. 57. You goe about to proue that it is impossible to adhere to the Roman Church in all things haâ—â—ng no other ground for it but because she is infallible in some things that is in Fundamentalls because in reason no Conclusion can be larger than the Principles on which it is be founded And therfore if I consider what I do and be perswaded that your infallibility is but limited and particular and partiall my adherence vpon this ground cannot possibly be Absolute and vniversall and totall This you confirme with a Dialogue which adds nothing to the reason which now I haue cited in your owne words saue only that it proves at large that which we chiefly desired to be granted That if the Church be believed to be infallible in Fundamentall Articles as Protestants say she is we must belieue her to be infallible in all Points In the end of this Dialogue you say It may be very great imprudence to erre with the Church if the Question be whether we should erre with the present Church or hold true with God Almighty 128. In the N. 60. You say Particular Councells haue bene liberall of their Anathemas which yet were never conceaved infallible And N. 61. For the visible Churches holding it a Point necessary to salvation that we belieue she cannot erre you know no such tenet And N. 62. God in Scripture can better informe vs what are the Limits of the Churches Power then the Church herselfe And N. 63. That some forsaking the Church of Rome haue forsake Fundamentall Truths was not because they forsooke the Church of Rome for els all that haue forsaken that Church should haue done so which we Protestants say they haue not but because they went too far from her It is true say you in the name of Protestants if we sayd there were no danger in being of the Roman Church and there were danger in leaving it it were madness to leaue it But we protest and proclaime the contrary And N. 64. You say It was no errour in the Donatists that they held it possible that the Church from a larger extent might be contracted to a lesser nor that they held it possible to be reduced to Africa But their errour was that they held de factâ— this was done when they had no just ground or reason to do so and so vpon a vaine pretence separated themselves from the Communion of all other parts of the Church And that they required it as a necessary condition to make a man a member of the Church that he should be of their Communion and divide himselfe from all other Communions from which they were divided Which was a condition both vnnecessary and vnlawfull to be required and directly opposite to the Churcheâ— Catholicisme You add morover that Charity Maintayned neither had named those Protestants who held the Church to haue perished for many Ages neither hath proved but only affirmed it to be a Fundamentall errour to hold that the Church militant may possibly be driven out of the world and abolished for a tyme from the face of the earth And N. 65. You say To accuse the Church of some errour in Faith is not to say she lost all Faith but he which is an Heretike in one Article may haue true Faith of other Articles These be your objections which being diverse and of different natures the Reader may not wonder if I be somwhat long in answering them Therefore I 129. Answer In this Question whether it be not wisdome and necessary not to forsake the Church in any one Point if she be supposed infallible in Fundamentall Points we may either speake First of things as they are in themselves or secondly according to the grounds of Protestants or ad hominem or thirdly what we may or ought to inferr vpon some false and impossible supposition as this is that the Church may erre in Points not fundamentall differently from an inference proceeding from a suppofition of a truth or fourthly what may or ought to be chosen at least as minus malum when there intervenes a joynt and inevitable pressure of two or more evills This Advertisment premised 130. I answer to your demand whether it had not been a damnable sin to profess errours though in themselves not damnable that a parte rei and per se loquendo it is damnable to profess any least knowne errour against Faith and for that very cause it is impossible the Church should fall into any errour at all But that I haue proved already that according to the Groundes and words of Protestants it is not damnable to do so if the errour be nor opposite to some Fundamentall Truth and consequently that they ought in all Reason to adhere to the
Church is not only secure but certaine and easy and therfore necessary Thus your mayne Objection is turned against your selfe And then it is further inferred that if it either be no sin or at least a less offense to profess errours than to forsake the Church she may justly exact and injoyne vnder Censures that to which every one is obliged by the Law of God notwithstanding any pretence or supposition of errours For when the Holy Fathers vnanimously agree that it is not possible there can be any just cause to forsake the Church they must suppose that either she cannot fall into any errour which is most true and indeed they suppose it otherwise there could be no difference betweene the vniversall and a particular Church which may fall into errour and so be forsaken or els you must grant that they did not conceiue any eriours could excuse the leaving her Communion And this vnaninâ—ous consent alone were sufficient for Christians to belieue that the profession of errours cannot be so great an evill as separation from the Church is Nevertheless reason it selfe grounded in principles of Faith convinceth the same For in true Divinity it is Fundamentall to the Faith of a Christian not to disbelieue any one point sufficiently proposed as revealed by God as Potter expressly grants and you say further that it is to giue God the ly and therfore to profess as a point of Faith any thing contrary to the beliefe of the Church is to say she erred fundamentally and fell into infidelity as Potter saith every one doth who denyes a Divine Truth sufficiently proposed and consequently to profess that the Church erred is to say that she perished which Potter saith is in the matter and nature of it properly hereticall and so Whosoever saith the Church erred he himselfe by that very saying professes indeed a damnable heresy which is worse than to profess an errour contrary only to a Truth supposed to be not Fundamentall nor necessary and so by your owne confessions though I grant your confessions contradict yourself we proue our intent 123. Besides it is no less evident that it is essentially and Fundamentally evill to disbelieue a truth knowne to be witnessed by God than to profess externally some point which one believes not to be true yea that first must be the ground for which you say it is damnable to profess against ones conscience an errour repugnant to Divine Revelation For if it be not damnable to deny interiourly such a truth much lesse can it be damnable to profess exteriourly only a deniall of that which one believes to be revealed by God For it is to be considered that we speake not of any internall errour but only of the externall profession of an errour not Fundamentall which alone is not so great a sinne as internall Heresy nor so vast a Mischiefe as the inconvenience of Schisme is which is destructiue of the whole Church essentially including communion in profession of one Faith Liturgy c. and necessarily brings with it a deluge of scandall irreligiosity contempt disobedience and in one word vniversitatem malorum and therfore S. Thomas teaches 2.2 Quest 29. Art 2. ad 3. that amongst sins against our neighbour Schisme is the most grievous because it is against the spirituall good of the multitude or community and as Cha Ma saith Part 1. Pag 156. N. 6. As there is as great difference betweene the crime of rebellion or sedition and debates among private men as there is inequality betwixt one man and a whole kingdome or Common wealth so in the Church Schisme is as much more grievous than sedition in a Kingdome or Common wealth as the spirituall good of soules surpasses the Civill and politicall weale See here the sayings of the Holy Fathers in Charity Maintayned Part 1. Pag 157. N. 70. of the grievousness of Schisme All which is confirmed by what we sayd even now that the profession of an errour in our case cannot so much as hurt a private person who constituted in an invincible perplexity doth not sin by embracing the less evill in the opinion of great Divines with whose Doctrine whosoever conformes his Conscience is certaine not to sin whatsoever the thing be in it selfe 134. Morover it is evident both in reason and by experience that Schisme always brings with it that very thing which you pretend to be so very inconvenient and damnable that is a profession of errours at least not Fundamentall by multiplying diversity of Sects and opinions as we see it happens among Protestants some of whoâ— must be in an errour And S. Hierome saith truly vpon those words of the Apostle which some casting of haue suffered ship wrack in their Faith though Schisme in the beginning may in some sort be vnderstood different from heresy yet there is no Schisme which doth not faine some Heresy to it selfe that so it may seeme to haue departed from the Church vpon good reason And is it not worse both to belieue and profess culpable errours than to belieue aright and faile only in the outward profession of that beliefe The former makes one a formall compleat Heretike both in conscience and judgment of the Church the latter is indeed no Heretike but only appeares so to be neither is he subject to the punishment of Heretiks The former offends in two respects in the beliefe of an errour and profession of it The latter only in profession which alone as I saied cannot be so sinfull as the errour of Heresy it selfe both because the profession is sinfull only by reason of the errour professed as also because by heresy one doubts or denyes some truth revealed by God which is immediatly against Gods supreme Uerity and veracity and so is against an Object of a Theologicall Uertue as S. Thomas saith 2.2 Quest 39. A â— c. Infidelitas est peccatum contra ipsum Deum secundum quod in se est veritas prima cui fides innititur But to profess a knowne errour is only against the precept of professing ones Faith which are distinct thinges and therfore as I sayd a culpable errour is worse than the only profession of an errour If you thinke that such an externall profession is worse than an internall errour because that is against ones conscience you are much mistaken it being certaine that not every sin of dissimulation against ones conscience is greater than any other sin as is cleare of it selfe to every Divine or Philosopher yea the externall sinfull profession of an errour flowes from the Heresy itself which ordinarily is a worse roote than humane feare hope or the like from which an externall false profession or dissimulation is wont to procede and therfore this is less damnable than that even though it were a finne and were not excused by the supposed invincible perplexity as we have Shewed it may be S. Thomas 2.2 Quest 39. Art 2. in corpore teaches that Infidelity ex suo genere is a greater
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
this Objection which he makes to himselfe were clearly impertinent and foolish if he could haue dispatched all by saying we erre in essentiall points which had been an evident and more than a just cause to justify their separation which yet appeares further by his Answer to the sayd Objection That to depart from a particular Church and namely from the Church of Rome in some Doctrines and practises there might be just and necessary cause though the Church of Rome wanted nothing neâ—essary to salvation And afterward in the next P. 76. speaking of the Church of Rome he saith expressly Her Communion we forsake not no more than the Body of Christ wherof we acknowledg the Church of Rome to be a member though corrupted And this cleares vs from the imputation of Schisme whose property it is to cut of from the Body of Christ and the hope of salvation the Church from which it separates But if she did erre in any one Fundamentall point by that very errour she would cease to be a member of the Body of Christ and should be cut of from the hope of salvation therfore she doth not erre in any Fundamentall Point P. 83. we were never disioyned from her the Church of Rome in those maine essentiall truths which giue her the name and essence of a Church You must then say that she erres not in any Fundamentall Point For the essence of a Church cannot consist with any such errour And that it may appeare how desirous he is that it should be believed Catholiks and Protestants not to differ in the essence of Religion he adds these words immediatly after those which we haue last cited wherof if the Mistaker doubt he may be better informed by some late Roman Catholique Writers One of France who hath purposely in a large Treatise proved as be believes the Hugonots and Catholikes of that Kingdome to be all of the same Church and Religion because of the truths agreed vpon by both And another of our Country as it is sayd who hath lately published a large Catalogue of learned Authors both Papists and Protestants who are all of the same mynd Thus you see he ransacks all kind of proofes to shew that Catholikes and Protestants differ not in the substance and essence of Faith and to that end cites for Catholike Writers those two who can be no Catholiks as Charity Maintayned Part 1. Chap 3. Pag 104. shewes the former in particular to be a plaine Heretike or rather Atheist Lucian-like jeasting at all Religion Pag 78. he saith we hope and thinke very well of all those Holy and devout soules which in former Ages lived and dyed in the Church of Rome Nay our Charity reaches further to all those at this day who in simplicity of heart belieue the Roman Religion and professe it To these words of the Doctour if we subsume But it were impossble that any can be saved even by Ignorance or any simplicity of heart if he erre in a Fundamentall point because as by every such errour a Church ceases to be a Church so every particular person ceases to be a member of the true Churchs the Conclusion will be that we do not erre in any Fundamentall point Nay Pag 79. he saith further we belieue it the Roman Religion safe that is by Gods great Mercy not damnable to some such as belieue what they professe But we belieue it not safe but very dangerous if not certainly damnable to such as profess it when they belieue or if their hearts were vpright and not perversely obstinate might belieue the contrary Behold we are not only in a possibility to be saved we are even safe vpon condition we belieue that Faith to be true which we professe and for which we haue suffered so long so great and so many losses in all kinds which if we did vndergoe for extetnall profession of that Faith which we do not inwardly belieue to betrue we should deserue rather to be begged for fooles than persecuted for our Religion In the meane tyme every Catholike hath this comfort that he is safe even by the confession of an Adversary if he be not a foolish dissembler which would be cause of damnation in a Protestant or any other Even the profession of a truth believed to be false is a sin But I returne to say it were impossible for any Roman Catholike to be safe vpon what condition soever if we erre in any one Fundamentall Article of Faith Here I must briefly note that wheras Dr. Potter in the words now alledged saith It is not damnable to some and then to declare who those some are adds such as belieue what they profess Chillingworth Pag 404. N. 29. leaves out the distinction or comma placed betweene some and such and puts it after damnable Thus Not damnable to some such as beleue what they professe which words may signify that it is not safe to all such as belieue what they professe which may much alter the sense of Potters words as the Reader will perceiue by comparing them 149. Now Sir who will not wonder at your so often declaiming against Charity Maintayned for saying Dr Potter taught that the Roman Church doth not erre in Fundamentall Points But what if your selfe say the same It is cleare you do so For wheras Charity Maintayned Part 1. Pag 15. N. 13. saith Since Dr. Potter will be forced to grant that there can be assigned no visible true Church of Christ distinct from the Church of Rome and such Churches as greed with her when Luther first appeared I desire him to declare whether it do not follow that she hath not erred Fundamentally because every such errour destroyes the nature and being of a Church and so our Saviour Christ should haue had no visible Church on Earth To these words which you thought fit to set downe very imperfectly you answer Pag 16 N. 20. In this manner I say in our sense of the word Fundamentall it does follow For if it be true that there was then no Church distinct from the Roman then it must be either because there was no Church at all which we deny or because the Roman Church was the whole Church which we also deny Or because she was a part of the whole which we grant And if she were a true Part of the Church then she retained those truths which were simply necessary to salvation and held no errours which were inevitably and vnpardonably destructiue of it For this is precisely necessary to constitute any man or any Church a member of the Church Catholique In our sense therfore of the word Fuudamentall I hope she erred not Fundamentally But in your sense of the word I feare she did That is she held some thing to be Divine Revelation which was not some thing not to be which was You haue spoken so clearly and fully in favour of the Roman Church and not only affirmed but proved that she did not erre in any Fundamentall
Point that I need not say one word to ponder your words or declare the force of them Pag 7. N. 3. You expressly approue the saying of Dr. Potter That both sides by the confession of both sides agree in more Points then are simply and indispensably necessary to salvation and differ only in such as are not precisely necessary Therfore do we inferr Catholikes belieue all that is necessary to salvation and more But we can never yield so much to you Pag. 85. N. 89. You confesse the Roman Church to be a Part of the Catholique Church And we haue heard you say Pag 16. N. 20. If she were a true Part of the Church then she retained those truths which were simply necessary to salvation and beld no errours which were inevitably and vnpardonably destructiue of it For this is precisely necessary to constitute any man or any Church a member of the Church Catholique This you say and make good the like inference which I made by occasion of Dr. Potters words that the Roman Church is a member of the Catholique and other like Assertions of his Pag 163. N. 56. You say From Scripture we collect our hope that the Truths she the Roman Church retaines and the practise of them may proue an Antiaote to her against the errours which she maintaines in such persons as in simplicity of hart follow this Absalon These Points of Christianity which haue in them the nature of Antidots against the poyson of all sins and errors the Church of Rome though otherwise much corrupted still retaines therfore we hope she erreh not Fundamentally but still remaines a Part of the Church But this can be no warrant to vs to thinke with her in all things Seeing the very same Scripture which puts vs in hope she errs not Fundamentally marke how you professe to learne even out of Scripture that we erre not Fundamentally assures vs that in many things and those of great moment she errs very grievously And these errors though to them that belieue them we hope they will not be pernicious yet the professing of them against conscience could not but bring to vs certaine damnation Therefore the Points in which we differ from Protestants being acknowledged not to be Fundamentall and in other Points professing nothing against our conscience we are safe by your owne Confession If we did not belieue as we profess we were no Roman Catholikes In the same place you say expressly De facto we hope the Roman Church does not erre in Fundamentalls yea you say Lin 33. Perhaps she does not erre damnably the contrary wherof you affirme so often You example of Absalon was very ill applyed to the Roman Church which did not rebell from you but you against the whole Church the Mother of all Christians more sacrilegiously than Absalon behaved himselfe wickedly to wards his father Pag 404. N. 29. you approue Dr. Potters saying Pag 79. which I cited aboue that the Roman Religion is safe that is not damnable to some such as beleeue what they professe And in the same place you say we may hope that she retaines those Truths which are simply absolutely and indispensably necessary to salvatioâ— Pag 401. N. 27 We approue those Fundamentall and simply necessary Truths which you retaine by which some good soules among you may be saved but abhorre your many superstitions and heresyes The Truths you retaine are good and as we hope sufficient to bring good ignorant soules among you to salvation yet are not to be sought for in the conventi le of Papists If any soule may be saved in our Religion it is cleare that we hold not any Fundamentall errour with which no soule can be saved Pag 277. N. 61. you say The simple defect of some Truths prositable only and not simply necessary may consist with salvation Seing therfore you haue so often confessed that we erre not in Fundamentall Points our errours in some Truths profitable only and not fundamentall may consist with salvation How then do you say to Catholiks Pag 401. N. 27. As for our freeing you from damnable Herely and yielding you salvation neither He Dr. Potter nor any other Protestant is guilty of it Pag 219. N. 50. speaking of Protestants you say They doe not disser at all â—n Matters of Faith if you take the word in the highest sense and mâ—ane by Matters of Faith such Doctrines as are adsolutely necessary to salvation to be believed or not to be dâ—â—believed Now you know well that in Points of greatest moment which Catholiks belieue against some Protestants other Protestants stand for vs against their pretended Brethren and therfore you must either say that we belieue all such Doctrines as are absolutely necessary to salvation or that many learned Protestants do not belieue all such Doctrines and consequently are not capable of Salvation Pag Pag 269. N. 45. A man may possibly leaue some opinion or practise of a Church formerly common to himselfe and others and continue still a member of that Church Provided that what he forsakes be not one af those things wherin the essence of the Church consists For this cause you say that although Protestants left the externall Communion of the Church yet they left not the Church because they left her not in any thing essentiall to a Church as Fundamentall Points are Therfore you suppose the Church before Luther did not erre in any Fundamentall Article Otherwise you had left her that is you had disagreed from her in a Fundamentall Point Pag 272. N. 52. and Pag 283. N. 73. You deny that Protestants divided themselves from the Church absolutely and simply in all things that is ceased to be a member of it which still supposes that the Church before Luther believed all essentiall and Fundamentall Points which Protestants also pretend to hold and for that cause say they left not the Church Pag 272. N. 52. You say In the reason of our separation from the externall Communion of your Church you are mistaken For it was not so much because she your Church as because your Churches externall Communion was corrupted and needed Reformation But if we erred in Fundamentall Points Protestants must haue forsaken vs chiefly for that reason that our Church was corrupted with Fundamentall errours of Faith Therfore you grant that we erred not in any such necessary Points Pag 401. N. 26. You confess that Dr Potter saith indeed that our not cutting of your Church from the Body of Christ and hope of salvation frees vs from the imputation of Schisme Pag 133. N. 12. You say expressly By Confession of both sides we agree in much more than is simply and indispensably necessary to salvation It is well you make so open a Confession that we belieue much more than is simply necessary to salvation But as I sayd aboue we will not because we cannot yield so much to you And here I must aske againe How you could say Pag 401. N. 27. As for
our freeing you from damnable Heresy and yielding you salvation neither Dr. Potter nor any other Protestant is guilty of it Seing you say that By the confession of both sides we agree in much more than is simply and indispensably necessary to salvation If we belieue much more then is necessary to salvation by what Logicke will you deduce that we belieue not as much as is necessary 150. These so many and so cleare words of Dr. Potter and yourselfe may justly make any man wonder with what pretence of truth or modesty you could say Pag 280. N. 95. As for your pretence that your errours are confessed not to be Fundamentall it is an affected mistake as I haue often told you And Pag 308. 108. As for your obtruding vpon vs that we belieue the Points of difference not Fundamentall or necessary you haue been often told it is a calumny The oftner the worse it being a saying voyd of all truth and a shamefull calumny in you 151. To these testimonyes of Potter and Chillingworth many other might be allelged out of other Protestants as we haue seene diverse other alledged by Potter Dr. Lawd Pag 299 saith I do aknowledge a Possibility of salvation in the Roman Church But so as that which I grant to Romanists is not as they are Romanists but as they are Christians that is as they beleeve the Creed and hold the foundation Christ himselfe Behold not only a possibility of saluation but also the reason therof because we belieue the Creed c which is the very reason for which Protestants hold that they themselues may be saved though they differ in many Points from one another This I say is the reason of Dr. Lawd which other Protestants must approue though in true Divinity it be of no force at all for though one belieue the Creed and hold the foundation Christ himselfe that is that he is God and Saviour of the world yet if he deny any point evidently delivered in Scripture or otherwise sufficiently propounded as revealed by God he cannot be saved even according to Protestants who therfore doe in this as in many other things speake inconsequently and contradict themselves Pag 376. he sayth The Religion of the Protestants and the Romanists Religion is the same nor do the Church of Rome and the Protestants set vp a different Religion for the Christian ReligioÌ„ is the same to both but they differ in the same Religion Therfore say I we hold no Fundamentall errours wherin whosoever differ cannot be of the same but must be of a different Religion And Pag. 129. The Protestants haue not left the Church of Rome in her Essence not in the things which constitute a Church And P 282. he saith The possibility of salvation in the Roman Church I thinke cannot be denyed aÌ„d in proofe hereof P 281. he alledges Luther Field Jos Hall Geo Abbot Hooker Mornaeus Prideaux Calvin And Dr. Jer Taylor in his Liberty of Prophecying Pag 251. Sect â—0 teaches that we keepe the foundation and belieue many more truths than can be proved to be of simple and originall necessity to Salvation And therfore all the wisest Personages of the adverse party allowed to them possibility of Salvation whilst their errours are not faults of their will but weaknesses and deceptions of the vnderstanding which as I sayd may easily be believed of vs Catholikes who suffer so much for our Religion so that there is nothing in the foundation of Faith that can reasonably hinder them to be permitted The foundation of Faith stands secure enough for all their vaine and vnhandsome superstructures And in particular he shewes that Prayer for the dead and the Doctrine of transubstantiation are not Fundamentall errours and also saieth these two be in stead of the rest Yea he affirmes Pag 258. that there is implied as great difficulty in the Mystery of the B. Trinity as in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and shewes that we are not in any danger of sinning by idolatry in adoring the Sacrament For further satisfaction in this matter the Reader will find the words of learned Protestants in Brierley Tract 2. Sect 14. As That we are of the Church That we are of the family of Iesus Christ a part of the house of God That it was evill done of them who first vrged a separation That we are the Church of God That the Catholike and Reformed make not two but one same Religion agreeing in all principall points of Religion necessary for Salvation That Catholikes and Hugonots are of one Faith and Religion That they are Domestikâ— of Faith and branches of the same viâ—e And Tract 1. Sect 6. Subdiv 1. That Those who live and dy in the Church of Rome may notwithstanding be saved and they are charged by very learned Protestants of ignorance and absurdity who are of the contrary opinion 132. I hope now it appeares that even in the judgment of learned Protestants Catholikes do not erre in points Fundamentall or necessary to salvation and therfore that Luther could not be excused from Schisme in dividing himselfe from all Churches for matters which do not exclude vs from eternall happynesse especially seing they who forsooke vs maintayne errours at least not Fundamentall as Potter Pag 67. plainly confesses and appeares manifestly by the disagreement of Protestants amongst themselves and the agreement of diverse of them with vs even in diverse of those points in which Luther pretended the Church to be corrupted as appeares by what we haue demonstrated heretofore Yet to leaue nothing vntouched I will goe forward not so much because indeed there remaines any Objection of moment against vs as to take away all pretence of cavills as also to take occasion of delivering some Considerations of importance against our Adversaryes 153. Object 15. Although the errours of the Roman Church be not fundamentall in themselves yet they are against Gods Revelation and Command not to deny any least truth testifyed by that supreme Uerity and consequently such errours are damnable and for which the Roman Church might be forsaken 154. Answer First This Objection is not only against the whole Church of Christ which you pretend to haue been corrupted with such errours but also against the Reformers therof seing of Protestants holding contradictoryes some de facto must be in errour wherof Grotius Rivetiani Apologetici Discu P 15. saith Protestantium Confessiones in multis rebus ita dissident vt conciliari nullo modo possint Uidentur autem Genevenses cum Harmoniam Confessionum edidere ita credidisse Harmoniam esse dissidentes Confessiones in vnum Uolumen compingere The Confessions of Faith of Protestants do so disagree that it is impossible they can be reconciled It seemes that they of Geneua when they sett forth the Harmonie of Confessions were of opinion that the Harmonie or agreement of Confessions did consist only in bindeing vp in one Uolume disagreeing Confessions Nay Protestants do further teach that it cannot be otherwise
that is that it is impossible that they can agree in all points Calvin Instit Lib 4. Cap 1. N. 12. speakes plainly Quoniam nemo est qui non c. Because none is free from some cloua of ignorance we must either leaue no Church at all or we must Pardon errours in those things of which men may be ignorant without breach both of the summe or substance of Religion and loss of salvation Marke how this Patriark of Protestants acknowledges that noe Church can be free from errours not Fundamentall Dr. Lawed Sect 38. Pag 360. In things not necessary though they be Divine truths also I confess it were hartily to be wished that men might be all of one minde and one judgment But this can not be hoped for till the Church be Triumphant over all humane frailtyes which here hang thinke and closes about her Whitaker Cont 2. Q. 5. C. 8. It is not needefull that all should thinke the same if such vanity be required there would be noe Church at all Potter Pag 39. It is a great vnity to hope or expect that all learned men in this life should absolutely consent in all the preces and particles of Divine Truth And Pag 69. He expressly confesses that all the weeds are not perfectly taken away in the reformed Church Chilling P. 279. N. 64. the visible Church is free indeed from all errours absolutely destructiue and vnpardonable but not from all errour which in it selfe is damnable Morton Appologie Lib 1.58 only Papists challenge priviledg of not erring And blessed be God who hath placed vs in a Church which vpon evident and necessary Reason challenges that priviledg without which there can be not infallibility in Christian Faith noe vnitie in the Church of which therfore we haue just cause to say with S. Austine Ep 48. wherewith Charity Maintayned ends the second part of his booke Others of the Donatists say we did indeed belieue that it imported nothing in what company we did hold the Faith of Christ But thanks be to our Lord who hath gathered vs from division and hath shewed to vs that it agreeth to one God that he be worshiped in vnity For what a Church is that which is divided even in points of Divine Faith If such errours be sufficient to divide from a Church as Protestants pretend to have parted from vs vpon that ground and without which they must confess themselves to be Schismatikes and that noe Church is free from such errours what followes but that all Churches and all men must be divided from one another and noe one Church be left in the whole world And how can they be excused from Schisme in leaving all Churches for errours which no Church can avoide And who would be a Protestant seing themselves confess that they neither are nor can be free from damnable errours that is errours against Divine Revelation which wil actually bring damnation vpon them that keep themselves in them by their owne voluntary and avoidable fault as you say Pag 279. 64. So as for the Generall effect of damnation they differ not from fundamentall errours which also are pardonable by repentance Beside Pag 220. N. 52. you say by fundamentall we meane all and only that which is necessary and then I hope you will grant that we may safely expect salvation in a Church which hath all things Fundamentall to salvation By which words you must vnderstand all truths necessary because they are revealed by God and commanded and not only things indispensably necessary of themselves because you say one may safely expect salvation if he belieue all things Fundamentall which safety he cannot expect who erres in points revealed though not Fundamentall of themselves seing you teach that all such errours are damnable and in plain termes Pag 133. N. 12. you say their state is dangerous which can not stand with safety therfore by Fundamentall points with the belief of which one may safely expect salvation you must vnderstand all points not only Fundamentall of themselves but such also as are necessary only because revealed And Pag 290. N. 88. you expresly giue those errours of which we speake the name of fundamentall even as one membrum dividens of Fundamentall as the Divisum in these wordes Fundamentall errours may signify either such as are repugnant to Gods command and so in their owne nature damnable though to those which out of invincible ignorance practise them not vnpardonable Or such as are not only meritoriously but remedilessely pernicious and desiructiue of salvation Well now these errours which you acknowledge in the Protestant Church being against Gods Revelation and command must be in their owne nature damnable as you doe not denie but they are so and therfore we say that Luther and his fellows could no more forsake the Roman Church for such errours than they must forsake one an other till they leaue no Church at all and all come to be Independents both in respect of others and even of a mansselfe who must still be forsaking his owne errours against Faith as being damnable in themselves I neede not here repeat what I haue of necessitie often mentioned That scarcely we hold any Article against some Protestants in which we haue not other learned Protestants on our side against their fellows and I hope you will not say that the selfe same errours are even in their owne nature damnable in vs and not in Protestants which were a pretty non-sense and an vnjust partiality therfore I conclude that this Objection is no less against Protestants then vs yea it is vnansweareable by Protestants who confes that really their Church is subject to and actually is stained with such errours which we absolutely denie in respect of the Roman Church and such as agree with her 155. And here you must ponder your wordes Pag 280. N. 95. For Charity Maintayned Part 1. Pag 184. haveing alledged Potters wordes Pag 69. that the weedes are not perfectly taken away among Protestants saith What man of judgement will be a Protestant since that Church is confessedly a corrupted one To this you reply And yet you yourselfe make large discourses in this very Chapter to perswade Protestants to continue in the Church of Rome though supposed to haue some corruptions And why I pray may not a man of judgement continue in the Communion of a Church confessedly corrupted as well as in a Church supposed to be corrupted 156. To this your reply I may answer out of what I sayd aboue How I pray is it all one to make a Supposition acknowledged by him who makes it to be a thing both vntrue and impossible and to speake of a thing so certainly and immoveably true that the contrary is impossible The former case treates of a voluntary supposition which the supposer knowes he may recall or reverse at his pleasure and bring things to the true state in which they really exist and so as I may say all will be mended
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
as an errour not Fundamentall is opposite only to a truht not fundamentall so a fundamentall errour is opposite to a fundamentall Truth And the reason of this is given by Ch Ma in that very place which you cited because according to Philosophy the privation is measured by the forme to which it is repugnant 172. Thus vpon the whole matter it appeares That your affirming our falsely supposed errours to be damnable and so to yield sufficient cause of deserting our Church is turned against all Protestants who confessedly de facto maintayne damnable errours That although our errours were never so damnable in themselves yet they could not be so to vs who are excused by invincible ignorance That Potter and you contradict yourselves in talking of pardon for that which is no sin and That you overthrow your distinction of errours which you say are damnable but not Fundamentall while in the meane tyme you make all damnable errours to be fundamentall and which for that cause if you will speake with consequence must destroy the vnity of Faith and Church and hope of saluation And therfore seing you grant that there was a Church when Luther arose it followes that indeed she was not guilty of any errour even not Fundamentall and that Luther and his followers were formall Schismatiks in leaving her communion vpon a false and impossible supposition or pretence of errours 173. Object 16. Pag 260. N. 22. you speake thus to Charity Maintayned wheras you say That all Divines define Schisme a Division from the true Church and from thence collect that there must be a knowne Church from which it is poâ—sible for men to deparâ— I might very justly question your Antecedent and dâ—sâ—â—e you to consider whether Schisme be not rather or at least be not as well aâ—d vision of the Church as from it A separation not of a Part from the Wâ—ole but of some Parts from the other And if you liked not this Definition I might desire you to informe me in those many Schismes which haue happened in the Church of Rome which of the Parts was the Church and which was divided from it And Pag 271. N. 51. You define Schisme A causeless separation of one Part of the Church from another 174. Answer I haue already sayd enough against this Definition of yours yet because you add an Objection about Schismes in the Church of Rome and because I shall haue also occasion to add somthing to what I sayd aboue I thinke best to answer this Objection here also though by the same occasion it will cost me the labour of repeating some of those things which I haue already delivered If then 175. You haue no certainty in favour of your new Definition but only say why not rather or at least as well c why are you not content with the old one And then why do you object thâ—t which your selfe must answer for the old one But there lyes a snake vnder this smooth grasse and covertly you reach poyson vnder colour of milke Socinians make small account of the Church and Her Authority and would haue such an equality as might giue freedome for every one to follow his one fancy and begin a new Church and when all is done to say They divided not from the Church but one part from another and they themselves being one Part may as well as the other be called the Church and the other be as truly sayd to be divided from them as they from the Church and in a word all must come to be Substantives and independents in matters of Faith and Religion Thus your definition comes to be well connected with your saying That Luther and his fellowes departed not from the Church because still they remained a part of it and they departed not from themselves Thus also you would avoide that vnanswerable Argument of Charity Maint Part 1. Chap 5. N. 35. That seing there was a Division between Luther and that Church which was visible when he arose and that that Church cannot be sayd to haue divided herselfe from him before whose tyme she was and in comparison of whom she was a Whole and he but a part we must say that he divided himselfe and went out of Her Which is to be a Schismatike or Heretique or both Thus you may taxe S. John 2. Jo 19. saying they went out from vs and aske why rather from vs that is from the Church than that they made a Division of the Church dividing one part from another But indeed your glosse cannot agree to S. Johns text For these words They went out of vs do not only signify that there was a Division but that one part went out of a whole and not the contrary And the same Objection you may make against the Text Act 45.24 Some went out from vs. And Act 20.30 Out of you shall arise men speaking perverse things But as I sayd you may easily be confuted by the same reflection which I made vpon S. Johns words These Texts are vrged by Chaâ—ity Maintayned Part 1. Pag 251. to proue that separation from the vniversall Church is a marke of Heresy which he also proves out of Vincentius saying Lib Adversus Haer Cap 34. Who ever began Heresyes who did not first separate himselfe from the vniversality antiquity and consent of the Catholique Church Obserue that he saith from the vniversality of the Church and not a separation or Division of one part of the Church from another The same he proves out of S. Prosper Dimid temp Cap. 5. a Christian communicating with the vniversall Church is a Catholike and he who is divided from Her is an Heretike and Antichrist Behold still a separation from the Church and not a Division of one part of the Church from another And S Ciprian saith Lib de Vâ—â—t Eccles Not we departed from them but they from vs and since Heresyes and Schismes are bredd afterwards while they make to themselves diverse conventicles they haue forsaken the head and origen of truth Doth not this Saint clearly declare that Heretikes and Schismatiks depart from the Church and gives the reason because they haue their beginning after the Church and so the Church departs not from them but they from the Church which is the Argument even now cited out of Charity Maintayned Chap. 5. N. 35. S. Thomas 22. Quest â—9 Ar. Corp defines Schismatiks to be those who willingly and wittingly divide themselves ab vnitate Ecclesiae from the vnity of the Church S Hierome vpon those words Tit
we can be certaine of the fallhood of no Propositions but these only which are damnable Errours For you know that we spoke not of whatsoever truth or falshood but of a Proposition the truth or falshood wherof cannot be knowne by sense or naturall Reason but only by Revelation in which if the vniversall Church may erre for Points not Fundamentall we cannot possibly haue certainty of the truth of them as I haue proved and it is intolerable in you to make this Argument we may be certaine that snow is not blacke nor fire cold therfore we may be certaine of truths which can be knowne only by Revelation for Points in which you say the whole Church of Christ and much more private men may erre 76. To your N. 162. I need only say that a publike and vniversall Authority to decide Controversyes of Faith and interpret Scriptures must be infallible otherwise it might either be disobeyed or els men would be forced to obey exteriourly that which they judge in Conscience to be a damnable Errour as hertofore I haue declared and shewed a large difference betweene a Judge in Civill causes and Controversyes in matters of Faith alledging to that purpose your owne words Pag 59. N. 17. That in Matters of Religion such a Iudge is required whom we should be obliged to belieue to haue judged right So that in Civill Controversyes every honest vnderstanding man is fitt to be a Iudge but in Religion none but he that is infallible And yet so farre you forget yourself as to object to vs in this N. 162. I hope you will not deny but that the Iudges haue Authority to determine criminall and Civill Controversyes and yet I hope you will not say that they are absolutely infallible in their determinations Infallble while they proceed according to Law How then can you distinguish betwene a Judge in Civill and a Judge in Controversyes of Religion vnless you grant not only a conditionall but an absolute infallibility to this latter whereby he is sure never to erre whereas a Judg in Civill matters may erre by not proceeding according to Law If therfore the Propositions which were publikly defended in Oxford that the Church hath Authority to determine Controversyes in Faith and to interpret Scripture be patient of your Explication I can only say that they either say nothing or teach men to dissemble in matters of Faith by obeying the Commandements of the Church against their Conscience I haue read your friend Irenaeus Philalethes Dissertatione de Pace Ecclesiae who teaches that no man ought now after the tyme of the Apostles who were infallible to be punished by Excommunication as long as he followes the dictamen of his Conscience and how do you tell vs that now one may be excommunicated for an errour in Faith Though you admit no infallible Judge to declare the sense of Scripture and that those Texts which seeme evident to some appeare obscure to others as is manifest in the examples which you alledge as evident of our Saviours Passion and Resurection which diverse Heretikes haue either denyed or vnderstood in a different way from the doctrine of Gods Church and yourselfe in particular belieue that his suffering and Death was not the Death and Passion of God and that his Sufferings did not merit and satisfy for mankind and that he remaines in Heaven with a Body of a different nature and Essence from that which he had vpon Earth which is to deny his Resurrection for substance and Death for the fruite therof You say The Doctor who defended the saied Conclusions together with the Article of the Church of England attributeth to the Church nay to particular Churches and I subscribe to his opinion an Authority of determining Controversyes of Faith according to plain and evident Scripture and vniversall Tradition and infallibility while they proceed according to this Rule But how doth this agree with the whole Scope of your Booke that the Bible the Bible the Bible is the only Rule and with your express words heere N. 155. that no vnwritten Doctrine hath attestatten from Tradition truly vniversall Seing beside Scripture you grant a Tradition which you say gives an infallibility to him who proceeds according to it Which shewes that there is some infallible vnwritten word or Tradition You say But what now if I should tell you that in the yeare 1632. among publike Conclusions defended in Doway one was that God predeterminates men to All their Actions I answer That if you will inferr any thing from hence it must only be this that as the Question about Predetermination is not defined by the Church but left to be disputed in Schooles with an express command of our Supreme Pastour that one part do not censure another so if you grant that out of the sayd Propositions defended in Oxford I may inferr that the Scripture alone is not the Rule of Faith or at least that you are not certaine it is so nor can condemne vs Catholikes for holding the contrary if I say you grant this you overthrow that Ground in which alone all Protestants pretend to agree and of which if they be not absolutly certaine the whole structure of their Faith must be ruinous You overlash in supposing we say that the Church cannot erre whether she vse meanes or no. But we are sure that as the Holy Ghost promised Her the End of not erring so also he will not faile to moue Her essectually to vse such meanes as shall be needfull for that End Your N. 163. about a place of S. Austine I haue answered very largly hertofore 77. In your N. 164. you say Why may not the Roman Church be content to be a Part of that visible Church which was extant when Luther began and the Grecian another And if one must be the whole why not the Greeke Church as well as Roman There being not one Note of your Church which agrees not to Her as well as to your owne 78. Answer If you speake of the true Church of Christ in Greece she is so farr from being divided from the Roman that she doth not only agree with but submitts to Her and receives from her Priests ordained in Rome it selfe and brought vp in Catholique Countries The Scismaticall Grecians to their division from the Roman Church haue added Heresy as even Protestants confesse and so are neither the whole Church nor any Church at all it being indeed no lesse than a kind of blasphemy to affirme that Conventicles of Heretikes can be the true Church of Christ Dr Lawde Pag 24. saith of the Errour of the Grecians I know and acknowledge that Errour of denying the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son to be a grievous errour in Divinity And Pag 154. I would faine know what Article of the Faith doth more concerne all Christians in generall than that of Filioque Which Errour of the Grecians hath beene condemned by three Generall Councells in which the Grecians
common Doctrine of Protestants and the supposition If you answer that though there were not the selfe same reason or necessity for the Churches infallibility as for the Apostles which is all that that reason proves and so is a Sophisme a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter as if you should say This Truth is not proved by this particular reason therefore there can be no reason for it yet we cannot doubt but that there is some reason and cause whatsoever it be and therfore you must be content that Scripture declare God Almightyes Will that the Gates of Hell shall not prevaile against the Church in which Promise seing there is no restraint to Fundamentall Points it becomes not you to divide the same sentence into different meanings as they are applyed to the Apostles and as they haue reference to the Church Beside if one would imitate you in determining concerning divine matters according to humane apprehension and discourse he might in your owne Grounds quickly dispatch all and say that seing the errours of the vniversall Church can be only not Fundamentall there is no necessity of having recourse to any for the discovering and correcting them and so you cannot inferr that the Apostles for reforming errours in the Church need be infallible in Points not Fundamentall no more than you say the Church herselfe is Thus Pag 35. N. 7 You say Christians haue and shall haue meanes sufficient to determine not all Controversyes but all necessary to be determined And what Rule will you in your Groundes giue to determine what Points are necessary to be determined except by saying that eo ipso that they are not Fundamentall or not necessary to salvation to be believed they are not necessary to be determined as you say in the same place If some Controversyes may for many Ages be vndetermined and yet in the meane while men may be saved why should or how can the Churches being furnished with effectuall meanes to determine all Controversyes in Religion be necessary to salvation the end itselfe to which these meanes are ordained being as Experience shewes not necessary If then may we say the beliefe of vnfundamentall Points be not necessary to salvation which is the end of our Faith the meanes to beget such a Faith in the Church which you say must be the vniversall infallibility of the Apostles cannot be necessary Which is confirmed by what you say in your Answer to the Direction N. 32. It is not absolutely necessary that God should assist his Church any farther than to bring her to salvation How then can it be necessary in your ground that the Church be assisted for Points not Fundamentall Thus while by your humane discourses you will establish the vniversall infallibility of the Apostles you destroy it as not being necessary for discovering or correcting either Fundamentall errours from which the Church is free or vnfundamentall which are not necessary to be corrected or discovered Morover this very reason of yours proves a necessity of the Churches being vniversally infallible supposing the truth which we proved Chap 2. that Scripture alone containes not evidently and particularly all Points necessary to be believed and that even for those which it containes a Living Judge and Interpreter is necessary For this truth supposed I apply your Argument thus If any fall into errour by a false interpretation of Scripture it may be discovered and corrected by the Church But if the Church may erre to whom shall we haue recourse for correcting her errour And heere incidently I put you in minde of the Argument which you prize so much as to glory that you never could finde any Catholik who was able to answer it that if a particular man or Church may fall into errour and yet remaine a member of the Church vniversall why may not the Church vniversall erre and yet remaine a true Church The Answer I say is easy almost out of your owne words that there is not the same reason for every particular mans or Churches infallibility or security from error as for that of the Catholik Church For if private persons or Churches fall into errour it may be reformed by comparing it with the Decrees and Definitions of the vniversall Church But if the Church may erre to whom shall we haue recourse to correct her error As S. Hierom saieth Lib 1. Comment in Cap 5. Matth Si doctor erraverit à quo alio doctore emendabitur But of this I haue saied enough heretofore Lastly giue me leaue to tell you that in this and other Reasons which we shall examine you do extremely forget yourself and the state of our present Question which is not now whether there be the same reason or necessity for the Churches absolute infallibility as for the Apostles and Scriptures But whether we can proue the vniversall infallibility of the Apostles and not of the Church by the same Text of Scripture which speakes of both in the same manner But let vs heare your other reasons of disparity betweene the Apostles and the Church in Point of infallibility 34. You say in the same N. 30. There is not so much strength required in the Edifice as in the Foundation And if but wise men haue the ordering of the building they will make it much a surer thing that the Foundation shall not faile the building then that the building shall not fall from the Foundation Now the Apostles and Prophets and Canonicall Writers are the Foundation of the Church according to that of S. Paul built vpon the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets therfore their stability in reason ought to be greater than the Churches which is built vpon them 35. Answer Your conclusion therfore their stability in reason ought c shewes that you ground yourselfe on reason not on revelation and on a reason which is not so much as probable For you will not deny but that God might haue communicated absolute infallibility both to the Apostles and to the Church yet to the Church dependently of the preaching of the Apostles and then what would you haue sayd to your owne ground In reason more strength is required in the Foundation than in the Edifice seing in that case both the Foundation and Edifice should haue had an immoveable and firme strength and stability Your reason if you will haue it proue any thing against vs must goe vpon this principle that nothing which depends or which is builded vpon another for its certainty can be absolutely certaine which is a ground evidently false The Conclusion in a demonstratiue Argument is abfolutly certaine and yet depends on Premises The Church is infallible in Fundamentalls and yet in that infallibility is builded vpon the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets The absolute infallibility of the Apostles was builded vpon our B. Saviours Words and even his infallibility as man was builded vpon the infallibility of his God head and yet I hope you will not say that
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
errour and the same Heaven cannot containe them both wherby your Question why should any errour exclude any from the Churches Communion which will not depriue him of eternall salvation Is clearly inverted and retorted by saying Why should not any errour exclude any man from the Churches communion which will depriue him of eternall salvation The Arguments which you bring in this Number and N. 41.42.43 to proue that every one of the foure Gospells containes all points necessary to be believed haue been confuted at large hertofore 19. To your N. 44. and 45. I answer that Dr. Vshers words are as vniversall as can be whÌ„ he speakes of Propositions which without all controversie are vniversally receaved in the whole Christian world And if you will needs haue his other words the sevrrall professions of Christianity that hath any large spread in any part of the world to be a Limitation of those other which you haue now cited I am content vpon condition that you confesse it to be also a contradiction to those former words of his As for the thing itselfe Cha Ma names places of large extent in which the Antitrinitarians are rife and I feare he might haue added too many in England Holland and other places wher Heresy raignes and even Dr. Porter cites Hooker and Morton teaching that the deniall of our Saviours Divinity is not a Fundamentall heresy destructiue of a true Church neither doth the Doctor disproue them Paulus Ueridicus I grant names the B. Trinity among coinopista not as if Dr. Vsher had affirmed it to be such but as in Truth it is necessary for all or rather indeed he affirmes nothing but only as they say exempligratia by way of supposition which abstracts from the Truth of the thing itselfe For thus you cite his words To consider your coinopista or communiter credenda Articles as you call them vniversally believed by these severall professions of Christianity which haue any large spread in the world These Articles for example may be the vnity of the Godhead the Trinity of Persons the Immortality of the soule c Where you see he speakes only exempli gratia or by a may be according to the Doctrine of Catholiks without regarding whether or no in the opinion of Dr. Vsher the denyall of the Trinity exclude salvation But it is both ridiculous and vnjust in you to call this the greatest objection of Charity Maintayned which he touched only by the way and in order to Dr. Vâ—shers words For concerning the thing itselfe Protestants who deny the infallibility of Gods Church will not I feare hold the denyall of the Trinity to be a fuÌ„dameÌ„tall errour seing so many old heretiques haue denied the Truth of that Article and you with your Socinian brethren doe the same at this day and pretend many texts â—f Scripture for your Heresy If 〈◊〉 had at hand Paulus Ueridiâ—us perhaps I could discover somewhâ—t more against you For I remember he shewes how according to Dr. Vshers discourse and grounds divers Articles of Christian Faith may be cassiered and cast out of the Church and he finds so much matter against the Doctor as it is no wonder if he in his short examination tooke no notice of the contradiction which Charity Maintayned touches as he Charity Maintayned takes not notice of all the advantages or other contradictions which perhaps he might haue found and which Paulus Ueridicus observes but that was not the ayme of Ch Ma in his answer to Potter 20. In your N. 46. you say There is no contradiction that the same man at the same time should belieue contradictions Which N. 47. you declare or temper in this manner Indeed that men should not assent to contradictions and that it is vnreasonable to doe soe I willingly grant But to say it is impossible to be done is against every mans experience and almost as vnreasonable as to doe the thing which is saied to be impossible For though perhaps it may be very difficult for a man in his right wits to belieue a contradiction expressed in termes especially if he belieue it to be a contradiction yet for men being cowed and awed by superstition to perswade themselves vpon slight and triviall grounds that these or these though they seeme contradictions yet indeed are not so and so to belieue them or if the plaine repugnance of them be veiled and disguised a little with some empty vnintelligible non-sense distinction or if it be not exprest but implyed not direct but by consequence so that the parties to whose Faith the propositions are offered are either innocently or perhaps affectedly ignorant of the contrariety of them for men in such cases easily to swallow and digest contradictions he that denies it possible must be a meer stranger in the world Thus you after your fashion involuing things in obscurity that one cannot penetrate what you would say but that you may haue an evasion against whatsoever may be obsected As for the thing it selfe There is no doubt but that men may belieue things which in themselves are contradictions wherof we need no other proofe then to shew that it happeneth so to yourselfe if you belieue what you affirme even in this matter wherin I shall demonstrate to be implied plaine contradiction But when men say with one voyce that we cannot assent to contradictions it is to be vnderstood if they be apprehended as such and therfore it might seeme needlesse to spend many words in confutation of this heresie as I may call it against the first principle of Reason Yet because your reasons may perhaps seeme to some to proue more since even in your explication or modification you saie only perhaps and may be of that which all the world holds for certaine and for the ground of all certainty in humane Reason and because if they be well considered they strike at the sublime mysteries of Christian Religion and in regard this is an age of Academiks and Sceptiks who willingly put all things to dispute wherby vnder pretence of freedome in Reason they take liberty against Religion as also to shew how little reason you had to take this vaine occasion of a fond flourish to shew a Socinian wit and lastly because by this occasion I may examine some other points I will both confute your reasons and shew that you contradict yourselfe 21. Only I cannot for beare to reflect how he who resolves Faith into Reason so much extold by him that he relyes theron as Catholiks doe vpon the infallibility of Gods Church or Calvinists vpon the private spirit or on the Grace of God which both Catholiks and Protestants against Pelagius belieue to be necessary for every Act of Divine Faith how I say this man doth now so extenvate Reason that if it indeed were so miserable and foolish as he makes it we might better belieue our dreames than our reason wherby he destroies all that himselfe builds vpon Reason and consequently Faith it selfe which in
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
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
Truth and will be such in despight of Heresie Sophistrie and witt One favour I must acknowledg to receyue from Mr Chillingworth though I owe him no thanks for it that his Contradictions are so frequent as they alone are enough to confute himself Whereof I giue no examples heere in regard they perpetually offer themselves through his whole Book as the Reader will perceyue and if I be not deceived not without wonder that a man so cryed vp by some other should so patently be decryed by himself not vpon any sense of humility but by the fate as I may saie of falshood which cannot be long constant to itself (a) Anastasius Synaita Cap 15. odegou Sunt qui nihil peusi habent etiamsi inconsequenter loquantur aut in praecipitia se ingerant dummodo Adversatijs rectè sentientibus creent molestiam And this must needs appeare credible if we consider that those Books which were first published against him agree in the same judgment of his Contradictions though I am verie certaine they could not borrow their censure from one an other 8. As for the bulk of my Book I must acknowledg that it might haue bene comprised in a lesser compass if I could in wisdom haue measured the conceypts of men by the matter which certainly did oftentimes not require or deserue any Answer But we are debters sapientibus insipientibus to all sorts of persons and many will be apt to Judge and proclaime all that to be vnanswerable which is not actually answered to their hand Nevertheless vpon exact account though Mr Chillingworth answer one Parte only of Charity Maintayned yet you see it is no small volume but is more than three times greater than the Part answered And so one half of Charity Maintayned temaines till this day vnanswered 9. I meddle not with Mr Chillingworths Answer by waie of Preface to a litle Work intituled A Direction to N. N. because presently vpon the publishing of his Book that Preface of his was in such manner confuted by a wittie erudite and solid Book with this Title The judgment of an Vniversity-man concerning Mr William Chillingworth his late Pamphlet in Answer to Charity Maintayned that He was much troubled thereat but yet thought fit to disgest his vexation by silence 10. But the maine Point which I must propose heere and which I confide everie indifferent Reader will finde to be clearely evinced even out of Mr Chillingworths owne words is this That whereas he gives this Title to his Book The Religion of Protestants a safe way to salvation he might and ought in stead thereof either to haue saied The Religion of Protestants not a safe way to salvation Or The Religion of Roman Catholiques a safe way to salvation Or finally Christian Religion not a safe way to salvation For 11. First He confesses that some Protestants must be in errours and proves it because they hold Propositions contradictorie one to an other and besides he teaches that millions of them erre damnably in these words Pag 21. If any Protestant or Papist be betraied into or kept in any Errour by any sinne of his will as it is to be feared many millions are such Errour is as the cause of it sinfull and damnable Yet not exclusiue of all hope of salvation but perdonable if discovered vpon a particular explicite repentance if not discovered vpon a generall and implicite repentance for all sinnes known and vnknowne To which words if we add what he saieth Pag 16. N. 21. The very saying they were pardonable implies they needed pardon and therefore in themselves were damnable The Conclusion will be that the errours of Protestants are damnable in themselves Otherwise they needed no pardon or repentance nor could it be a sinne to he betrayed into or kept in them And Pag 19. and 20. he saieth If they faile to vse such a measure of industry in finding truth as humane prudeÌ„ce and ordinary discretion shall advise them vnto in a matter of such consequence then their errors begin to be malignant and justly imputable as offences aganst God and that loue of his truth which he requires in vs. And he in the same place expresly affirmes that the farre greater parte of Protestants are in this case So that now he sends to Hell the greater parte of Protestants for the errours which they hold and yet makes no scruple to delude them with a verball Mock-Title that the Religion of Protestants is a safe way to salvation But this is not all He saieth Pag 218. N. 49. I would not be so mistaken as if I thought the errours even of some Protestants vnconsiderable things and matters of no moment For the truth is I am very fearefull that some of their opioions either as they are or as they are apt to be mistaken though not of themselves so damnable but that good and holy men may be saved with them yet are too frequent occasions of our remisnes and slacknesse in running the race of Christian Perfection of our deferring Repentance and conversion to God of our frequent relapses into sinne and not seldome of security in sinning and consequently though not certaine causes yet too frequent occasions of menâ— Damnation All these be his express words And how can that Religion be a safe way to salvation which not accidentally but even by the Doctrine thereof gives so frequent occasions of meâ—â— Damnation And Pag 387. N. 4. he grants that Charity Maintayned hath Something that has some probability to perswade some Protestants to forsake some of their opinions or other to leaue their Communion From which words it necessarily followes that all Protestants are in state of sinne and damnation either because they themselves hold errours or by reason they leaue not the Communion of those who hold them And P. 280. N. 95. he saith to vs Though Protestants haue some Errors yet they are not so great as yours which last though it were true as it is most false yet it is impertinent yea it makes against Protestants by granting that theyr errors are damnable though not so damnable as ours and consequently that their Religion cannot be a safe way to salvation And it is to be observed that he writes the saied words that Protestants baue some Errors in conformity to what Dr Potter confesses Pag 69. that errors and corruptions are not perfectly taken away among Protestants nor every where alike And what a safe way can that Sect be which by the Professors and Defenders thereof is confessed to be guilty of Errors against Faith and damnable in themselves He speaks also fully to my purpose when he saieth Pag 306. N. 106. For our continuing in their Communion he speaks of Protestants notwithstanding their errors the justification hereof is not so much that their errours are not damnable As that they require not the belief and profession of these errors among the conditions of their Communion Which excuse of his doth not extenuate but aggravate the
Religion of Protestants to be a safe way to salvation 16. But what if Mr. Chilling worth devest Protestants of that so needfull qualification by ignorance which he denies not to vs I will faithfully relate his words and leaue others to judge what a champion Protestants haue chosen Ch Ma part 1. Cap 5. N. 32. objects to Protestants that their departure from the Roman Church vpon pretence of errour could not be excused seing by leaving her they could not hope to avoide the like vnfundamentall nor be secured from Fundamentall errors To this Mr. Chillingworth Pag 290. N. 87. answers that Protestants are so farre from acknowledging that they haue no hope to avoide errors of the like nature and quality with ours which he confesses to be vnfundamentall that they proclaime to all the world that it is most easy and proue to so to doe all those that feare God aÌ„d love the Truth and hardly possible for them to doe otherwise without supine negligence and extreame impiety I will not insist here how strange and even ridiculous it is in him to say that it is most prone and easy for Protestants not to fall into errors at least not Fundamentall yea that it is hardly possible for them not to avoide such errours seing they disagree so irreconciliably among themselves and diverse of them fall into those pretended errours which we maintaine against Protestants all which one would think could not happen if it were most prone and easy for Protestants to avoide such errours and hardly possible for them to doe otherwise that is not to avoide them without supine negligence and extreame impiety But that which I saie now is That seing de facto he confesses Protestants to hold errours yea millions even the greater parte of them to be in error by their owne fault as we haue seene aboue it followes that in his judgment they are actually guilty of â—upine negligence and extreame impiety which vices certainly cannot stand with invincible or probable ignorance and so all erring Protestants are excluded from Mr. Chillingworths Excuse or Sanctuary of ignorance 17. Nay what if he hold the errours of Protestants to be vnpardonable Sure I am he saieth Pag 275. N. 58. God is infinitely just tod therefore as it â—â— to be feared will not pardon them who might easily haue come to the knowledg of the Truth and either through pridâ— or obstinacy or negligence would not Now we haue heard him avouch that it is easy for Protestants to come to the knowledg of the Truth and hardly possible for them to doe otherwise without supine negligence and extreame impiety and therefore it is to be feared God will not pardon them even in the opinion of Mr. I hil their selected Advocate though for ends of his owne he thought fit to publish his Book vnder this Title the Religion of Protestants a safe way to salvation 18. I saied in the third place That vnless he confess the Religion of Roman Catholiques to be a safe way to salvation he must not only affirme The Religion of Protestants not to be a safe way but also that Christian Religion is not a safe way to salvation And the Reason is cleare out of what hath bene saied already For seing he holds it not necessary that any Church be free from errours vnfundamentall and that the whole Church before Luther was infected with such errours and that at this day Protestants erre damnably I wonder of what ChristiaÌ„ church he can say with Reason it is a safe way to salvation if he deny it to the Roman Church which he confesses not to erre fundamentally And therefore if any Christian Church be a safe way we are safe even in the Principles of I hil and Potter And what greater security can be desired than when all sides both friends and Adversaries confess our possibility to be saved whereas we cannot with truth giue any such hope to Protestants without Repentance and retractation of their errors (a) Maximus hom 1. in Festo Palchae validis absque dubio uititur privilegijs qui causam de adversarijs assent instrumentis Speciosa victoria est contrariam partem chartulis suis velue proprijs laqueis irretire testimoniorum suorum vocibus confurare aemulum telis suis evincere vt pugnatoris tur argumenta tuis probentur vtilitatibus militare 19. I will say no more by way of Preface but only signify in a word for the Readers necessary knowledg or remembrace that there having bene printed a litle elegant and pithy Treatise with this Title Charity Mistaken with the want whereof Catholikes are vnjustly charged for affirming that Protestancy vnrepented destroies salvation And this Treatise having bene answered by Dr Potter the Doctors Answer was confuted by a Reply intituled Mercy and Truth Or Charity Maintayned by Catholiques To this Reply Mr Chillingworth published an Answer with this Title the Religion of Protestants a safe way to salvation against which diverse litle Treatises were presently put forth as I saied aboue and now I haue endeavoured to answer it at large By Cha Mi I shall hereafter vnderstand Charity Mistaken and by Ch Ma Charity Maintayned I cite the Second Edition of Dr Potters Book and the Oxford Edition of Mr Chillingworths which only I haue or could procure when and where I was to write this Answer and for brevityes sake speak to him as if he were Living As still he lives in his profane Booke and his Booke lives in the vaine esteeme of men who yet preteÌ„d to be ChristiaÌ„s A TABLE OF THE CHAPTERS An Introduction Touching the necessity of Divine Grace for all workes of Christian Piety Pag 1. Chap 1. Christian Faith necessary to Salvation is infallibly true Pag 37. Chap 2. All things necessary to be believed are not in particular evidently contayned in Scripture alone Pag 122. Chap 3. A Confutation of Mr Chillingworths errours against Holy Scripture Pag 279. Chap 4. A Living infallible Judge is necessary for deciding Controversyes in Matters of Faith Pag 352. Chap 5. In what manner and order wee proue the infallibility of the Church Pag 426. Chap 6. About Fundamentall and not Fundamentall Points of Faith Pag 440. Chap 7. Protestants are guilty of the sinne of Schisme Pag 458. Chap 8. Mr Chillingworrths errours concerning Repentance are examined and confuted Pag 596. Chap 9. The answer to the Preface of Charity Maintayned is examined Pag 623. Chap 10. The answer to his first Chapter about the state of the Question and whether amongst men of different Religions one side only can be saved Pag 630. Chap 11. The aÌ„swer to his Second Chapter concerning the meanes whereby the revealed Truths of God are conveyed to our vnderstanding and which must determine Controversyes in Faith and Religion Pag 648. Chap 12. The answer to his third Chapter about Fundamentall and not Fundamentall Points Pag 707. Chap 13. That the Creed contaynes not all Points necessary to be believed in answer to
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
him Philip. 2.17.18 But if I be immolated vpon the sacrifice and seruice of your Faith I rejoyce and congratulate with you all And the selfesame thing doe you also rejoyce and congratulate with me What great sacrifice seruice or obedience is a faith only probable and necessarily inferrd from probable Premises 16. Morouer that Faith doth not necessitate our vnderstanding but is free and voluntary euen quoad specificationem as Diuines speake that is in such manner as it is in our will to belieue the contrary of what we belieue by Faith and for that cause requires Gods particular assistāce and a pious affection in the will and a submitting or captiuating of our vnderstanding is gathered out of diuine Scriptures that vpon the same preaching of the Ghospel some belieued and some belieued not as we reade Act. 17.32.34 Certaine mocked but certaine sayd we will heare thee againe concerning this poynt But certaine men joyning vnto him did belieue Marc 16.15.16 Going into the whole world preach the Ghospell to all creatures He that belieueth ād is baptized shall be saued but he that belieueth not shall be condemned V. 14. he exprobated their incredulity Which shewes that jnfidelity is a sinne and sinne supposeth liberty to the contrary Rom. 10.16 But all do not obey the Ghospel This supposeth that some belieue not and that some other belieue and in belieuing exercise a free Act of obedience Gen. 15. Abrahā belieued God and it was reputed to him vnto justice Heb. 11. it is sayd that God prepared for the Fathers an euerlasting citty and that they got a repromission by Faith Ioan. 20. Blessed are they who haue not seene and haue belieued Luc. 2. Blessed art thou who hast belieued But a meritorious act or deserving such prayses must be free Now Chillingworths faith is such as necessitates the vnderstanding to assent at least that it cannot assent to the contrary as hath bene shewed Therfor his Faith is not that Christian belief which Holy Scripture commands that is a free Assent captiuating our vnderstanding and raysing it aboue all the Motiues of Credibility or Probability and consequently absolutly certaine and infallible wherby we voluntarily submit and perfectly subject our soule to God and his supreme authority For wheras we may distinguish foure sorts of Knowledg wherof the First is Experimentall or of senses 2. Scientificall 3. Humane Faith 4. Diuine Faith Man ought to be subject to God by a voluntary knowledg and such the first and second sort is not The third is imperfect as the authority on which it relyes is subject to errour The fourth then remaynes as it were Religion or highest worship called latria or the greatest submission wherby the will perfectly subject vnto God subjecteth vnto him the other powers which are subordinate vnto it selfe and it is great impiety to belieue that God hath not enabled Christians to offer to theyr creatour and Redeemer a seruice or Obedience connaturall to the Diuine Autority Perfection and Testimony 17. This reason drawen from Obedience exercised in the act of Christian Faith is further enforced thus The command of the will or Pious affection which Diuines require in Faith produceth in the vnderstanding a more firme assent than would be produced without (a) Vide Card Lugo de Fide Disp 10. Sect. 2. N. 19. it as we see by experience that men obstinate in errour or strongly affected to some truth produce by theyr will a more firme assent than otherwise it would haue bene yea the command of the will affection passion and the like moue men to assent to that vnto which otherwise they would not assent or from which perhaps they would dissent Therfor seing the will can moue the vnderstanding to produce the substance of an act much more may it determine vs to produce more degrees of assent or dissent than otherwise it would Although therfor it were granted that a Conclusion formally as such can haue no greater strength than it receyues from the Premises yet the same conclusion or object taken materially may receyue greater strength from some other cause than it did receyue from the Premises as such as the same materiall truth which being inferred from probable Premises is only probable may grow to be certaine if it be deduced from demonstratiue arguments Therfore Chillingworths ground that the Assent of Faith being a Conclusion drawne from probable Premises can be noe more than probable is either false if it be vnderstood that by no other meanes it can be made more than probable or impertinent if he meane that it cannot exceede probability precisely and formally as it is a Conclusion inferd from probable Premises it being sufficient for our purpose that it be improued to a certainty by some other meanes Yea since he grants that our Assent of Faith receyues from the Arguments of Credibility the highest degree of probability and that indeed it receyues a further perfection from the Pious Affection and prudent command of the will we must conclude that it is raised aboue the highest degree of a probable to a certaine Assent Which yet is more and more euinced by this following consideration 18. It is impossible that Christian Faith can retaine the highest degree of probability as Chilling pretends if it haue no greater perfection than it receyues from the sole probable Arguments of Credibility Therfor we must find some other ground on which Christian Faith relyes than meerly such arguments The antecedent I proue thus For to omit what some perhaps will say that at least the Assent of Faith which he sayth is a Conclusion is not so probable as the Premises on which it depends and so is not probable in the highest degree although it were granted that the Motiues of Credibility considered alone may mooue the vnderstanding to the highest degree of probability and such as one cannot entertayne without a prudent doubt of the contrary yet if they be compard and confronted with very great difficultyes objected against them by reason that the Mysteryes of Christian Faith which really are superiour and seemingly are contrary to naturall Reason and Philosophy that supposed highest pitch of probability must needs be abated and lessened and come to some lower than the highest As althongh the will do necessarily loue an object which appeares good when it attends not to any reason or formality of some euill neuerthelesse it is not necessarily carryed to loue that object when it perceyueth any euill therin so the vnderstanding so long as truth is proposd without any thing offered to the contrary necessarily or easily yelds assent but if contrary difficultyes be represented it is apt to pause and consider and perhaps doubt or feare and must needs fall somwhat from its former confidence adhesion and assent if it be left to it selfe and not assisted with greater strength than can arise from meere probabilityes encountred and balanced with contrary seeming strong reasons And as Chilling speaking to Catholiques sayth Pag. 113.
who may either see by this the disposition of the man and his contradiction to himselfe or gather how the infallibility of Faith is as it were the naturall sense of Christians since he who so much impugnes it cannot chuse but make ashew of defending it Pag. 410. he sayth For Arguments tending to proue an impossibility of all Diuine supernaturall jnfallible Faith and Religion I assure my selfe that if you were ten tymes more a spider than you are you could suck no such poyson from them My hart I am sure is innocent of any such intention and the searcher of all harts knowes that I had no other end in writing this Booke but to confirme to the vttermost of my ability the truth of the Diuine and jnfallible Religion of our deare lord and Saujour Christ Iesus If this be true surely the Booke which goes vnder his name is supposititious or a changeling telling vs that the Conclusion followes the weaker of the Premises of which one is but probable wheras now you heare him auouching that Christian Faith and Religion is supernaturall Diuine and infallible To this I will add what he hath Pag 357. N. 38. Certainly I know and with all your Sophistry you cannot make me doubt of what I know that I doe belieue the Gospel of Christ as it is deliuered in the vn loubted Books of Canonicall Scripture as verily as that it is now day that I see the light that I am now writing and I belieue it vpon this Motiue because I conceyue it sufficiently aboundantly superabundantly prooued to be Diuine Reuelation And yet in this I do not depend vpon any succession of men that haue always belieued it without any mixture of Errour nay I am fully perswaded there hath bene no such succession and yet do not find my selfe any way weakned in my faith by the want of it but so fully assured of the truth of it that though an Angell from Heauen should gainsay it or any part of it I perswade my selfe that I should not be mooued This I say and this I am sure is true The Reader may make of those words as verily as that it is now day That I see the sight c What he pleases I will only say that if Christian Faith be only probable it is either foolery or hypocrify in him to tell the world that he would not be mooued though an Angell from Heauen should gainsay it or any part of it For who would not sooner belieue an Angell from Heauen than the confessed fallible testimonyes of men on earth And therefore if he speake as he thinkes he must either acknowledg Christian 〈…〉 be infallible and so no authority gainsaying it can be by liued or else he cannot avoyde a non sense in preferring 〈…〉 probability before an Angell from Heauen 40. Whatsoeuer his words and Doâ—â—â—â— be against the infallibility of Faith I am sure that in deeds none doth bring better proofe for it than hee by pleading against it with Reasons and Arguments which may be so clearly answered as that euery one cannot but giue sentence for the Possession of Diuine infallible Faith seing no new Argument of worth or weight is produced to impugne it 41 That I may not seeme only to say and not proue this I must craue pardon if in answering his Objections I may perhaps seeme long and might justly be censured for tedious vnless my desire and intention were not only to answer but by Gods holy assistence to confute and retort his Arguments and so proue the Truth as also incidently to treate some materiall poynts which will offer themselues by occasion of his Objections and for themselues should not haue bene omitted And so I hope this length will bring with it a fourfold commodity This being done Christian Faith will keepe its Right to infallibility without any other positiue Reason to proue it though I haue brought diuerse and many more might be alledged and some who are sayd to cry vp Chillingworths Arguments will I hope see how flat and low they will be found to lye by being impartially considered and duly examined 42. His first and chiefest Objection which only hath any shew of dissiculty namely that The Motiues of Credibility being only probable Faith it selfe cannot be certaine he tooke from Catholike Diuines but dissembled their Answers and wanted humility to captiuate his vnderstanding vnto the obedience of Faith as they did and all good Christians ought to doe though neuer so many difficultyes should offer themselues to the contrary But this Objection I haue answered at large and turned it vpon himselfe in seuerall wayes and occasions needless to be repeated and therfor I come to his other Objection 43. Object 2. pag. 326. N. 4. Euery text of Scripture which makes mention of any that were weake or of any that were strong in Faith of any that were of little or any that were of great faith of any that abounded or any that were rich in Faith of increasing growing rooting grounding establishing confirming in Faith Euery such text is a demonstratiue refutation of this vaine fancy prouing that Faith euen true and sauing Faith is not a thing consisting in such an indiuisible point of perfection as you make it but capable of augmentation and diminution Euery prayer to God to increase your Faith or if you conceyue such a prayer derogatory from the perfection of your Faith the Apostles praying to Christ to increase their Faith is a conuincing argument of the same conclusion 44. Answer Not to take notice of his improper speach of augmentation and diminution in Faith which are appropriated to Quantity as intension and remission are propertyes of Quality the grouud and supposition on which this whole objection goes is manifestly vntrue namely that we make Faith to be a thing consisting in an indiuisible point of perfection wheras all Catholike Diuines teach that it hath degrees of perfection and intension no less then Hope and Charity and that de facto it receyues increase by euery meritorious act togeather with justifying Grace The Holy Councell of Trent Sess 6. C. 10. gives this Title to that Chapter Of the merease of justification already receiued c. And concludes it with these words Hoc justitiae incrementum petit Sancta Ecclesia Dominica 13. post Pentecosten cum orat Da nobis Domine Fidei Spei Caritatis augmentum This increase of justice the Holy Church doth ask when she prayes Giue vs ô Lord increase of Faith Hope and Charity You see we thinke it not derogatory from the perfection of our Faith as you are pleased to speake to pray for increase therof Who is ignorant that in Qualityes We are to distinguish between their essence which consists as it were in an indiuisible poynt and degrees of intension which may be increased within the compass of the same Essence otherwise it were not intension but the production of another Species or Essence as we experience in heate light and
particular motion of Grace which irresistably drawes it Therfor from certainty of Faith we cannot inferr a necessary cooperation of the will or perfection of Charity You preâ—â—â—d to belieue or know wit◠〈…〉 to be obayed in all things and coâ—â—â—equently that the woâ—â—d 〈…〉 ouercome you may know with certainty that the morall 〈…〉 â—ments forbidding Actions repugnant to the light and law of naturaâ—â—eason are to be kept You cannot but know certainly in generall that all sinne is to be auoyded You teach that men euen by euidence of reason are to belieue with infallible certainty that they are firmely to belieue the truth of Christian Religion and consequently that all the commands of that Religion are to be obserued These things I say you belieue or know with certainty and yet I hope you will not grant that you cannot but obey God in all things and so ouercome the world that you cannot but keepe all the morall commandements that you cannot but auoyde all sinne that you cannot but obserue what is commanded in Christian Religion Therfore you must yield that certainty in the vnderstanding doth not inferr a necessity in the will and so still be forced to answer your owne argument 65. In the meane tyme I cannot but note how many damnable Heresyes you here ioyne togeather though contrary one to an other and euen to your selfe For example of Pelagianisme that the will may performe whatsoeuer the vnderstanding certainly iudgeth ought to be done which takes away the necessity of Grace or motion of the Holy Ghost I sayd that the will may performe but wheras you teach further that it must of necessity do so you fall from Pelagianisme to a contrary extreme by taking away Freewill which the very Socinians defend so farr that to make men free they make themselues sacrilegious in denying that God can see the future free Acts of our will 〈◊〉 you take it away in a worse manner than Caluinists doe who conceaue it to be taken away by supernaturall efficacious Grace or by infused justifying Faith but your doctrine must take it away by euery certaine knowledg though it be but naturall or by Historicall fallible Faith and historicall Faith according to Caluinists is common to all Christians And yet in another respect you fall into the very quintessence of Caluinisme and puritanisme that Faith once had can neuer be lost which is against moderate Protestants and yourselfe with Socinians For if Faith necessarily giue vs perfect Charity and the victory ouer the world and sinne Faith it selfe which cannot be lost without sinne is absolutely secured 66. Neither can you answer that your Objection goes not against all Faith but only impugneth an infallible Faith For you grant certainty of faith to diuerse as we haue obserued aboue concerning them who are aduanced to certainty and spirit of obsignation or Confirmation which are as many according to you who liue as they belieue as also 〈…〉 â—postles and those who heard our Sauiour preaching or 〈…〉 miracles yea whosoeuer only belieues or knowes with certainty that there is a God and that he is to be obeyed must of necessity worke according to his knowledg which if he doe he cannot loose the belief of God nor euer become an Atheist which I feare is too much against experieÌ„ce You must also agree with Calvinists in their Doctrine that only Faith justifyes seing as they so you teach that it necessarily brings with it charity and good works And to this same purpose I still vrge your owne assertio concerning those to whom you granta Certainty in Faith and I suppose you will not grant that such men are justifyed by faith only and other Christians by some other meanes V. g. justifyng inherent Grace or with Faith Hope and Charity and therfor you must deny that perfect Charity must necessarily flow from an fallible Faith 67. Sixtly you speake very imperfectly in saying Charing is the effect of Faith if therfor the cause Were terfect the effect would be perfect For the Habit of Charity being infused immediatly by the Holy Ghost is not the effect of Faith or of any Acts of our will no nor of the Acts of Charity it selfe But if you speake of the Acts of Charity they proceede from the Habit of Charity from the particular helpe and assistance of the Holy Ghost and from our will eleuated by such assistance which is freely offered by God and freely accepted by the will but in no wise proceeds necessarily from Faith whose office is only to direct and shew the object without any necessitating influence S. Paule sayth 1. Cor 13.13 The greater of these is Charity and who euer heard that the effect can be more perfect than the cause Or if you say that Faith is not the totall but only a partiall cause of Charity which therfor may be more noble than Faith it selfe then by what logike can you infer that Charity must be perfect because it is the effect of a partiall cause lesse perfect than it selfe Rather according to your discourse joyned with the words of S. Paule that Faith is less perfect than Chatity we must say thus Charity is the effect of Faith and therfor feing the cause is imperfect the effect must be imperfect which is directly opposite to your inference and intent Besides from what Philosophy can you learne that when some cause or condition concurrs to the production of an effect not by it selfe but necessarily requires the company and cooperation of other causes that such a cause or condition can by it selfe alone produce such an effect But let vs suppose Faith to be the cause of Charity and by it selfe alone sufficient for mouing our will to Acts of Charity doth it follow that it must do so irresistibly and in such manner as that it remaine not in the power of our will either to exercise no act at all or to produce a more or lesse perfect one Remember your owne distinction and words to Char Maintayned in your Pag 172. N. 71. That a man mâ—y fall into some errour euen contrary to the truth which is taught him if it be taught him only sufficiently and not irr-sistibly so that he may learne it if be will not so that he must and shall vhâ—ther he will or no. Nâ—w who can a sertaine me that the spirits teaching is not of this nature Or how can you poâ—â—â—y 〈…〉 it with your dâ—â—trâ—ne of free wâ—ll in betiâ—uing if it be â—ot of 〈◊〉 nature And you hauing endeauoured to proue this out of diuerse places of Scripture conclude God may teach and the Church not learne God may lead and the Church be resrachry and not follow 68. Now I retort this Argument and aske why a man may not fall into some errour contrary to the truth which he was taught and which once he belieued and committ some sinne which Faith dictates not to be committed if Faith teach him only sufficiently and not irresistibly and who can
all Now your Objection tends only to proue that a probable faith may be sufficient to sway our will to obedience in respect of other Precepts concerning Workes or Manners all which though we did grant yet such a faith could not be sufficient to salvation which cannot be obtayned without performance of the Precepts both of living well and believing aright 105. Thirdly that a probable belief is not such a faith as we are commanded to haue I haue proved already and it is cleare enough of it self if it be remembred that we are obliged to belieue the Articles of Christian Faith by an Assent immoveable notwithstanding whatsoever temptations impulsions or reasons to the contrary which cannot possibly agree to a probable assent For nothing but Certainty can produce an immobility in the vnderstanding and a prudent settled resolution never to alter for what reason soever and to say the contrary is to turne meere probability into absolute certainty What is more vulgarly knowne than that Probability is essentially the roote of feare least the contrary may be true and involves an aptitude to be changed if better reason present it selfe We may well compare Probability in the vnderstanding with Passions in the Appetite which are a source of prepetuall motion Actiue and Passiue to moue and to be moved Or it is like the humours in our body which destroy it and themselves For Probability by the feare it hath adjoyned is still in actu primo in a disposition and readness to destroy it selfe And we may say Qui sibi nequam est cui bonus erit He that is wicked to himselfe to what other man will he be good If Probability cannot conserue it selfe being left to it selfe how will it encounter with accidentall temptations arising from the Divell World Flesh Passions feares Hope Loue Aversion Obstinacy Animosity Pusillanimity Education and the like If you were to giue a reason of your so many changes in Religion you must referr it to the nature of Probability which in reason must yield to better reason and so Preface N. 5. you profess that your constancy in Religion consisted in following that way to Heaven which for the present seemed most probable And Pag 303. you say of yourself that of a moderate Protestant you turned Papist and the day that you did so you were convicted in conscience that your yesterdayes opinion was an errour That afterward vpon better consideration you became a doubting Papist and of a doubting Papist a confirmed Protestant you might with truth have acknowledged more alterations in Religion than heer you specify as that you passed the second tyme from Protestancy to vs and how then were you a confirmed Protestant And in the same N. 103. Pag 304. That you do not yield your weakness altogeather without apology seeing your deductions were rationall Behold the ground of your alterations Rationall and probable deductions which ground will remayne without end till one be settled by certainty A fearfull state wherin one may yea ought at the houre of death to chang his Religion if seeming better reasons do then present themselves against than he hath for it wherby he may come to dy of no Religion at all Socinians are wont to talk much of Reason of considering and discoursing men But alas what else is Reason or consideration or Discourse destitute of submission to God by an infallible Assent except a perpetuall and incessant offer or a temptation to alter their faith and pull downe their former Religion before they haue tyme to build or resolue of a new one Besides Christian Faith being obscure and evidence the naturall center of our vnderstanding without which it is like a stone violently held from falling no wonder if the strength of Certainty be necessary to beare vs vp aboue the inclination we haue to be placed in the center and light of Evidence wherby it falls out that humane reasons against Faith being connaturall and as it were levell with our vnderstanding are easily and eagerly accepted especially since the Mysteryes of Christian Faith seeme contrary to Reason because indeed they are aboue it 106. Morover if we reflect on the Essicient Cause of your probable faith which I haue proved to be only strength of nature how weake and changeable must it be If Holy Iob could say of Man nunquam in eodem statu permanet he neuer remaynes in the same state Iob 14. V. 2. much more may we say the same of the weakest belief in the soule of man which is meere probability produced by the only forces of him who never remaines in the same state Lamentable experience hath taught vs how many of great witts yea of zeale and piety who stood as Cedars of Libanus and shined like beacons to enlighten others haue fallen into damnable and somtymes even foolish Heresyes though once they believed the contrary Truths and Articles of our Faith with absolute certainty Such is the imbecillity of nature And then what can be expected of a belief which expresly tells it self that it is not certaine and which believes no poynt of faith with certainty except that Faith it self is not certaine Holy Scripture assures vs that he who loves danger shall perish therin Eccli 3. V. 27. It is in every mans power by Divine assistance to arrive to a certaine true belief as I shewed even out of Chillingworth himself and this he is obliged to doe by the immediate Precept of Faith and by the obligation of Charity to ones self which bindes vs to choose the safer part in a matter of so great moment and therfor let no man please himself in a probable Faith and put himself not only in danger but in certainty of perishing by such a weake probable and changeable Assent 107. And now I hope it appeares that the Reason which Chari Maintayned gaue for the infallibility of Christian Faith remaines very good and solide though delivered by him incidently not imagining that any would call in question the certainty of Christian Faith against D. Potter who expressly avouches it and against all Protestants As well might it haue beene expected of Char Maintayned to proue the Mistery of the most Blessed Trinity of the incarnation of the second Divine Person his Death Resurrection and Ascension the eternall reward of Saints in Heaven and punishment of sinners in Hell or any other Article of Christian belief common to Catholiques and Protestants as this truth that Christian Faith is certainly true The truth is that I hill doth so farr dissent from Protestants that I cannot be thought to write against him or to confute any defense he makes for Potter but to handle a new subject and argument against new Heresies which Potter and other Protestants will profess to detest and it were no wonder arguments should chance not to hitt that mark at which they never aymed nor confute those against whom they were never intended Yet in fact this argument which heer you impugne doth rightly proue the
that it is inspired and that it is prositable Therfor as every part of Scripture is inspired so is it also profitable And what an incongruous change of sense were it of the same word All Scripture that is every part of Scripture is inspired and all Scripture that is only the whole body of Scripture is profitable How then will they be able to proue much less to proue evidently that the words All Scripture must be certainly taken in this sense And yet till they doe this they haue done nothing for their purpose 69. Fourthly We must also consider to whom S. Paul avoucheth Scripture to be even profitable Which is not to every vnlearned person but that the man of God may be perfect wherby is to be vnderstood a Doctour and Bishop as Corn a Lapide affirmeth vpon this place and In 1. Timoth Cap 6. V. 11. where S. Timothy is called Homo Dei the man of God proves it out of S. Chrisost and Theodoret that men eminently holy are called men of God as Prophets are so called 4. Reg 1.11 12. Elias is called the man of God and Samuel 1. Reg 9. The like we see Judic 12.6 and 3. Reg 13.1 It is also a title of Kings Princes and Prelates so Moyses Deut 13.1 is called Homo Dei man of God and David 2. Paral 8.14 Now Timothy was a Doctour Bishop and Prince of the Church of Ephesus This is also the interpretation of Beza To those then who are supposed to be already well instructed by other teachers the Scripture is very profitable that is not Scripture alone but joyned with tradition and interpretation of Gods Church A paralel to this of S. Paul All scripture inspired of God is the Text of S. Peter Ep 2. C. 1. 20.21 Vnderstanding this first that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation For not of mans will was prophecy brought at any tyme but the holy men of God spake inspired with the Holy Ghost If Heretiques did confider and practise this primum first that all prophecy is not made by private interpretation For not by mans will c they would not be Heretiques but would see to whom scripture is profitable not to those who will admitt no Guide nor interpretation but their own witt and will to whom it becomes by their only fault not profitable but pernicious as experience tells vs. So far is it from being necessary or sufficient 70. Thus their Chiefest proofes out of scripture being clearly confuted it remaynes demonstrated that they haue no solid proofe that Scripture alone contaynes all things necessary to Salvation But yet let vs alledg some more Arguments to disproue their Tenet 71. Eleaventhly Seing Protestants cannot proue out of scripture that scripture is evident for all necessary poynts this alone is sufficient to overthrow their Assertion and Religion But for the difficulty and obscurity of scripture we haue alledged evident scripture even in a poynt most necessary concerning the Messias in the example of the Eunuch and the Apostles themselves which difficulty is further most clearly testifyed by S. Peter who expressly writes thus 2. Pet 3.15.16 As also our most deare brother Paul according to the wisdome given him hath written to you As also in all Epistles speaking in them of these things in the which are certayne things hard to be vnderstood which the vnlearned and vnstable depraue as also the rest of the scriptures to their owne perditiō In which words I obserue First that as by reason of the hardness of some things in S. Paules Epistles mē did erre so they did erre also in the rest of the scriptures for the same reasō which shewes that other scriptures contayne things hard to be vnderstood Secondly That those mē did erre in necessary poynts seing their errours were cause of their destruction Therfor the scripture is hard and obscure in necessary matters For an errour cannot be damnable vnless the contrary truth be necessary The translatour of the English bible Ann 1600. Preface avoucheth that it is A very hard thing to vnderstand the holy scriptures and that divers errours sects and heresies grow daily for lacke of true knowledg therof Mark that he speaks of matters of moment in which to erre is to fall into Heresy 72. Twelfthly I take an Argument from these your owne words Pag. 54. N. 4. If men did really and sincerly submitt their judgments to Scripture and that only and would require no more of any man but to do so it were impossible but that all Controversies thouching things necessary and very profitable should be ended and if others were continued or increased it were no matter In which words you seeme te extend the sole sufficiency and evidence of scripture to things very profitable For if these be not evidently contayned in scripture how can you say it were impossible but that all controversies touching them should be ended since obscurity or want of evidence is that which produces all Controversyes Besides you say that if Controversyes in things not necessary or not very profitable were continued or increased it were no matter Therfor a contrario sensu it imports that Controversyes about things very profitable be ended But this saying of yours demonstrates how little credit you deserue in affirming all things necessary to be evidently contayned in scripture alone since you teach the same of things very profitable which are so far from being all contayned evidently in scripture that for a convincing Reason for the contrary we need no other proofe then manifest Experience and contentions of Protestants among themselves concerning many poynts which they expressly declare to be of great momēt as for example the Canon of scripture it self and How it is knowē to be the word of God the infallibility of Christiā Faith the Eucharist Predestination Free-will vniversall Grace Repentāce Definition necessity effect of Sacraments Government of the Church and other poynts and yet in Charity whose essentiall Character is to judg and hope the best as you say Pag. 34. N 6. I suppose you will not judg but that all those your brethren at least divers of them do really and sincerely submitt their judgments to scripture and seing it is manifest that they do not agree I see no remedy but that you must confess scripture alone not to be evidēt nor sufficient in all things very profitable If then even according to your owne words aboue recited it import that there be some evidēt ād certaine meanes to end Controversies touching things very profitable and that this cannot be done by scripture alone it must require a living Guide Besides what evident text of scripture can you produce to proue that it alone is evident in all things very profitable And your Reader wil be glad to know what you meane by things very profitable and whether you intend to distinguish them from things profitable and whether your meaning be that scripture alone is cleare for things very profitable but
not for poynts only profitable and if you answer affirmatively then you wil be obliged to informe vs how we may be able to distinguish so evidently between very profitable and only profitable things as that we may certainly know what must be clearly contayned in scripture what not But it is impossible for you to giue any such intelligible solid practicall distinction and therfore you cannot affirme that all very profitable poynts are evident in scripture but not things only profitable Since then you cannot say that al profitable things are evident in scripture for that were to affirme that all scripture is cleare there being nothing revealed by God which is not profitable and yet who will deny but that the scripture is obscure in some poynts you must be content to conclude that all very profitable things are not evidently contayned in scripture And further wheras you joyne togeather things necessary and things very profitable and assigne the selfsame meanes for ending all controversies concerning those two kinds of things which is really and sincerely to submitt their judgments to scripture and that only seing this means will not serue for ending all controversies in things very profitable as I haue shewed it followes that it is not sufficient to end all controversies concerning things necessary And if in things profitable and very profitable that may seeme evident to one which to another may seeme obscure or even vntrue the same also may happen in things necessary in regard that all the Rules and industryes which Protestants assigne for finding the true sense of scripture are no less fallible in things necessary than in things very profitable But whatsoever your opinion be concerning things very profitable or profitable I take thence a strong argument and say 73. 13 Not only for things necessary but for things profitable also there cannot be wanting in Gods Church some meanes to end controversies touching them by declaring them with certainty and infallibility For although if things profitable be taken in particular and severally every one is no more than profitable yet speaking of a Community or a great Misticall body especially such a body as the Church of Christ is instituted by an infinite wisdome and ordayned to the sublime End of Eternall Happyness toward the attayning wherof every little advantage and help is not to be litle esteemed and the privation and want therof or euery errour therin is to be in like proportion avoyded things profitable taken as it were in generall ought in morall consideration to be judged necessary in such a body which otherwise would looke like a man conceyved with his Essence only devested of all accidents and integrant parts or like to his body indued with necessary parts only for example hart and braine without feete hāds eares eyes and other senses And therfor it cannot be imagined but that God hath left meanes in his Church for declaring truths and determining Controversyes in profitable poynts as occasion shall require The scripture of it self is most sacred and effectuall to the conversion of sinners and convincing of Heretikes if it be redd with sobriety and interpreted with submission of our vnderstanding to Gods Church Otherwise Experience shewes that men from it by the fault of men not of it take occasion of implacable and endless contentions without any possibility of remedy till they submitt their judgments and will to some infallible Living Guide For this cause also their Faith and Religion is sterill and barren as being deprived of Gods blessing for the conversion of nations to Christ fortold by the Prophets as a Priviledge of the true Church Thus the very name of Christ preached by some who were out of the Church was not efficacious to the casting out of divells Act. 19.15 yea contrarily the divell so prevayled against them that they fled out of that house naked and wounded V. 16. Even so the scripture out of the Church is neither effectuall for concord among Christians nor for the conversion of Infidels to Christ 74. 14. What I haue sayd about the necessity of profitable things considered as it were in generall and consequently of some meanes to determine controversyes concerning them may be confirmed by a discourse of yours Pag. 9. N. 6. where you say VVe are bound by the loue of God and loue of Truth to be Zealous in the defence of all Truths that are any way profitable Mark any way and not only Very profitable though not simply necessary to salvation Or as if any good man could satisfy his conscience without being so affected and resolved Our Saviour himself having assured vs Matth. 5.19 That he that shall break one of his least Commandements some wherof you pretend are concerning veniall sinnes and consequently the keeping of them not necessary to salvation and shall so teach men shal be called the least in the kingdome of Heaven And Pag 277. N. 61. you teach that God hath promised such an assistance as shall lead vs if we be not wanting to it and ourselves into all not only necessary but very profitable Truth and guard vs from all not only destructiue but also hurtfull errours Which words are directly against yourself whom we haue heard saying That if controversyes touching things not necessary or not very profitable were continued or increased it were no matter Wheras here you say of things any way profitable that by the loue of God and loue of Truth and obligation of conscience and vnder payne of being the least in the kingdome of Heaven that is of being excluded from the kingdome of Heauen according to S. Chrysostome and Theophylact who interpret minimus the least to signify nullus none at all we are bound to be zealous in the defence of them A great zeale indeed to maintayne that if debates concerning them could not be ended but continued or increased it were no matter Do you not through your whole Booke teach that all errours against revealed truths are breaches of Gods command and are in themselves damnable and will effectually proue such if ignorance do not excuse or a generall Repentance do not obtaine pardon for them How then is it no matter if they remayne vndecided or that there be no meanes to decide them Is it no matter whether one by breaking one of Gods commandements be least in the kingdome of Heaven As for your Parenthesis that we pretend some of the commandements to be concerning veniall sins the keeping wherof is not necessary to salvation I say it is either vntrue or impertinent For if you meane that we pretend some errour against any least revealed Truth sufficiently proposed to be a veniall sin it is very vntrue You know that Cha Ma doth teach the contrary through his whole work and theron grounds the maine scope of his Booke That of two disagreeing in Poynts of Faith or Objects revealed by God and sufficiently propounded one committs a deadly sin and without repentance cannot be saved If you meane
only 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
only excused by ignorāce or pardonable by repētance How thē can you say that errours against profitable points are not damnable in themselves and yet that the errours of the Roman Church are such But why do I dispute against you by Argument Heare I pray you your owne words Pag 290. N. 88. where you say Fundamentall errours may signify either such as are repugnant to Gods command and so in their owne nature damnable though to those which out of invincible ignorance practise them not vnpardonable or such as are not only meritoriously but remedilessely pernicious and destructiue of salvation c Behold the reason for which errours are in their nature damnable namely because they are repugnant to Gods command which certainly is common to all errours against Divine Revelation sufficiently proposed whether the matter be in it self great or small Besides it is manifest that scarcely in any matter of moment Protestants do so vnanimously disagree from vs as that divers of them do not hold with vs against their pretended Brethren and therfor if our errours as you call them which are indeed Catholique verities be damnable in themselves their 's also must be such if they be considered in themselves which yourselfe do not deny Pag 306. N. 106. saying For our continuing in their Communion you speake of Protestants erring in some Poynt of Faith notwithstanding their errours the justification hereof is not so much that their errours are not damnable as that they require not the belief and profession of these errours among the conditions of their Communion Wherfor I must returne to conclude that in affirming our errours to be damnable in themselves and so worse than those of Protestants you manifestly contradict yourself and truth even though we should falsely suppose our Church to be stayned with errours And heer I aske how you can say Pag 278. N. 61. without impiety and contrariety to yourselfe that Heresyes not fundamentall do of themselves and immediately damne no man seing you very often profess that to oppose a thing revealed by God and sufficiently proposed for such is a damnable sinne 81. I will end this Poynt with noting an egregious falsification of yours about a passage of Ch Mayntayned in these your words Pag 306. N. 106. directed to Ch Ma A sift falshood is that we daily doe this favour for Protestants you must meane if you speake consequently to judg they haue no errours because we judg they haue none damnable Which the world knowes to be most vntrue Thus you But Ch Ma never sayd nor dreamed that Protestants did judg that their Brethren had no errours because they had none damnahle but his words are these Part 1. Chap. 5. N. 41. Pag 206. If you grant your conscience to be erroneous in judging that you connot be saved in the Roman Church by reason of her errours there is no other remedy but that you must rectify your erring conscience by your other judgment that her errours are not fundamentall nor damnable And this is no more charity then you daily afford to such other Protestants as you terme Brethren whom you cannot deny to be in some errours vnless you will hold that of contradictory propositions both may be true and yet you do not judg it damnable to liue in their communion because you hold their errours not to be fundamentall Thus Ch. Ma And now doth he not expressly suppose affirme and speak oferring Protestants With what modesty then can you say that Char. Ma. would haue them judged to haue no errours and not to separate from their pretended Brethren for such errours as are supposed not to be fundamentall Yea He spoke so clearly of some Protestants their communicating with other of their Brethren notwithstanding their errours that you answer as aboue I haue cited you saying For our continuing in their communion notwithstanding their errours the justification hereof is not so much that their errours are not damnable as that they require not the belief and profession of these errours among the conditions of their communion 82. No less inexcusably do you falsify His words in the same Pag. 306. N. 105. While you alledg as His these words If you erred in thinking that our Church holds errours this errour or erroneous conscience might be rectifyed and deposed by judginge those errours not damnable Which indeed if he had spoken were non-sense but his words are those which I haue cited If you grant your conscience to be erroneous in judging that you cannot be saved in the Roman Church by reason of her errours there it no remedy but that you must rectify your erring conscience by your other judgment that her errours are not fundamentall nor damnable Is this to say that Protestants must judg that our Church hath no errours because the errours are not fundamentall Or is it not directly contrary that though they did suppose her to haue errours yet even that supposition standing they might judg that they might be saved in her communion because her errours are supposed not to be damnable 83. In the meane tyme it is no small comfort to Catholiques that Protestants confess they belieue errours damnable in themselves wheras we Catholikes are infallibly certaine that our Church is not subject to any errour in matter of Faith and though she were yet even by their confession we may be saved by the same meanes by which they can hope for salvation that is Repentance or Ignorance as you every where confess And in particular of our learned men who one would think could not pretend to be excused by ignorance you expressly say heer Pag 305. N. 105. To think that all the learned men of your side are actually convinced of errours in your Church and will not forsake the profession of them this is so great an vncharitableness that I verily belieue Dr. Potter abhors it If our learned men may be excused much more vnlearned persons are very safe and sure to be excused and so all sorts of men in our Church may be saved even by the Principles and Confession of our Adversaryes 84. But now although it ought not to be to my purpose in this occasion to answer at large the particular Instances which you brought to proue that our falfly supposed errours in things profitable may be occasion of danger and damnation Yet least perhaps some vnlearned person may apprehend them to contayne some great difficulty I will touch them briefly The Doctrine of Indulengces say you Pag 9. N. 7. may take away the feare of Purgatory and the Doctrine of Purgatory the feare of Hell But first how can you object to vs as an inconvenience that the doctrine of Indulgences takes away the feare of Purgatory since Protestants denying Purgatory do much more take away all feare of it 2. What harme is there in diminishing in our soule the feare of Purgatory by solid and true meanes approved by Gods Church as fasting prayer pennance Indulgences c Doth not the
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
you say Can we imagine that either they ommitted somthing necessary out of ignorance not knowing it to be necessary Or knowing it to be so maliciously concealed it or out of negligence did the work they had vndertaken by halfes If none of these things can without Blasphemy be imputed to them considering they were assisted by the Holy Ghost in this worke then certainly it most evidently followes that every one of them writt the whole Gospell of Christ I meane all the essentiall and necessary parts of it In which words you do nothing but begg the Question still supposing that the Evangelists were obliged to set downe in writing all necessary Points of Faith which though they knew to be necessary to be believed yet they neither did nor could know that they were necessary to be written which two things you ought to distinguish though it seemes you are resolved never to do so And here also you take vpon you to limit the Gospell to the essentiall and necessary parts of it of which your voluntary restriction I haue already sayd enough 172. But Sr. I cannot chuse but aske you vpon the occasion which here you giue how you can say that ignorance or negligence cannot without blasphemy be imputed to the Evangelists seing Pag. 144. N. 31. you affirme that the Apostles even after the sending of the Holy Ghost were and through inadvertence or prejudice continued for a tyme in an errour repugnant to a revealed truth and against our Saviours express warrant and injunction and Pag. 137. N. 2. you teach that the Church of the Apostles tyme did erre against a revealed truth through prejudice or inadvertence or some other cause which last generall reason gives scope to proceed in blasphemy if once we say that the Apostles were not in all things belonging to Faith directed by the Holy Ghost and for such as you to say that if they could erre by inadvertence prejudice or some other causes it was not impossible but at length one of those other causes might grow to be malice But more of this herafter Now I will only touch that which I noted before how little credit or authority your reasons ought to haue with any judicious person since you acknowledg it to be but probable that every one of the Evangelsts hath written all things necessary and yet you would needs haue your proofes therof to be certaine and evident Thus we haue heard you say Pag. 211.42 Take it as you will this conclusion will certainly follow that all that which S. Iohn wrote in his Gospell was sufficient to make them belieue that which being believed with lively Faith would certainly bring them to eternall life Vrceus institui coepit cur Amphora prodit A probability improved to a certainty by the only strength of confidence And Pag. 93. N. 105. you say that vnless we will blaspheme and accuse the Evangelists either or ignorance or malice or negligence certainly it most evidently follows that every one of them writt the whole Gospell of Christ I meane all the essentiall and necessary parts of it 173. Morover although you pretend to a certainty that S. Luke hath written all necessary Points which you hold only probable for the other three Evangelists yet your reason comes to be the same for all which is that the Evangelists were obliged to write all things necessary or els this which in effect is all one with the former what reasōn can be imagined that they should not write all things necessary and yet set downe many things only profitable For vnless you presuppose this reason which is common to all the Evangelists you haue no ground to affirme that the words of S. Luke all that Jesus began to doe and teach must signify determinately all necessary things as I haue often sayd and so vppon the matter you haue the same reason for all the foure Evangelists which is no more then the same begging of the Question 174. But what need we vse many reasons Our eyes can witness that the Evangelists haue not written all necessary Points of Faith For to omitt that they haue not set downe the matter and forme of Sacraments the forme of Government of the Church the power of inflicting censures and many such Points which cannot be evidently proved out of scripture alone without the assistance of tradition we do not find clearly expressed in S. Matthew the Eternall generation of the Son of God wherwith S. Iohn beginnes his Gospell In the beginning was the word c. S. Mark is silent of the Incarnation of our Lord in the wombe of the B. Virgin by vertue of the Holy Ghost His Birth and all other Mysteryes of his sacred life till his age of thirty yeares S Luke as also S Mark omits the giving power to forgiue sins Ioan. 20. V. 22.23 and Matth. 18. V. 18. which is a chief Article of our Creed I beleeue the remission of sinnes S. Iohn wrote nothing of the Annuntiation Nativity Circumcision Epiphany and Ascension of our Saviour Christ and according to Protestants he speakes not of the Eucharist For they deny that Cap. 6. he speakes of that Sacrament And consequently communion vnder both kinds which they hold to be a Divine precept and therfore necessary to salvation is omitted by him as also our Lords prayer All of them haue omitted in their Gospells that which is expressed Act. 2. about the sending of the Holy Ghost and the Decrees of the Councell of the Apostles Act. 15. wherin amongst other things they declare that it was not necessary to obserue the Mosaicall Law which is a most important and necessary point I haue bene longer in answering this objection as contayning many heads and divers Arguments of the same nature which I thought best not to divide Let vs now see what more you can object 175. Object 3. Pag 93. N. 105. If men cannot vnderstand by scripture enough for their salvation why then doth S. Paul say to Timothy the scriptures are able to make him wise vnto salvation 376. Answer First It is not sayd the scriptures alone are able to make one wise to salvation And if you had dealt honestly and not conceald what went before and after it would haue been cleare that S. Paul speakes not of scripture alone and of what scripture he speakes and how scripture may instruct to salvation which points being well considered it will appeare that this Text is so farr from proving what you intend that it makes against you S. Paul V 14. and 15. saith Tu vero permane c. But thou continue in those things which thou hast learned and are committed to thee knowing of whom thou hast learned and because from thy infancy thou hast knowen the holy scriptures which can instruct thee to salvation by the Faith that is in Christ Iesus In which words S. Paul speakes of things which Timothy had learned of him though out of humility ād modesty he concealed his owne name as
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
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
and didst eate with them And accordingly S. Chrysostome Hom. 24. in Act. Cap. 11. saith Those who were of the circumcision not the Apostles did contend They were offended saith the scripture not a litle and marke vpon what pretense They sayd not why hast thou preacht But why hast thou eaten Neither did they object that of preaching for they knew that it was the gift of God According to which saying even the converted Jewes were not offended with S. Peter for preaching to but for eating with Gentils That before the conversion of Cornelius other Gentils were become Christians Cornel. a Lapide in Act. Cap. 10. post versum 48. affirmes and proves by divers arguments and therfor S. Peter was not ignorant that he and the other Apostles were to preach to the Gentils but he did abstaine from preaching publikly and as it were solemnly to avoide the offence of Jewes converted to Christ till by this heavenly vision he might sweetly aÌ„d effectually perswade them that such was the will of God Thus S. John Chrys Hom 22. in Act Cap 10 saith Because it was so to fall out that they would all accuse Peter as a breaker of the law which was very common with them he sayd necessarily and opportunely I haue never eaten Did he himself feare God forbid But Gods spirit did so direct him that he might haue in readynes a defense against those who would reprehend him c Not ô Lord because I haue never eaten any common or vncleane thing And a voyce came to him That which God hath purifyed do not thou call common This seemed to be spoken to him but indeed it was wholy directed to the Jewes for if the maister S. Peter be blamed much more they that is the Jewes for thinking that it was vnlawfull to eate with Gentils It appeares then that neither S. Peter nor the other Apostles did feare to deale and preach to the Gentils but the Holy Ghost spiritus moderabatur as S. Chrysostome speakes and ordained all for the satisfaction of others 35. But for better vnderstanding this whole matter we are to reflect on three things For we may consider first the eating of Jewes with Gentils 2. Eating meates forbidden to the Jewes 3. preaching to them Now S. Chrysostome as we haue seene observes that the Jewes were offended with S. Peter for eating with Gentils and if we consider as I may say the letter or the most immediate literall sense of the vision made to S. Peter it had respect to the Law of the Jewes to whom certaine meates were forbidden and esteemed vncleane as appeares Chap 10. V. 12. Where in were all fourfooted beasts and that creepe on the earth and foules of the aire and accordingly S. Peter sayd V. 14. I haue never eaten any common or vncleane thing And there is not any thing sayd directly and precisely of preaching to Gentils but at most by consequence because the Apostles could not commonly and constantly preach to them but that they should haue occasion to eate with them or els by way of signification or that vncleane meates in generall did also signify Gentils whom the Jewes esteemed as it were vncleane and irreligious persons Yet preaching and Eating are of their nature different as we may deale with an excommunicate person for his conversion though ordinarily we may not eate with him This being so you cannot affirme that the Apostles did thinke it vnlawfull to preach to the Gentils vnless you do also belieue that they judged Christians converted from Judaisme to be obliged to obserue the whole Law of the Jewes in conformity to the vision presented to S. Peter of all sorts of beasts or meates which the Jewes could not lawfully eate Will you grant this Will you ranke the Apostles with that faction of Pharisees converted to Christ which troubled the most primitiue Church by preaching that the Jewish Law was necessary to salvation even for converted Gentils S. Paul sayth If you be circumfised Christ shall profit you nothing Gal 5. N. 2. And do you thinke that the Apostles were in an errour which must draw vpon them so heauy a doome A Councell was gathered about this matter not that the Apostles could doubt therof but for satisfaction and quiet of Christians and in like manner that vision was shewed to S. Peter not for rectifying any errour of his owne about preaching to Gentils but for pacifying and setling the mynds of Jewes converted to Christianity Haue we not heard you say Pag. 101. N. 127. That it is cleare in Scripture that the observation of the Mosaicall Law is not necessary And therfor it cannot be imagined that the Apostles for whose authority we belieue the scripture could doubt therof Or if you thinke the Apostles might erre about the necessity of observing the Mosaicall Law what certainty can we haue notwithstanding the Definition of that first Councell but that still we may thinke the keeping of Moyses his Law to be necessary you see how much you did exaggerate in saying that the Apostles them selves for a tyme continued in an errour repugnant to a revealed Truth is vnanswerably evident from the story of the acts of the Apostles seing this Story as you will needs vnderstand it doth either proue nothing for your purpose or more than you will grant or is true in itself and so by proving too much you come to proue nothing at all and this only remaynes true That although scripture did containe all necessary truths yet we could not belieue them for such a scripture as you offer vs which certainly could be no Rule of Faith at all 36. Your Third errour for I am willing to reduce them to as small a number as I can though in those which I haue layd togeather in gross many particulars distinct from one another are involved as for example every one of the conditions which you require for infallibility of the writings of the Apostles be so many severall errours Your third errour I say is set downe in the same Pag 144. in the next Number 32. in these words For those things which they profess to deliver as the dictates of humane reason and prudence and not as Divine Revelations why we should take them to be Divine Revelations I see no reason nor how we can do so and not contradict the Apostles and God himself Therfor when S. Paul sayes 1. Epist to the Cor 7.12 To the rest speake I not the Lord And againe concerning Virgins I haue no commandment of the Lord but I deliver my judgment If we wâ—ll pretend that the Lord did certainly speake what S. Paul spake and that his judgment was Gods commandment shall we not plainly contradict S. Paul and that Spirit by which he wrote Which moved him to write as in other places Divine Revelations which he certainly knew to be such so in this place his owne judgment touching some things which God had not particularly revealed vnto him 37. This your doctrine
in the Church they meane not those only of whose Authority there was simply no doubt at all by any man in the Church But such as were not at any tyme doubted of by the whole Church or by all Churches but had attestation though not vnâ—versall yet at least sufficient to make considering men receaue them for Canonicall In which number they may well reckon those Epistles which were sometimes doubted of by some yet whose number and Authority was not so great as to prevaile against the contrary suffrages 47. Nothing could more lively set before our eyes the necessity of believing that Gods Church from which we receaue Holy Scripture is infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost than these your Assertions and pernicious Errours which yet do naturally result from the Opinyons of those Protestants who deservedly laughing at the pretended private spirit of rigid Calvinists and yet denying the infallibility of the Church are driven to such Conclusions as you publish and for which those others had disposed the Premises For if the Scripture be receaved vpon the Authority of the Church considered only as a company of men subject to errour and not as infallibly directed by the Holy Ghost who can blame one for inferring that if those men once doubted of some Bookes of Scripture such books cannot chalenge so firme a belief as others in which all haue alwayes agreed Though even these in which all haue agreed can never arriue to be believed by an infallible assent of Divine Faith while these men though never so many are believed to be fallible 48. But to come to your Errour If it be granted that we belieue some bookes of Scripture more vndoubtedly then other by reason of a greater or less consent and so giue way to more or less in the belief of Gods word we shall soone come to end in nothing For why may not those bookes of which somtyme there was doubt and were afterward receyved for Canonicall in tyme loose some voices or sussrages and by that meanes come to be discanonized You teach that we haue not infallible certainty but only a probability for any part of Scripture how farr then shall we be removed from certainty for those bookes which participate of that probability in a less and less degree The common Doctrine of Protestants is that Scripture became a totall Rule of Faith when the Canon was perfited because they cannot determine with certainty in what particular bookes necessary Points are contayned If then some parts of Canonicall Scripture be more vndoubted than others in case some fundamentall points chance to be set downe only in these others it followes not only that they cannot be so certaine of the Truth of those necessary Points as of other truths not fundamentall or of no necessity at all being considered in themselves but also that they cannot be certaine at all since it is supposed that they do not belieue those bookes with absolute certainty but with a lower degree even of a probable assent Your pretended Bishop of London D. King in the beginning of his first Lecture vpon Jonas sayes comparisons betwixt scripture and scripture are both odious and dangerous The Apostles names are evenly placed in the writings of the holy Fundation With an vnpartiall respect haue the children of Christs family from tyme to tyme receyved reverenced and embraced the whole volume of scriptures Marke that it is both odious and dangerous to make comparisons betwixt scripture and scripture and that the children of Christs family with an vnpartiall respect receyve the whole Volume of scriptures Yourself Pag 68. N. 42. say that the controversy about scripture is not to be tryed by most Voyces and what is the greater number of which we haue heard you speake in the next N. 43. that it was sufficient to prevaile against the contrary suffrages but only most voyces or consent in one judgment seing you attribute infallibility or the certaine direction of the Holy Ghost to no number great or small And as for the greater authority which in the same N. 43. you ascribe to one part more than to another what can it be in your Principles except greater learning or some such kind of Quality nothing proportionable to that authority on which Christian Faith must rely Take away the speciall assistance of the Holy Ghost and few for number even one single person may for waight haue as good reason for what he sayes as a great multitude for the contrary There is scarcely any part of scripture which hath not bene Questioned by so many as would haue made men doubt of the works of Cicero Livie c as we see men doubt of some workes which haue gone vnder the name of Old Authours because for example Erasmus or others haue called them in Question vpon meere conjecturall reasons as seeming difference of Stile or the like If then men haue not presumed to doubt of scripture as they would haue done of other Writings it is because they belieue Gods church to be equally infallible in all that she propounds though some perhaps doubted before such a Proposition or Definition I haue proved that in your grounds we haue greater certainty for what is related in humane storyes then for the contents of the most vndoubted Bookes of scripture What strength then can those Books of scripture haue which you receaue with a less degree of belief 49. You Object Pag 67. N. 36. and 38. Some Saints did once doubt of some parts of scripture therfor we haue no warrant to damne any man that shall doubt of them or deny them now having the example of Saints in Heaven either to justify or excuse their doubting or deniall 50. Answer This very Objection proves the necessity of an infallible Living Judg as will appeare after I haue first told you that by this forme of arguing we may now be saved though we belieue no part of the whole Bible because the tyme was when no part of it was written We may now adhere to many old Heresyes condemned by the whole Church which before such a condemnation or definition Saints might haue held without damnation or sinne We may now reject the Faith of Christ because many were Saints and saved in the Law of Nature and Moyses without it Yourself Pag 280. N. 66. affirme That what may be enough for men in ignorance may be to knowing men not enough That the same errour may be not capitall to those who want meanes of finding the truth and capitall to others who haue meanes and neglect to vse them Howsoever we Catholikes are safe by your owne words since we haue the example of Saints in Heaven and holy Fathers as is confessed even by Protestants for those Practises and Doctrines which you will needs call Errours beside S. Bernard S. Bonaverture and others whom Protestants confess to be Saints in Heaven and therfor by your owne rule you haue no warrant to damne vs having such examples either to justify or
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
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
thither If then we may learne all things necessary to salvation without a writing or Scripture as you grant we may and as all Christians must grant for the tyme before Scripture was written we must say therfor it is not necessary for that end and though it were necessary yet it is not necessary that it be so plaine as every man may vnderstand it by himself seing that end of vnderstanding may be compassed by another meanes which is the Declaration of Gods Church And here I beseech you reflect on your owne words Pag 79. N. 68. That it is altogether abhorrent from the goodnesse of God to suffer an ignorant Laymans soule to perish meercly for being misled by an vndiscernable false Translation which yet was commended to him by the Church which being of necessity to credit some in this matter he had Reason to rely vpon either aboue all other or as much as any other Therfore say I we are to belieue that the Church on which we must relie ought to be infallible that so we may trust her without danger For if her Authority be fallible vncertaine and doubtfull yea if de facto she erred she is liable to your censure Pag 37. N. 20. A doubtfull and Questionable Guide is for mens direction as good as non◠at all 10. But here againe Pag 93. and Pag 94. N. 108. which is put to two § § You object how shall an vnlearned man amongst vs know which is the true Church or what that Church hath decreed seing the Church hath not bene so carefull in keeping of her Decrees but that many are lost and many corrupted and that even the learned among vs are not agreed concerning diverse things whether they be de fide or not Or how shall the vnlearned be more capable of vnderstanding the sense of the Decrees of the Church than of plaine Texts of Scripture especially seing the Decrees of divers Popes and Councells are conceyved so obscurely that the learned cannot agree about the sense of them and are all written in languages which the ignorant vnderstand not and therfor must of necessity rely herein vpon the vncertaine and fallible Authority of fome particular men who informe them that there is such a Decree And if they were translated into vulgar languages why the Translators should not be as fallible as you say the Translatours of the Scripture are who can possibly imagine And N. 109. you say How shall an vnlearned man or indeed any man be assured of the certainty of any Decree seing a Councell depends on a true Pope which he cannot be if he came in by Simony or were not babtized which depends on the due Intention of the Minister or were not rightly ordayned Priest and this againe depends vpon the Ordainers secret Intention and also vpon his having the Episcopall Character 11. This is the summe of what not only you but other Protestants are wont to object and it is the vtmost of your endeavours But will be easily answered by laying this ground That both in this and other Poynts we must distinguish between the certainty of a generall ground or foundation and the certainty of that particular meanes by which we actuate or apply to particular occasions that Generall ground which vnless it be first belieued with certainty cannot haue strength to moue vs to vndertake with resolution and perseverance mattters of great difficulty You say Pag 143. N. 30. There is not so much strength required in the Edisice as in the Foundation And if but wise men haue the ordering of the building they will make it much a sever thing that the foundition shall not faile the building then that the building shall not fall from the Foundation 12. This Truth will better be vnderstood by Examples That we may prudently yield Obedience Piety and Observance and be obliged to doe so towards Magistrates Parents and Superious it is sufficient that we haue a morall and prudent practicall judgment that they are such because that judgment is sufficient to apply the generall ground that Obedience Piety c are due to Magistrates Parents c But if that Generall ground were not certaine as an evident dictamen of Reason but only probable men would not thinke themselves obliged to such dutyes but rather would stand for their liberty by pleading possession and following that other dictamen of Reason Equity and Justice Meliorest conditio possidentis To Hope for the reward promised to the just after this life it is sufficient that we haue good Reason though not certainty that we are just or in the state of Grace But if this generall Principle The just shall be eternally rewarded were not certaine few I feare would be perswaded to preferr a future vncertainty before that which they enjoy certainly and for the present You say Pag 172. N. 71. The Spirit of Truth may teach a man Truth and yet he may fall into some errour even contrary to the truth which is taught him if it be taught him only sufficiently and not irresistibly But if one were not certaine of this generall ground That God of his part teaches every one sufficiently men would not easily thinke themselves obliged or would be induced to vse their best endeavours to learne things which they belieue cannot be learned vnless God alone teach them sufficiently if they had no certainty that they can hope for any such teaching And to come neerer to our purpose If one do verely belieue some particular Poynt to be evidently contained in Scripture who can oblige him to belieue that Point with absolute certainty vnless he first belieue Scripture itself to be the infallible word of God Neither is this enough to make his Assent really infallible though it were supposed to be casually true vnless Scripture were not only believed to be the word of God but that indeed it be so For Infallibility of Assent signifyes two things the one that de facto the thing for the present is true the other that it depends on such constant Causes or Priciples as cannot in any possible case or occasion consist with falshood or vncertainty which could not be verifyed vnless Scripture in truth and reality and not only in opinion or belief be the word of God For though in some one occasion it might chance to speake truth yet in some other it might faile and cause vs to fall into some errour But if we make another kind of supposition That one is told by his Pastour or Prelate whom he might prudently belieue that some Point is contained in Scripture which indeed is so contayned ād he beleeue it as cōtayned in that booke which he believes to be the word of God ād in itself is such and consequently infallible in that case he of whom I spoke may exercise an infallible act of faith though his immediate instructour or proposer be not Infallible because he believes vpon a ground which both is believed to be Infallible and is such indeed
his defence of Hooker teachers the same Doctrine and neither you nor any Protestant in the world can haue any ground to thinke that it is possible to convince them of fal shood in this matter and therfor this vncertainty which you impute to vs falls heavy vpon yourself and other Protestants if indeed they administer Sacraments without such an intention as all Catholikes aÌ„d some chief ProtestaÌ„ts belieue to be necessary 33. Now as for the Doctrine itself of Catholikes about the necessity of Intention it is so reasonable and cleare that it is strang any can call it in Question For I beseech you if a madman or a foole ar a drunken man or an infant or one in his sleepe should chance to cast water vpon one and pronounce the Forme should such an one be baptized or if he were baptized already were such an action of such persons a rebaptizatioÌ„ If one with purpose only to learne the manner of baptizing did practise the pronouncing the words and applying the Matter should that be true Baptisme If one by chance reading or disputing or for some other end should pronounce the words of Consecration out of Scripture and that without his knowlege there should chance to be bread aÌ„d wine with in a morall distaÌ„ce should he consecrate the Eucharist Or are men obliged never to pronounce those words in such occasions as I specifyed least they consecrate whether they will or noâ— Are not these foolish absurdityes If you say and it is all that can be imagined you can say that at least he who pronounces the words must exercise a deliberate humane morall free Action which madmen infants c. nor even men in their wits cannot exercise when they are ignorant of the morall presence of the matter that is to be consecrated but that it is not necessary besides the substance of a morall Action to intend also to administer a Sacrament I answer first This answer evacuates the ground of Heretiks who say That intention is not necessary because the words receive force only from the Will and Institution of God and therfor must not depend vpon the morality of that Action which morality depends vpon the intention of him that pronounces the words to wit that he intend to doe it seriously aÌ„d not in jeast or by way only of pronouncing the materiall words without their signification and so the salvation of soules must depend vpon a secret intention of which we cannot be sure as men exercise many indeliberate actions without any virtuall or actuall inteÌ„tion If for the validity of a Sacrament it be sufficient to exercise a deliberate action without any further reference or Intention one could not without a deadly sin wash an infant already baptized and for devotion say I wash the in the name of the Father c as meÌ„ are woÌ„t to say I doe this in Gods name because according to this answer it would be repabtization 2. I answer if one be supposed to intend the performance of the Sacramentall action for the substance no reason can be imagined why he should not inteÌ„d to doe as others do in such an action for example if the child be brought to be Christened and the Minister deliberately apply water and pronounce the Forme ether can be no cause which can moue him at least not to intend that which there are wont to do in the like case and to thinke the contrary may easily or almost possibly happen argues only in you an excessiue desire to impugne by whatsoever arguments our Catholique Doctrine 34. And here I must of necessity make a diversion rather than a digression and answer some Points to which you referr yourself in this Pag 94. N. 109. in these words All which things as I haue formally proved deâ—end vpon so many vnâ—ertaine suppositions that no human judgment can possibly be resolved in them For although what you pretend to haue bene formally proved hath bene in effect answered already yet I thought sit to examine every point in particular that so the Foundation of your assertions in this place being overthrowne all the superstructions which you and other Protestants are wont to make may evidently appeare false and ruinous and so fall to the ground 35. Cha Ma Part. 1. Chap 2. N. 16. having shewed out of Brierly Tract 1. Sect 10. subd 4. joyned with Tract 2. Chap 2. Sect 10. Subd 2. That the Translations of Scripture made by Luther Zwinglius Oecolampadius and the Divines of Basill Castâ—lio Calvin Beza and Geneva Bibles as also the English Translation are mutually condemned by Protestants themselves respectiue as corrupting the Word of God and the Authors as Antichrists and deceivers Wicked and altogeather differing from the mynd of the Holy Ghost sacrilegious Ethnicall making the Text of the Gospell to leap vp and downe vsing violence to the letter of the Gospell adding to the Text changing the Text deserving either to be purged from those manifold errours which are both in the Text and in the margent or els vtterly to be prohibited in the Translation of the Psalmes in addition substraction and alteration differing from the Truth of the Hebrew in two hundred places at the least and such as is doubtfull whether a man with a safe conscience may subscribe therto depraving the sense obscuring the truth deceiving the ignorant in many places detorting the Scripture from the right sense and that the Translators shew themselves to loue darkness more than light falshood more than truth taking away from the Text adding to the Text to the changing or obscuring of the meaning of the Holy Ghost c. This I say Charity Maintayned having shewed adds these words Let Protestants consider duly these Points Salvation cannot be hoped for without the true Faith Faith according to them relyes vpon Scripture alone Scripture must be delivered to most of them by Translations Translations depend on the skill and honesty of men in whom nothing is more certaine then a most certaine possibility to erre and no greater evidency of truth than that it is evident some of theÌ„ embrace falshood by reason of their contrary Translations What then remayneth but that truth Faith Salvation and all must in them rely vpon a fallible and vncertaine ground How many poore soules are lamentably seduced while from preaching Ministers they admire a multitude of Texts of Divine Scripture but are indeed the false translations and corruptions of erring men Let them therfor if they will be assured of true Scriptures fly to the alwayes visible Church against which the gates of Hell can never so farr prevaile as that she shall be permitted to deceyue the Christian world with false Scriptures 87. Against these words Pag 76. N. 63. you speak in this manner This Objection though it may seeme to do you great service for the present yet I feare you will repent the tyme that ever you vrged it against vs as a fault that we make mens salvation depend vpon
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
most Fundamentall of all Articles in the Church that Iesus Christ the Son of God and the Son of Mary is the only Saviour of the world Surely one of you must be in such a most important and most Fundamentall errour that you cannot both be saved though you were inculpably ignorant of it as we haue seene out of Potter Pag 243. even concerning this particular Article And now I pray you consider this agreement of Protestants in the foresayd Articles of Repentance and Faith in Christ Iesus the Son of God and Saviour of the world which yet you confess to be simply necessary 24. Object 3. In the same Pag 159. N. 52. You say Suppose a man in some disease were prescribed a medicine consisting of twenty ingredients and he advising with Physitians should find them differing in opinion about it some of them telling hem that all the ingredients were absolutly necessary some that only some of them were necessary the rest only profitable and requisite ad melius esse lastly some that some only were necessary some profitable and the rest superfluous yet not hurtfull yet all with one accord agreeing in this that the whole receypt hid in it all things necessary for the recovery of his health and that if he made vse of it he should infallibly find it successfull what wise man would not thinke they agreed sufficiently for his direction to the recovery of his health I ust so these Protestant Doctours with whose discords you make such Tragedyes agreeing in Thesâ— thus far that the Scripture evidently containes all things necessary to salvation and that whosoever believes it and endeavours to find the true sense of it and to conforme his life vnto it shall certainly performe all things necessary to salvation and vndoubtedly be saved what matters it for the divection of men to salvation though they differ in opinion touching what Points are absolutly necessary and what not 25. Answer You Socinians who adore naturall reason and take pleasure in being esteemed considering men are much delighted in proposing similitudes which make a faire shew and may seduce the ignorant but being examined proue nothing against any except yoursel ves First This similitude can proue nothing vnless you begg the Question and suppose one receypt to haue in it all things necessary for the recovery of the diseased mans health that is Scripture to containe all Points necessary to salvation which you know we deny and say you erre in Thesi If with Scripture you would joyne the Tradition and Definitions of the Church your suppositions were true and your parity good Otherwise your receypt cannot haue all necessary ingredients 26. Secondly Suppose the sick man had great reason to belieue that the ground vpon which the Physitians build their opinion and agreement were not good nor such as he had any obligation at all to credit what sick man if he were also wise could judg their agreement to be sufficient for an vndoubted direction to the recovery of his health Heere then as in other severall occasions I must put you in mynd of your doctrine that we are not bound to belieue as an Object of our Faith Scripture to be the word of God but that we may reject it What then availes it me towards the belief of such or such Points that they are evident in Scripture if I do not belieue Scripture itself 27. Thirdly Suppose the ingredients were very soveraine and sufficient in themselves but that it were not in the sick mans power to procure them were the speculatiue agreement of the Physitians sufficient for his recovery So here It is impossible for most men to know all evideÌ„t texts of scripture which yet according to your grounds must make vp that number of Truths wherin one shall be sure to find all Fundamentall Points and so the agreement of Protestants that all necessary Truths are evidently contayned in Scripture is to little purpose since they cannot distinguish them from Points not necessary and for all men to know all Points evident in Scripture but not necessary is impossible and though it were possible yet being not of obligation for any man even though he be learned to know all such Texts defacto he might without sinne be ignorant of necessary Points which he can be certaine to know only by knowing absolutly all cleare places of Scripture and so be damned for want of believing some Point absolutly necessary necessitate medij which is a plaine contradiction that some Points should be necessary to salvation and yet that we are not bound to attaine the knowledg of them or that the End which is the knowledg of such Points should be necessary and the only meanes to attaine it be either impossible or at least not of obligation to any as certainly no man is obliged to know precisely all and every particular evident Text of Scripture which â—et in your way is the only meanes to know all Fundamentall Points as in your example if a sick man were obliged to procure the recovery of his health he must be obliged to make vse of that receypt which alone could be effectuall in order to that end 28. Fourthly Suppose I could not take such a receypt without danger of drinking poyson togeather with the wholsome ingredients your similitude which goes vpon the contrary supposition doth clearely proue nothing Thus it passes in our case Men left to themselves without the Direction and Traditions of the Church yea with direct opposition to her Definitions and Authority cannot chuse but by occasion of reading Scripture alone fall into many errours against some Divine Revelation delivered either in Scripture or by Tradition that is in the written or vnwritten word of God as we see by experience of old and new Heretikes and particularly by the dissensions of Protestants wherof some must needs contradict some Truth delivered in Gods Word either by detracting from or by adding to the true sense therof Now in divets places you affirme that every errour contrary to any revealed Truth is in its owne nature damnable without Repentance and you add Pag 158. N. 52. that for the most part men are betrayed into errours or kâ—â—t in them by their fault or vice or passion And therfore the true Conclusion will be that men presuming to reade and interpret Scripture by their owne wit without dependance on the Church ought to conceaue that they expose themselves to certaine danger of erring against some Divine Truth or Revelation that is to a thing in itself damnable Neither can they hope for any helpe from Sectaryes whom they see infinitly divided among themselves And if they take such men for their Physitians some of them will affirme some ingredients to be necessary or profitable which others will sweare to be ranke poyson and so every Protestant is left to himself and a particular Catalogne of Fundamentalls is necessary for every one All which is strongly confirmed by calling to mynd that even the most learned
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
opinions which still makes it more and more evident that with Sectaryes evidence affects rather their will or fancy than their vnderstanding And here you ought in all reason to apply to the Ancient Fathers and learned Protestants agreeing with vs against their Brethren what you say Pag 40. and 41. N. 13. in favour of Protestants in generall to proue that there is no necessity of damning all those that are of contrary beliefe in these words The contrary belief may be about the sense of some place of Scripture which is ambiguous and with probability capable of diuerse senses and in such cases it is no mervaile and sure no sin if seuerall men go seuerall wayes Also the contrary beliefe may be concerning Points wherin Scripture may with so great probability be alledged on both sides which is a sure note of a Point not necessary that men of honest and vpright hearts true louers of God and of truth such as desire aboue all things to know Gods will and to do it may without any fault at all some goe one way and some another and some and those as good men as either of the former suspend their judgments Now whatsoever you judge of vs yet I hope you will not deny the Ancient Fathers and your owne Protestant Brethren to be so qualifyed as you describe men of honest and vpright hearts true lovers of God and the truth c And therfore seing they vnderstood the word of God as we doe you ought to absolue them yea and vs and conceiue that Luther had no necessary cause to forsake the whole Church for Points maintayned by men of so great quality in all kinds whose authority you cannot deny to be sufficient for making a doctrine probable and for devesting the contrary of certainty and therfore according to Hookers rule they ought to haue suspended their perswasion and they offended against God by troubling the whole Church 57. Neither can you object against the Fathers what you say against vs Pag 280. N. 66. that what may be enough for men in ignorance may be to knowing men not enough c For besides that it is I know not whether more ridiculous or impious to say the Fathers were men in ignorance and the whole Church in errour at least you will not deny but those Protestants who agree with vs are knowing men and haue all the meanes of knowing the truth which other Protestants haue and they being supposed by you I hope to be men of honest and vpright hearts may without any fault at all dissent from their Brethren according to your owne rule And since you must excuse them it were manifest injustice to condemne vs who defend the same doctrine with them 58. Fifthly It is a principle of nature that no private person much lesse a Community and least of all the whole Christian world should be deprived of that good name of which they were once in peaoeable and certaine possession without very cleare and convincing evidence Seing then even Protestants grant that for divers Ages the Church and the Roman Church in particular enjoyed the good Name and Thing of being Orthodox and Pure she cannot be deprived of them without evidence neither can probability or vncertainty be sufficient to forsake her Communion as noxious O of how different a mynd are our Novelists from the Ancient Doctours of Gods Church who against all Heretiks opposed the Tradition and Succession of the Bishops of Rome as Tertuilian the SS Irenaeus Epiphanius Optatus and Austine as Calvin confesses L. 4. Instit C. 3. and thinkes to saue himselfe with this Answer Sect. 3. Cum exrra contoversiam esset c. Seing it was vndoubtedly true that nothing was altered in doctrine from the beginning till that Age they did alledg that which was sufficient to overthrow all new errours namely that they were repugnant to the Doctrine which by vnanimous consent was constantly kept from the very tyme of the Apostles themselves But this Answer can serue only to shew that the Argument of the Fathers against Heretiks was plainly of no force at all For if the Tradition and succession of Bishops in the Church of Rome were not assured of the particular assistāce of the holy Ghost no argument could be taken to proue any doctrine true because it had been taught in that Sea in regard that without such assistance Errour might haue crept in and tradition might haue delivered a falshood Therfore the Fathers alledging the Doctrine of the Roman Church for a Rule to all other must suppose such an assistance without which their adversaryes might haue rejected the Tradition of that Sea with as much facility as the Tradition and Authority of any other And to say the Fathers grounded their Argument meerly vpon matter of fact that de facto the Church of Rome had delivered otherwise than those Heretiks held and thence had inferred the falshood of their Heresyes would haue beene directly petitio principij as if they had sayd The Church of Rome de facto without any certaine assistance of the Holy Ghost holds the contrary of that which you Heretiks teach but that which she holds is true therfore your Doctrine is false For this Minor that which she holds is true had been a meere begging of the Question without any proofe at all and had been no more in effect then if the Fathers had sayd The Doctrine of the Roman Church and our Doctrine which is the same with Hers is true because we suppose it to be true and therfore yours is false Wherfore we must giue glory to God and acknowledg that the Fathers believed that the Roman Church was assisted by the Holy Ghost above other Churches not to fall into errour in matters of Faith and Religion Howsoever let vs take what Calvin grants that at least the Church of Rome conserved the Truth and purity of Faith till the tyme of S. Austine that is between the fourth and fift Age after our Saviour Christ and Heretiks commonly grant that the Church of Rome was pure for the first fiue hundred yeares Now let any man of judgment consider whether it was probable or possible that immediatly after so great purity and Sanctity so huge a deluge of superstitions Idolatryes Heresyes and corruptions could haue flowed into the Church of Rome within the space of one hundred yeares that is till the tyme of S. Gregory the Great without being noted or spoken of or contradicted by any one Especially if we consider that other doctrines which both Protestants and Catholiks profess to be Heresyes were instantly observed impugned and condemned and to say that those only of which they hold vs guilty did passe without observation of any can be judged no better than a voluntary affected foolish fancy I beseech the Protestant Reader for the Eternall good of his owne soule to pause here a little and well ponder this Point Besides S. Gregory himselfe was a most holy learned and Zealous Pastour
in so much that in those respects his Feast is solemnly kept in the Grecian Church and all the Orthodox Bishops of the whole World never ceased to hold their Communion with Him his Predecessours and Successours which they neither would nor could haue done if they had discovered any one and much more if so many and so enormious Errours and corruptions had appeared in that Sea which was not any private obscure and as it were invisible Church but was ever visible and conspicuous and like a beacon to all Nations And therfore what she taught and professed could not be hidden vnder a bushell but being placed vpon a candlesticke did so shine to all that all must needs see it and either contradict which none did or approue it as they did And here we may alledg the saying of King James ad Peron Pag 388. Durst one but lightly corrupt the Faith approovea through the World It was easy for a child to discover the new Maister by his Novelty And the beliefe of truth being found all the Pastours of the whole World if need were were mooved and being moved did not rest till they had removed the ill and provided for the security of the sheepe of Christ How then is it possible that this heape of pretended Errours in the Roman Church could appeare without being discovered till Luther an Apostata from his Faith and Religious Order did sacrilegiously marry a vowed Nunne and in the middest of his shamefull carnall pleasures receaue revelations from the Divell as himselfe doth openly confess Wherfore we must conclude that these Points which Protestants would needs miscall Errours were indeed the Orthodox Doctrines of the Ancient Fathers and whole Church of all precedent Ages of the Possession of which Truths and good Name we ought not to be deprived without most certaine evidence which is impossible for any Heretike so much as pretend to doe with any modesty or shew of truth as I haue proved and will saie more hereafter 59. Sixthly Protestants can proue nothing against vs with evidence but by Scripture alone which is impossible for them to do as I haue shewed at large Chap 2. For seing words are capable of diverse senses it is impossible by the words alâ—â—e to convince that they are vnderstood in such or such a particular determinate sense and not in some other of which they are capable and what is possible for ought we know doth actually happen and Gods free Decrees in this matter of vsing words in some set meaning are not evident either in themselves or are notifyed to vs by any certaine Rule and therfore Protestants cannot with any evidence proue out of Scripture that our doctrine containes any Errour Fundamentall or not Fundamentall And it is well to be considered that the same Arguments which Protestants object against vs now were observed and answered by Catholike Divines before Protestants appeared to the world as they answered objections made against Christian Religion or Catholike Verityes by Pagans Turks Jewes and such Heretiks as Protestants detest and it is therby apparent that they did not dissemble difficultyes but did propose them with no less candor and sincerity than they answered them with truth learning and solidity They alone were the men who opposed themselves murum pro Domo Dei against all the enemyes of Christianity and the world believed that they gaue at that tyme as true solutions of those very objections of old Heretikes which now happen to be made by Protestants as they did to those difficultyes which were vrged against Christian Religion or against Catholique Verityes by old Heretiks whom even Protestants condemne Wherfore to come now and tell the world that the Answers of those Catholike Doctours against some few Points were not solid must needs breed a huge scandall against Christian Religion and Orthodox doctrine impugned by Pagans Jewes Turks and old condemned Heretiks Certaine it is that the enemyes of Christian Religion may object greater difficultyes against Christianity than any Heretike can invent against vs. It is therfore cleare that Protestants can haue no necessary or demonstratiue Argument to proue that the Church hath degenerated into any least falshood in matters concerning Faith and so we must conclude with these words of Hooker cited by Chilling Pag 311. As for the orders established sith equity and reason favour that which is in being till orderly judgment of decision be given against it it is but justice to exact of you and perversnes in you it should be to deny thervnto your willing Obedience Doth not every word of Hooker condemne Luther and his followers Sith equity and reason favour that which is in being and no orderly judgment of decision had been given against the orders which they found established in all Churches it was but justice to exact of them and worse then perversness in them to deny therunto willing obedience and a formall sin of Schisme by such disobedience to forsake the Communion of the whole Church 60. Seventhly As the Roman Church and all Churches of Her Communion could not be despoyled of the Possession they held of being accounted true and pure Churches so also the Pope Bishops and other Prelats and Pastours vnder Him could not without Sacriledge and injustice be disobeyed and deprived of the Right which they did peaceably possesse when Luther first appeared And for the Popes Primacy in particular it is acknowledged by Protestants to haue beene ancient and taught by Holy Fathers even with in the compass of yeares which Protestants admit for Orthodox and by some chief Protestants is held as a thing indifferent yea and profitable And I desire the Reader for his satisfaction in this behalfe to see Brierlyes Index Verbo Peters Primacy and Popes Primacy and turne to the places which there he shall find cited See also Charity Maintayned Pag 1. Cap 3. N. 19. of this matter If then this Point be maintayned by Ancient Fathers if believed and practised in those incorrupt Ages if acknowledged by Protestants for a thing profitable who will so much as pretend any evidence of Scripture or necessary demonstratiue reason against it And consequently who will not inferr that the separation of Protestants from the whole Church was causeless and so according to your owne Memorandum sinfull and Schismaticall 61. Let vs now come to examine your second evasion Pag 265. N. 31. The imposing vpon men vnder paine of Excommunication a necessity of professing knowne Errours and practising knowne corruptions is a sufficient and necessary cause of separation And that this is the cause which Protestants alledg to justify their separation from the Church of Rome But 62. First It is manifest that Protestants departed from the Roman Church voluntarily before they were forced by Excommunication or by any other meanes For they voluntarily professed a Faith contrary to that of the whole Church which most carefully and even sollicitously endeavoured by all meanes possible to reclaime them as appeares in the life
externall communion in Sacraments Liturgy c. vpon pretence of Errours in the Faith and corruptions in the discipline of the Church and were so farr from repenting themselves of such their proceedings or admitting any votum or desire to be vnited with the Church that they held all such repentance to be a sin wherby they certainly exclude themselves from Gods Grace and Charity and so it appeares that by meere Excommunication one is not separated from the Church as a Schismatike is nor is a Schismatike first separated because he is excomunicated but is excommunicated because he is a Schismatike and had been divided from the Church though he had never been excommunicated or though the excommunication were taken away Besides as I touched already it is ridiculous to say that the Church requires as a condition of her Communion the profession of her errours in Faith and externall Communion in Sacraments Liturgy and other publike worship of God For profession of the same Faith and communion in Sacraments c. is the very thing wherin Communion consists or rather is the Communion itselfe and therfore is not an extrinsecall or accidentall condition voluntarily required by the Church or to be conceived as a thing separable from her communion and so you speake as if one should say Profession of the same Faith is a condition required for Communion in profession of the same Faith It was therfore no condition required by vs that made Protestants leaue our Communion but they first left our Communion by their Voluntary proper Act of leaving vs which essentially is incompatible with our Communion This whole matter will appeare more clearly by the next Reason 95. Fourthly Either there was just cause for your separation from the Communion of the Church or there was not If not then by your owne confession you are Schismatiks seing you define Schisme to be a causeless separation in which case the Church may justly impose vnder paine of Excommunication a necessity of your returne and then your Memorandum cannot haue place nor can excuse you from Schisme since such an imposing a necessity would vpon that supposition be both lawfull and necessary If there were just cause for your separation then you had been excused from Schisme though the Church had never imposed vnder payne of Excommunication a necessity of professing knowne errours because you say Schisme is a Causless separation and surely that separation is not causelesse for which there is just cause Wherfore your Memorandum about imposing vpon men a necessity c is both impertinent and incoherent with your first Memordium That not every separation but a causeless separation is the sin of Schisme And yet P. 282. N. 71. you say expressly It is to be observed that the chief part of our defence that you deny your Communion to all that deny or doubt of any part of your doctrine cannot with any colour be imployed against Protestants who grāt their communion to all who hold with them not all things but things necessary that is such as are in Scripture plainly delivered So still you vtter contradictions Wherfore the confessed chife part of your defense being confuted both by evident reason and out of your owne sayings it remaines that you will never be able to acquit yourselfe of Schisme 66. Fiftly How can you maintayne this your Memorandum and not giue full scope to all other Protestants who belieue not all the 39. Articles of the Church of England to be true of whom I am sure you are one to forsake her communion seing she excommunicates all whosoever shall affirme that the 39 Articles are in any parte superstitious or erroneous Is not this the very thing which you say is the cheef part of your defence for your separation from vs O Approbators Is it conforme to the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England to say Her communion may and must be forsaken And with what conscience could you Mr. Chillingworth communicate with English and other Protestants in their publike service corrupted with errours about the Trinity the Creed of S. Athā c as you belieue it is Or why could you not communicate with vs Or how will you excuse Luther who left vs 67. Yet I must not here omitt to obserue some Points First what a thing your Religion is which can so well agree and hold communion with innumerable Sects infinitly differing one from another and yet you conceiue yourselfe to be obliged to parte from vs Catholiks But so it is The false Gods of the Heathens and their Idolaters could handsomly agree amongst themselves but in no wise with the true God and his true worshippers An evident signe that the Catholique Roman Religion is only true and teaches the right worship of God and way to salvation Falshoods may stand togeather but cannot consist with truth 68. Secondly If as you tell vs things necessary be such as are in Scripture plainly deliuered points not Fundamentall of themselves become Fundamentall because they are revealed in Scripture and it is Fundamentall to the Faith of a Christian to belieue all Truths sufficiently proposed as revealed by God as Potter expressly grants Seing then Protestants differ in points which one part verily believes to be plainly delivered in Scripture and consequently in things necessary according to your assertion they cannot grant their communion to those who hold not with them in such necessary points that is in effect in all things wherin they disagree For every one judges his opinions to be plainly delivered in Scripture How then can they be excused from Schisme in their separation from vs while they hold Communion with other Protestants and thinke they may and ought to do so and that in doing otherwise they should be Schismatiks Which Argument still presses them more forcibly if we reflect that many of the most learned Protestants in divers chiefe Articles of Faith stand with vs Catholiks against their pretended Brethren and therfore they must either parte from them or not parte from vs 69. Thirdly it appeares by your express words that they who differ in Points necessary must divide from one another though neither part impose vpon the other a necessity of professing known Errours and since every one thinks his Doctrine to be necessary that is plainly dedelivered in Scripture he cannot communicate with any of a contrary Faith though they do not pretend to impose a necessity c And so your memorandum about imposing a necessity c Which you say is the chiefe part of your defense comes to nothing even by your owne grounds and therfore you haue indeed no defense at all to free yourselves from Schisme 70. Fourthly When we speake of Points of Faith not Fundamentall it is alwayes vnderstood that they be sufficiently proposed and therfore are alwayes Fundamentall per accidens and the contrary Errours certainly damnable and consequently a necessary cause of separation no lesse then Errours against Points Fundamentall of themselves and seing
according to Protestants there can be no damnable Errour against Faith vnless either it be or be esteemed repugnant to some Truth plainly delivered in Scripture which you say is a necessary point the conclusion must be that Protestants differ in necessary Points and therfore according to your owne assertion are obliged to forsake one another without expecting any Imposing a necessity of professing knowne Errours and that this your Memorandum or condition is both impertinent and false or if as I sayd they are not obliged to parte one from another they could not without Schisme depart from vs. 71. Fiftly to come to the Point and strike at the roote Tell me whether you may be seriously present as members of one community and as I may say parts in the Quire with any sort of people in their Liturgy and publike service or worship of God as long as they do not expressly demand of you a profession of those particular Points wherin you disagree If you may then you may joyne yourselfe with Turks Jewes or even Pagans if they exact not of you such a profession which to any Christian must needs appeare most absurd and impious If you cannot communicate with those of a belief different from yours though they do not exact a profession of their Faith against your owne belief and conscience it still followes clearly that your Memorandum of imposing a necessity of professing knowne Errours is impertinent seing you cannot communicate with those of a different Faith though they impose it not vpon you and also that either Protestants cannot communicate one with another since they differ in Faith or els that they could not forsake vs vpon pretence that we impose vpon you a necessity of professing knowne Errours Seing that Condition of imposing c is impertinent Into how many difficultyes and contradictions do you cast yourself by impugning the Truth But enough of this Memorandum or condition 72. Your last Memorandum was That to leaue the Church and to leaue the externall Communion of a Church is not the same thing That being done by ceasing to be a member of it by ceasing to haue those requisites which constitute a man a member of it as Faith and obedience this by refusing to communicate with any Church in her Liturgyes and publike worship of God 73. Answer I wish you had declared yourself better First Pag 271. N. 51. you say We are not to learne the difference between Schisme and Heresy For Heresy we conceiue an obstinate defense of any Errour against any necessary Article of the Christian Faith And Schisme a causelesse separation of one part of the Church from another I haue not tyme to examine what you meane by a necessary Article of the Christian Faith Is not every Article of Christian Faith necessary to be believed vnder paine of damnation if it be sufficiently proposed as revealed by God And is it not Heresy to deny any such Article If it be so then your necessary Article of the Christian Faith implyes no such Mystery as one would haue expected in those so limited words and besides if it be Heresy to deny any Point though in itselfe never so small of Protestants differing in any Point of Faith some must be Heretiks and in state of damnation and they must be obliged to separate from one another as from formall Heretiks If it be not an Heresy nor damnable to deny any Truth sufficiently propounded as revealed by God Errours in Points not Fundamentall are not damnable Neither could you for such Errours divide yourselves from the Communion of all Visible Churches If you will needs say that no Errour is Heresy vnless it contradict some Article of itselfe Fundamentall What in particular is Heresy or who is an Heretik you cānot knowe seing you professe that it cannot be determined in particular what Points be Fundamentall and therfore you must retract your former words we are not to learne the difference between Schisme and Heresy For if you cannot possibly tell what Heresy is you will for ever be to learne the difference between Schisme ād Heresy to say nothing for the present that Potter Pag 212. acknowledges that whatsoeuer is revealed in Scripture or propounded by the Church out of Scripture is in some sense Fundamentall that is such as may not be denyed or contradicted without Infidelity therfore it is Heresy at least to deny Points sufficiently proposed as revealed by God though they be not Fundamentall in themselves And Pag 250. he declares expressly every Errour against any Point revealed to be Heresy in these words Where the revealed will or word of God is sufficiently propounded there he that opposeth is an Heretike and heresy is a worke of the flesh which excludeth from Heaven Gal 5 20.21 therfore if you will not contradict Potter and yourself in severall places you must confess that Heresy may be committed by Errour not Fundamentall in itselfe But to our purpose you say Schisme is a causeless separation of one part of the Church from an other and Pag 264. N. 30. you teach that a causeless separation from the externall Communion of any Church is the sin of Schisme Put these togeather Schisme is a separation of one part of the Church from an other And Schisme is a separation from the externall communion of any Church the Consequence will be this A separation from the externall communion of any part of the Church is a separation from the part itselfe and then proportionally a separation from externall communion of the whole Church or of all Churches must be a separation from the whole Church it selfe or from all Churches and so your distinction that to leaue the Church and to leaue the externall communion of a Church is not the same thing is confuted by your owne doctrine And though it make little to our present purpose whether Schisme be defined A separation of one part of the Church from an other as you speake for as I sayed if a separation from the Externall Communion of one parte be a separation from the parte it selfe a separation from the externall communion of the whole church must be a separation from the whole Church itselfe which is the thing I intended to prove against your Memorandum yet you must giue me leaue to say that your definition overthrowes itselfe For the Nature and Essence of Schisme being to separate one from the Church necessarily it is cause that the party so divided is no more a member or part of that Church nor a part of any Church and so Schisme is not a separation of one part from another but the Church which remaynes after such a sparation made in externall Communion is one whole Church and Totum est cujus nihil est extra and so he who is cut off from the Church as Schismatiks are is no part of it but a non ens or nothing for as much as belongs to the Denomination of being a part of the Church in which
if it should containe more And yet even in this one point there could be agreement only in words among Protestants themselves or with vs. For in the sense I haue shewed elswere that Protestants disagree about Faith or what to belieue signifies and about the Attributes and perfections of the Deity and his Title of a Rewarder and about our Saviour Christ whether he be true God Whether he be to be adored Whether to be invoked Vid Volkel Lib 4. Cap 11. Whether reverence to be done to his sacred name Jesus And many other such points And then I pray what Communion could there be in a worship of God consisting only in words or in prating like parrots with infinite difference in the meaning of them and such a difference as one part holds the contrary to belieue damnable errours even in that one Point in which they must be supposed to agree as in a Forme common to all in Errours I say damnable as being repugnant to the Testimony of that God whom they pretend to worship Jewes and Turks belieue that God is and that he is a rewarder and Philosophers believed that there is a God and some of them in generall that he is a rewarder What a sight would it be to behold all these in one Church or Quire of Christians as agreeing in this generall Liturgy Of which Jewes Turks and Philosophers might say in your owne words Behold we propose a Forme of Liturgy which all sides hold to be lawfull Why then do you not joyne with vs If you answer them because they erre in other points they might reply what is that to the purpose as long as a necessity of professing those Errours is not imposed vpon you Or if it be not lawfull to communicate with men of different Faith and Religion though they do as it were abstract from that in which they differ how can Catholiks communicate with you or Protestants with one another or how can you say If you would propose a Forme of Liturgy which both sides hold lawfull and then they would not joyne with you in this Liturgy you might haue some colour then to say they renounce your Communion absolutely seing men of different faith cannot communicate togeather even in a Forme of Liturgy which both sides hold lawfull Or if they may you cannot refuse your Communion to Jewes and Turks in such a common Forme of Liturgy I therfore conclude that either you may communicate with Jewes Turkes c. or els you must confess that men of different faith cannot communicate in one Liturgy and publike worship of God whatsoever imaginary Forme be proposed and that you renounce our Communion absolutely which you deny against all Truth and your owne grounds and the common grounds of Christianity vnless you will make vp one Church of Jewes Turks Philosophers condemned Heretiks and whatsoever different Sects and therfore you cannot avoide the just imputation of Schisme 82. Morover we know you disliked diverse Points in the publike Service of the Protestants Church of England as the Mystery of the Blessed Trinity the Creed of S. Athanasius c Now I aske whether you could with a good conscience be present at the English Service or no If you say you could because your intention was carryed only to that which was good and true and not to those particulars which you did belieue to be false and errours why may not Protestants on their part be present at Masse and our publike worship of God And why do they alledg as a cause of their forsaking our externall communion in Liturgy the corruptions thereof Or why do you require a Forme of Liturgy which all sides hold lawfull if one may be present at some corrupt worship of God so that he intend to participate and communicate only in what is good And you cannot deny but that in our Liturgy there are many good and holy things out of which the ProtestaÌ„t church of EnglaÌ„d transcribed divers things into their booke of coÌ„mon prayer wherby they proue theÌ„selves true Heretiks or chusers accepting or rejecting what they please aÌ„d deceyving simple people as if there were small differeÌ„ce betwixt English Protestants and Catholiks Or how could you wickedly perswade Catholiks to go to Protestant Service which you know we belieue to containe Errours against our Faith and Religion and yet pretend that Protestants were obliged to forsake our Communion in Liturgy c. Or if they were not obliged to forsake vs how can they be excused from Schisme in doing so If you could not be present at the English Service which was the other part of my demand the reason must be because men of different Faith cannot communicate in one publike worship of God or Liturgy And the further reason of this because such a communicating or Communion were indeed a reall and practicall approbation of such a Communion and of such a Church stayned with Errours and consequently how can one Protestant communicate with an other whom they belieue to erre in points of Faith and yet thinke they are obliged not to communicate with vs Truly they cannot possibly giue any reason for this their proceeding and as I may say acception of persons the merit or demerite of the cause being the same For this Rule it is not lawfull for men of different Faith to communicate in Liturgy and publike worship of God is vniversally true and the contrary is only a ready way to breed confusion stisle all zeale overthrow Religion and is of its owne nature intrinsecè malum though there were no scandall danger of being perverted and the like as really alwayes there are Certainly if in any case a Catholike can be sayed to approue and participate with Heretikes as such it is by communion in the same Liturgy and divine offices and never more than when it happens to be with such Heretiks as did purposely reject the Liturgy of Catholiks as superstitions and corrupted and framed an other as proper to themselves which happened in England in direct opposition to our Liturgy to which proceeding of theirs hee in fact consents and gives approbation who refuseth not to be present at their Service so opposite â—o our Liturgy Whosoever considers the zeale of all Antiquity in abhorring the least shaddow of communion with Heretiks will haue just cause to lament the coldnesse of them who seeke by distinctions and speculations to induce a pernicious participation of justice with Iniquity a society between light and darkness an agreement with â—hrist and Belial a participation of the faithfull with the infidell as we haue heard our adversaryes confess every Errour against a Divine Truth sufficiently propounded to be Infidelity Holy Scripture Num 16.26 speaking of Core Dathan and Abiron saith Depart from the tabernacles of the impious men and touch you not those things which pertaine to them least you be enwrapped in their sin What then shall we say of those who will not depart I say not from the tabernacles
censure of Holy Scripture He who soone believes is light of heart that is they could haue no Act of Divine supernaturall faith which requires the particular assistance of the Holy Ghost and this cannot be given to produce or foster such fooleryes or imprudences In the same manner you take no notice of that which Cha Ma in the same Section cites out of Calvin Ep. 141. we haue been forced to make a separation from the whole world nor aske him how he could say so without strayning and how they made a separation from the whole world nor how they could say so seing so many millions followed them But I beseech you consider that even Luther himselfe for his owne opinions and apostasy proceeded by degrees so farr as that he pretended to submitt himselfe to the Pope And then how could so many follow him at the first instant when himselfe knew not what to follow And at that tyme was he not alone neither Catholike nor setled in any other doctrine And seing in those doubts and doctrines some tyme must passe before he himselfe was setled or could instill them to others it is manifest that he opposed himselfe to All Churches then extant and then we must by your owne Rule say that All opposed themselves to him that is they believed at that tyme those Articles and embraced those rites Liturgy and publike manner of worshipping God which he condemned which is true even of those who afterward were seduced by him and so it is most true that in the beginning he opposed himselfe to All and All opposed themselves to him as appeares by that which he further sayth Ep ad Argentinenses Anno 1525. Christum a nobis primò promulgatum audemus gloriari We dare glory that Christ was first diuulged by vs. Mark primo first and Conrad Schlusselburg in Theolog Calvinist L. 2. saith It is impudency to say that many learned men in Germany before Luther did hold the doctrine of the Gospell The like sayings of others concerning Luther may be seene in Ch Ma P. 1. P. 267. It is therfore true that he opposed himselfe to All and All to him 117. Object 12. Charity Maintayned Part 1. P. 202. N. 57. to proue it vniversally true that there can be no just cause to forsake the Communion of the visible Church of Christ alledges S. Austine saying Ep 48. It is not possible that any may haue just cause to separate their Communion from the communion of the whole world and call themselves the Church of Christ as if they had separated themselves from the Communion of all Nations vpon just cause Against this Argument you object thus Pag 302. N. 101. It is one thing to separate from the Communion of the whole world another to separate from all the Communions in the world One thing to divide from them who are vnited among themselves Another to divide from them who are divided among themselves Now the Donatists separatet from the whole world of Christians vnited in one Communion professing the same Faith serving God after the same manner which was a very great Argument that they could not haue just cause to leaue them according to that of Tertullian Variasse debuerat error Ecclesiarum quod autem apud multos vnum est non est erratum sed traditum But Luther and his followers did not so The world I meane of Christians and Catholikes was divided and subdivided long before he divided from it and by their divisions had much weakned their owne Authority and taken away from you this plea of S. Austine which stands vpō no other foundatiō but the vnity of the whole worlds Communiō 118. Answer Ex ore tuo te judico Your owne Answer overthrowes your owne doctrine Whosoever separates from the Communion of the whole world in that wherin the whole world agrees separates from the Communion of the world because to vse your owne words this is to divide from them who are vnited among themselves and is not to divide from them who are divided among themselves But Luther divided himselfe from the whole world in points wherin the whole world was vnited therfore he divided himselfe from the Communion of the whole world The Minor that Luther divided himselfe from the whole world in Points wherin the whole world was vnited that is as Protestants falsely affirme in errours and corruptions common to the whole then visible Church Charity Maintayned Pag P. 61. N. 9. and P. 167. N. 12. hath proved out of learned Protestants as also we haue seene even now by the confession of Luther Calvin and Schlusselb and the thing is cleare of itselfe and even bragged of by Luther and his followers Neither is there any speech more common among Protestants then that the whole visible Church was corrupted ād this is the reason which you ād other Protestāts yeild in excuse of your leaving the Communion of all Churches otherwise there could haue beene no pretence of a reformation If saith the Protestant Gregorius Milius in Argumentâ Confessione Art 7. de Ec There had beene right believers which went before Luther in his office there had then beene no need of a Lutheran Reformation Therfore the argument of ha Ma taken out of S. Austine holds good and strong no lesse against Luther who separated from all Churches in Points wherin they were not divided but vnited than it was of force against the Donatists Yea further it proves that those supposed errours which Luther pretend to reforme were indeed Orthodox truths even by the Rule which you alledg out of Tertullian variasse debuit error Ecclesiarum quod autem apud multos vnum est non est erratum sed traditum Seing then All Churches before Luther agreed in those doctrines which he vndertooke to reforme they cannot be errours being the same not only apud multos among many as Tertullian speakes but apud omnes among all Christian Churches in the world And this reason taken out of Tertullian growes stronger in our case even by your saying that The world of Christians and Catholiks was divided and subdivided long before Luther divided from it because when so many yea and all who otherwise are divided and subdivided yet agree vnanimously in some Points that very consent amongst men of so very different dispositions affections and opinions is more then a very great Argument that Luther and his followers could not haue just cause to leaue them as you argue against the Donatists From whence it also followes that you are in an errour of pernicious consequence while you say that Christians and Catholikes by then Divisions had much weakned their owne authority and taken away from vs Catholikes this plea of S. Austine which stands vpon no other foundation but the vnity of the whole worlds Communion seing this vnity yieldes a stronger argument in our present case by the Divisions and subdivisions of which you talke and therfore doth not takeaway but strengthen our plea out of S.
say that the Church ought not to be forsaken in any least Point least perhaps that proue to be Fundamentall Neither can you say that Protestants were certaine that the Points wherin they left the Church were errours For to omit the reasons which I haue already giuen here I must put you in mynd that diverse learned chiefe Protestants agree with vs in very many yea I may say in all the maine differences betwixt Protestants and vs And therfore your preence of so great evidence and certainty against the Doctrine of the Roman Church is meerly voluntary and verball And besides I would know how the Church can be supposed to be infallible in fundamentall Points and yet may be in danger to fall into such errours as are pernicious and pestilent and vndermine the very Fundations of Religion and Piety 139. These maine dissicultyes being taken away your other Objections cited aboue are answered by only mentioning them The Question is not whether we should erre with the present Church or hold true with God Almighty as you vainly speak but whether the word and will of God Almighty be better vnderstood and declared to vs by Gods vniversall true Church or by any private person or particulat Sect. 140. If particular Churches haue been liberall of their Anathemas which yet were never conceaved infallible What is that to the Anathemas of the vniversall Church granted to be infallible in fundameÌ„tall points in which whosoever disobeyes her puts himselfe in state of damnation And seing you confess that men cannot know what points be fundamentall it followes that we cannot with safety disobey her in any one point for feare of leaving her in some fundamentall Article 141. That the visible Church of Christ holds itselfe to be infallible cannot be doubted seing even her enemyes belieue she cannot erre in fund mentall Points and she proposes all her definitions of faith to be believed without distinguishing betweene Points fundamentall and not Fundamentall which she could not doe without great temerity and injury to Faithfull people if she did not hold herselfe to be vniversally infallible Of which point Ch Ma P. 2. Ch 5. N. 20. P. 132. spekes at large in answer to a demand or objection of Potter and in vaine you say God in Scripture can better informe vs what are the limits of the Churches Power than the Church herselfe For the Question is only whether God will haue his meaning in Scripture declared by the Church or by every mans private spirit wit or fancy Besides God declares his sacred pleasure not only by the written but also by the vnwritten word 142. That there is no danger in being of the Roman Church Protestants must affirme who hold that she had all things necessary to salvation as shall appeare herafter and whosoever denyes it must grant that Christ had no Church vpon Earth when Luther appeared and that there is danger to leaue her experience makes manifest by the infinite multitude of different Sects and opinions wherof all cannot be true and so must be esteemed a deluge of Heresyes 143. The Heresy of the Donatists did consist formally in this that the Church might erre or be polluted and by that Meanes giue just cause to forsake her communion For if without any such errour in their vnderstanding they did only de facto separate by the obstancy of their will they were indeed Schismatikes but not Heretikes as not dividing themselves from the Church in Matter of Faith And yet Potter saieth they were properly Heretiques Yea if it be not an Heresy to say in generall that the Church may erre and be corrupted or polluted to say that in such a particular case she is corrupted comes to be only a matter of History or fact whether she hath done so or no but it is not a point of Faith and so is not of a nature sufficient to constiute an Heresy supposing as I saied it be once granted that she may erre For example the Donatists gaue out that the Catholique Church was defild by communicating with those who were called traditors The Heresy consists precisely in this Point That the whole Church may be corrupted and so give just cause to be forfaken not in that other Point whether or no the possibility of the thing being supposed de facto Catholikes did communicate with those traditours Since therfore it is supposed by you aÌ„d affirmed by Potter that the Donatists were heretiks their heresy must coÌ„sist in this that the Catholique Church spredd over the whole world might erre and be polluted And is not this the very heresy of Protestants And do they not pretend to leaue the Church vpon this same ground that she erred And this particularly is evident in those Protestants who say the whole visible Church before Luther perished The names of which Protestants may be seene in Charity Maintayned Part 1. N. 9. Pag 161. and more may be read in Brierley Tract 2. Ca 3. Sect 2. And therefore I wonder you would say that Charity Maintayned had not named those Protestants who hold the Church to haue perished for many Ages That it is a fundamentall errour of its owne nature properly hereticall to say The Church Militant may possibly be driven out of the world is the Doctrine of Potter as we haue seene as also that Whitaker calls it a prophane heresy and more Protestants may be seene to that purpose in that place where we cited Whitaker And Dr. Lawd holds it to be against the Article of our Creed I belieue the Holy Catholique Church and that to say that Article is not true is blasphemy 144. That he which is an Hererike in one Article may haue true Faith in other Articles is against the true and common Doctrine of all Catolique Divines and vniversally against all Catholikes to say That such a Faith can be sufficient to salvation because his very heresy is a deadly sin And therfore to say the Church can erre in any one point of Faith is to say the whole Church may be in state of damnation for faith which is an intollerable injury to God and his spouse the Church For if she may be in state of damnation by any culpable errour she must be supposed to want some thing necessary to salvation namely the beliefe of that truth which such culpable errour denyes But more of this herafter 145. By the way How can you say N. 56. to Charity Maintayned That when it was for his purpose to haue it so the greatness or smallness of the matter was not considerable the Evidence of the Revelation was all in all For where doth Charity Maintayned say That evidence of the Revelation is all in all Yea doth he not expressly teach Part 1. Chap. 6. N. 2. that evidence is not compatible with an ordinary Act of Faith and therby proves N. 30. that Protestants want true Faith 146. Object 14. Charity Maâ—ntayned in diverse occasions affirmes or supposes that Dr. Potter and other
though he set himselfe to sleepe and leaue things to their owne nature to shew the precise essence of things and what will follow in good consequence vpon such an hypothesis of an impossible thing as in our present case if the true Church were supposed to erre in points not Fundamentall still retaining infallibility in all fundamentalls it followes that it were more safe and less evill and therfore necessary vpon supposition of two vnavoidable evills to remaine in the Church rather than so forsake her for the reasons alledged hertofore wheras that supposition That the Church erres being taken away as indeed de facto it is alwayes taken away that is it is alwayes false and impossible the cleare consequence is that it is not only less evill but absolutely good and absolutely necessary to remaine in her Communion as by reason of the contrary not voluntary and speculatiue but practicall and reall and necessary supposition of errours acknowledged defacto in the Protestants Church without any pretence that she is in fallible in Fundamentalls as the vniversall Church is confessed to be even by our Adversaryes and in reall truth is infallible in all points both Fundamentall and not Fundamentall the Question cannot remaine whether it be less evill to remaine in the Communion of the Protestant Church but it must be believed as a thing certainly true that it is absolutely evill and the greatest evill seing that by aduering to the Catholique Church I am secure from all errours and by aduering to the Protestants I am sure to communicate with a Church stayned with errours by their owne Confession 157. Secondly I take an answer from what you saied aboue Pag. 290. N. 88. That errours not Fundamentall are repugnant to Gods command and so in their owne nature damnable though to those which out of invincible ignorance practise them not vnpardonable From these words I say I will take an answer if first I haue told you you should haue sayd they are no sins and being no sins you should not haue sayd they are not vnpardonable but the contradictory they are vnpardonable that is they cannot be pardoned or are not capable of pardon because God cannot be sayd to pardon that with which he was never offended and pardon supposes an offense This very thing is taught by yourselfe Pag 19. where speaking of men who doe their best endeavours to know Gods will and doe it and to free themselves from all errours you say So well I am perswaded of the goodnes of God that if in me alone should meet a confluence of all such errours of all the Protestants in the world that were thus qualifyed I should not be so much afrayd of them all as I should be to aske pardon for them For to aske pardon of simple and purely involuntary errours is tacitly to imply that God is angry with vs for them and that were to impute to him the strange tyranny of requiring bricke when he gives no straw of expecting to gather where he strewed not to reape where he sowed not Of being offended with vs for not doing what he knowes we cannot doe Therfore say I and you must inferr the same such errours are not capable of being pardoned yea you account it a kind of sacriledge to aske pardon for them But yet to shew how you are possessed with a perpetuall spirit vertiginis and contradiction to yourselfe I offer to your consideration what Pag 308. N. 108. you say of our pretended errours We hold your errours as damnable in themselves as you do ours only by accident through invincible ignorance we hope they are not vnpardonable And Pag 290. N. 86. Having spoken of the erring of the Roman Church you add Which though we hope it was pardonable in them who had not meanes to know their errour yet of its owne nature and to them who did or might haue knowne their errours was certainly damnable Pag 263. N. 26 You cite and approue the saying of Dr. Potter that though our errrours were in themselves damnable and full of great impiety yet he hopes that those amongst you who were invincibly ignorant of the truth might by Gods great mercy haue their errours pardoned and their soules saved What Mr. Dr. and Mr. Chillingworth Is it great mercy in God to pardon that which cannot possibly be any sin Is not this to vse your owne words Tacitly to imply that he is angry with vs for them and to impute to him the strange tyranny of requiring bricke when he giues no straw c of being offended with vs for not doing what he knowes we cannot doe A great mercy not to doe that which were tyranny to doe to forgiue that which is no offense But as I am forced often to say it is no newes in you to contradict yourselfe 158. Now I will performe what I promised and shew that seing invincible ignorance in the opinion of all Philosophers and Divines excuses from sin if we can proue that every judicious man having vsed all diligence◠will find that whosoever joyning himselfe with our Church shall be sure either not to erre or at least not vincibly or culpably the consequence will be cleare that such errours will not be damnable to any such man but that he will be assured of salvation for as much as belongs to matter of Faith from whence it will also follow that none can separate themselves from the Church without damnation 19. First then I obserue That seing the Church according to Protestants cannot erre in Fundamentall Articles for other points not Fundamentall whosoever remaine in her communion are not obliged vnder paine of damnation to chuse the more secure part as they are bound to doe in matters absolutely necessary to salvation necessitate medij as Ch Ma proves Part 1. Chap 7. N. 3. but it is sufficient for them ad vitandum peccatum for avoyding sin if they follow a judgment truly probable and prudent in embracing all the particular objects which the Church proposes to be believed Because they are sure by this meanes not to erre in points absolutely necessary to salvation in which the Church which they follow cannot erre nor to sin in believing all other points which she propoundes supposing they proceede prudently especially considering as I sayd that in not believing Her in all they run hazard to disbelieue her in some Fundamentall and necessary Article which sequele we haue shewed even in your owne opinion to be rationall 160. This being observed I now proue that whosoever embraceth what the Church proposes and particularly for points controverted in these tymes proceeds very prudently and safely For the objects of Faith surpassing the reach of humane reason and for that cause being apprehended obscurely by our vnderstanding do not bring with them evidēce of demonstration to which we haue heard Hooker saying The mynd cannot chuse but inwardly assent but yet the vnderstanding may be forcibly drawne by the will to embrace rather one part than another
vpon prudent reasons and extrinsecall considerations which not to be wanting in our case appeares by reflecting That for the points controverted we haue the judgment and Authority of the Churches existent when Luther appeared that is of the vniversall Catholique Church if God had any Church on Earth as you grant he alwayes had And even yourselfe speaking of Councells say Pag 200. N. 18. I willingly confess the judgment of a Councell though not infallible is yet so farr directiue and obliging that without apparent reason to the contrary it may be sin to reject it at least not to affoard it an outward submission for publike peace-sake Potter also Pag 165. Speaks fully in these words We say that such Generall Councells as are lawfully called and proceed orderly are great and awfull representations of the Church Catholique that they are the highest externall Tribunall which the Church hath on earth that their Authority is immediatly derived and delegated from Christ that no Christian is exempted from their censures and jurisdiction that their decrees bind all persons to externall Obedience and may not be questioned but vpon evident reason nor reversed but by an equall Authority that if they be carefull and diligent in the vse of all good meanes for finding out the truth it is very probable the good Spirit will so direct them that they shall not erre at least not Fundamentally Behold Councells are not only directiue but obliging they cannot be rejected Their Decrees bind to externall Obedience and may not so much as be questioned but vpon apparent and evident reason nor reversed but by an equall Authority if they be carefull and deligent in the vse of all good meanes for finding the truth it is very probable the good Spirit will so direct them that they shall not erre at least Fundamentally that their Authority is immediatly derived and delegated from Christ 161. Here it is reason I make a pause and obserue some points out of our very Adversaryes First The vniversall Church according to Potter and other chiefe Protestants is infallible in fundamentall points and even according to â—hillingworth is infallible as long as she exists which he saith hath been from the beginning and shall last to the worlds end and so de facto she is infallible that is he is as sure that she shall not erre in any fundamentall point as he is sure that Christ shall alwaies haue a Church on earth which ought to be a great inducement not to reject her Authority without evident reason Yea seing he holds Councells to be fallible in fundamentall points aÌ„d yet that they oblige men to an outward submission much more he should say so of the Church which is confessed to be infallible in all Fundamentalls 162. Secondly seing Potter Chilling and Dr. Lawd whom I cited aboue teach that we are bound vnder sin to affoard outward obedience to Generall Councells and that we cannot do this in matters of Faith vnless we belieue as we professe we must belieue them to be infallible in all things least either we sin against Obedience due to them or against our Conscience professe what we do not belieue 163. Thirdly seing their Authority is immediatly derived and delegated from Christ their right to be obeyed is de jure Divino of which they were in possession when Luther arose and therfore it is a grievous sin not to obey them vnless it can be demonstrated with evidence that they teach or command somthing clearly repugnant to the law or word of Christ 164. Fourthly seing their Decrees cannot be questioned but vpon evident reason it followes that the reasons are not first purposely to be sought and then found because people prepossessed by passion haue a mind to breake with the Church as it happens in all Schismatiks and Heretikes but their Arguments must be so pressing and irresistible by ceason of their evidence that the vnderstanding cannot by any meanes of contrary reason or command of the will forbeare to assent which to any judicious man must needs appeare to be a strange and no better than an imaginaty kind of evidence and indeed impossible in objects of Faith which are obscure and exceed the naturall light of all humane reason 165. Fiftly Since they cannot be reversed but by an equall Authority and Dr. Lawd delivers the same Doctrine as we haue seene aboue we are assured that the Decrees of Councells before Luther could not be reversed by Luther or any other private person nor by all Protestants Who never could pretend to haue a Generall Councell and in those Colloquiums or Conferences or particular Synods which they held could never establish any vniversall Vnion among themselves but only declared to the world that they had no possible meanes of Vnion and Concord And indeed who should call such a Generall Councell Or who should preside therin Or if they would haue recourse to secular Princes it would make little to their purpose seing absolute Princes are no more subject one to another than different Sects of Protestants will confesse any mutuall subordination 166. Sixtly Seing if they be carefull in the vse of all good meanes for finding the Truth it is very probable the good spirit will direct them that they shall not erre at least fundamentally they could not be opposed except by reason more than probable but men were to presume that they did not erre Neither should you say if they be carefull c. it is very probable the good spirit will direct them that they shall not erre which may be said of any two or three gathered togeather in Christs name if they be carefull in the vse of all good meanes for finding the truth yea the same may be sayd of every particular person but contrarily seing you confesse them to be derived from Christ and that they are the highest externall Tribunall which the Church hath on Earth and that all are obliged to obey them which none could be in errours against Faith you should say because they cannot erre God will not faile to affoard his effectuall Grace that they be carefull in the vse of all good meanes for finding the truth For accordingly as God hath decreed to bring vs to an End He will not faile to moue vs effectually to apply all those Meanes which on our behalf are necessary for such an End And it were but a most rash vncharitable foolish and false imagination to thinke that Generall Councells before Luther replenished with men of learning sanctity and zeale of the Truth were not carefull in the vâ—â— of all good meanes for finding the Truth and therfore they could not but be assisted by God to find it nor Luther excused from Schisme and Heresy by opposing them and it 167. These things considered it cannot but appeare to any judicious vnpartiall man how impossible it is that any such evidence should offer itselfe against the Faith and decrees of the Church or Generall Councells as can force the
sins past with a firme Resolution to amend for tyme to come is a sufficient disposition for remission of sinnes whether it be perfect Contrition without Sacramentall absolution or attrition with it though it be also true that perfect Contrition must involue a purpose to receaue absolution in due tyme. 17. Your third Errour is delivered in many places of your Booke and consists in this That one who lives in a sinfull errour against faith may be saved by a generall Repentance of all his sins knowne and vnknowne though he do not forsake that culpable errour but liue and dy in it In your Answer to the preface of Charity Maintayned Pag 7. N. 3. you approue the saying of Potter that both sides by the confession of both sides agree in more Points than are simply and indispensably necessary to salvation and differ only in such as are not precisely necessary That it is very possible a man may dy in errour and yet dy with repentance as for all his sins of Ignorance so in that number for the errours in which he dyes with a repentance though not explicite and particular which is not simply required yet implicite and generall which is sufficient So that he cannot but hope considering the Goodness of God that the Truths retained on both sides especially those of the necessity of Repentance from dead workes and Faith in Iesus Christ if they be put in practise may be an andidote against the errours held on either side to such he meanes and sayes as beâ—ng diligent in seeking Truth and desirous to find it yet misse of it through humane frailty and dy in errour 18. About which words it is to be observed First that as I noted aboue you and Potter confess that Catholiks hold more Points of Faith than are necessary to salvation so that the Points in which we differ from Protestants which you call errours are not necessary and accordingly you teach Pag 9. N. 7. that men may be saved though they hold the doctrines of IndulgeÌ„ces Purgatory and the vse of Latine Service And therfore I may turne against you your owne words Pag 220. N. 52. May it please you therfore now at last to take notice that by Fundamentall we meane all and only that which is necessary and then I hope you will grant that we may safely expect salvation in a Church which hath all things Fundamentall to salvation Vnless you will say that more is necessary than that which is necessary These words I say proue that we may even safely for that is your word expect salvation in a Church which by confession of all sides believes more Points than are necessary vnless you will say that more is necessary than that which is necessary or that we belieue not as many Points as are necessary though we belieue more than are necessary Secondly That as I noted before you contradict yourselves in saying That by the goodness of God the Truths retained on both sides may be an antidote against the errours of such as being diligent in seeking Truth and desirous to find it yet misse of it by humane frailty and dy in errour For the errours of men so qualifyed as you describe them must needs be invincible if invincible no sins if no sins how can any truth be an antidote against them Or how can the doctrine of necessity of Repentance from dead works concerne works which are not dead that is no sinnes nor can be the Object of Repentance or capable of pardon I beseech you remember your owne express words Pag 16. N. 21. The very saying they were pardonable implies they needed pardon and therfore in themselves were damnable How then do you say that inculpable errours may be pardoned by a generall Repentance Or how do you in particular agree either with Catholiks or Protestants about the necessity of Repentance of dead workes seing you disagree from both of them in declaring what Repentance is necessary Thirdly Pag 8. N. 3. you say the Doctour gives them only hope of pardon of errours who are desirous and according to the proportion of their opportunityes and abilityes industrious to find the Truth or at least truly repentant that they haue not bene so In which words you distinguish those who are desirous and industrious to find the truth froÌ„ those who are repentant that they haue not been so The former sort of which men are not capable of Repentance because they committed no sin And if the second be truly repentant as you suppose they are that they haue not been desirous and industrious to find the Truth you suppose they know that they haue not been so To whom then shall belong that Repentance which you call generall and implicite of all errours knowne and vnknowne Fourthly Howsoever you endeavour to answer these contradictions it seemes you are constant that a sinfull errour may be pardoned though one liue and dy in it And then Fiftly The difficulty which I spoke of aboue comes to vrge you How such a man can attaine your kind of Repentance at the houre of his death when it is impossible But let vs goe forward 19. Pag 21. you say If any Protestant or Papist be betrayed into or kept in any errour by any sin of his will as it is to be feard many millious are such Errour is as the cause of it sinfull and damnable yet not exclusiue of all hope of salvation but pardonable if discovered vpon a particular explicite Repentance if not discovered vpon a generall and implicite Repentance for all sins knowne and vnknowne in which number all sinfull Errours must of necessity be contayned Pag 168. N. 52. speaking of errour proceeding from some Voluntary and avoidable fault and in its owne nature damnable You say If the party so erring dy with Contrition for all his sins knowne and vnknowne as his Errour can be no impediment but he may his Errour though in itselfe damnable to him according to your Doctrine Charity Maintayned disclaimes from any such false and implicatory Doctrine as this it will not proue so As the most malignant poyson will not poyson him that receives with it a more powerfull Antidote In these and other passages of your Booke you teach that a sinfull and damnable Errour for of such we must speake when we speake of Repentance to object wherof his sin may be forgiven while one remaines in such an Errour or without relinquishing it which is a most pernicious errour and destructiue of itselfe For if his errour be sinfull it is not because he sees it to be an errour and yet persists in it which is impossible seing that to judge a particular errour to be an errour is to forsake it and embrace the contrary truth because an errour discovered is destroyed neither is it an errour but a true judgment to judge that an Errour is an Errour according to the saying of S. Austine Lib. 15. de Trinit Cap 10. Nemo falsa novit nisi cum falsa
esse novit Uerum est enim quod illa falsa sint No man can be sayd to know false things except by knowing they are false c But an errour is sinfull because he gives a culpable cause therof either by not vising diligence to find the truth in a matter of highest moment which is that vnum necessarium that one necessary Thing of which our saviour spoke and to which all other things are to be referred and therfore requires our chiefest and vtmost endeavour and all that may any way put it in hazard ought instantly to strike vs with a most deepe fright and move vs to fly from it tanquam a facie colubri as from the face of a serpent oâ— by reason of pride confidence in his owne witt or judgment or the like sinfull cause which must be knowne and voluntary in order to such an errour and ignorance otherwise they could not be sinfull as we haue seene out of your owne words that we cannot be obliged to that which is not in our power Now if the cause of such errour be sinfull and voluntary to say one may be pardoned of that sin without actually forsaking it is to say A sin may be repented and forgiven while one is actually persisting in the committing of it and seing to pardon a sin is to destroy it and to be committing it is to conserue it in being sin should be destroyed and conserved be and not be at the same tyme which is a manifest contradiction 20. But you say The sinner may haue Repentance of all sins knowne and vnknowne I answer You are in a great errour or inconsideration both concerning the nature of sin and of Repentance in supposing that either can sin be committed without all knowledge or that true Repentance can extend it self to a sin of which one is in Act of voluntary committing it For how doth he effactually detest and with his whole hart repent himselfe of it if he be yet voluntarily committing it And as for the other part All sin is voluntary and necessarily presupposes some kind of knowledge therof to proceede in the vnderstanding without which it were not voluntary nor vincible nor culpable but necessary and invincible or no sin at all Which being true in all sin much more must it be so in deadly and damnable sins as you affirme errours against Faith to be which require full knowledge and deliberation when they are first committed And this is particularly true in the subject of which we speake in regard that our good God whose will is that all should be saved and come to the knowledge of Truth never failes to be frequently preventing illuminating moving and strongly inciting the soules of men to embrace the true Faith Religion and church within which he hath confined salvation aÌ„d is continually speaking so lowd as he may be clearly heard aÌ„d so stroÌ„gly as every one must confess himselfe guilty if he do not obey aÌ„d hearkeÌ„ to a voyce so sweet forcible and Divine And therfore your Contrition of all sins knowne and vnknowne comes to be a meere sixion or illusion your Repentance of sins which one is actually committing to be a plaine contradiction and both of them to containe a most pernicious Doctrine To comprise all this matter in few words When you speake of sins not knowne if the ignorance be invincible it is no sin if vincible and culpable it doth not excuse from sin the Errour which proceeds from it and therfore cannot be forgiven as long as one is committing it no more than other sins against Gods Commandements for example hatred desire of revenge c. And how can want of knowledge excuse one who either sins by that very want of knowledge or that want of knowledge is the effect of his sin that is of culpable neglect to learne as a tâ—e want is not excused from the rot by ignorance proceeding from his voluntary neglect to study 21. Perhaps some may say I haue proved sufficiently that no Protestant or other Sectary can haue true Contrition of sins wholy vnknowne or when it is committing them or while he hath tyme to amend them neglects to doe it But the difficulty may seeme to remaine what is to be sayd of a Protestant at the point of death if he come to be particularly contrite of his former culpable negligence to seeke the true Religion but now hath no tyme to discusse particular Controversyes with a firme resolution to embrace that Faith which if God spare him life he shall by his Divine Assistance find to be true To this doubt I 22. Answer First That such a one cannot according to your Doctrine hope for Salvation which is never granted without true Repentance and this cannot be had at that moment of death when there is no tyme to roote out all vicious Habits which cannot be supposed to be few in persons who for worldly respects haue not cared to seeke out the true Religion on which every Christian believes the salvation of his soule to depend Secondly This case or supposition yields as much as Charity Maintayned intended to proue That a formall Protestant cannot be saved if he persist in Protestantisme For he who is hartily sory that he hath neglected to seeke the true Faith Religion and Church and conceives an obligation to haue vsed more diligence therin doth clearly doubt whether the Protestant Religion be true and theâ—by is no more a Protestant than he can be a Christian who doubts whether Christian Religion be true it being a true Axiome in Divinity dubius in side est infidelis He who doubts of his Faith is an infidell The reason is because Christian Divine Faith is infallible and certainly true and consequently cannot consist with any deliberate or voluntary doubt neither doth Christian Faith belieue any Article of Faith with greater certainty than that itselfe is certaine Whosoever therfore doubts whether Protestants Faith and Religion be true ceases to be a Protestant or to belieue Protestant Religion to be true with that firmnes of Faith which is required for Salvation And although such a pertinent sinner be not a Catholike by the actuall beliefe of those Points conceruing which he hath no tyme to be particularly instructed yet he is really and actually a Catholike by believing in voto or desire whatsoever the Church teaches and those errours of his which before were culpable only by reason of some culpable cause or neglect to seeke the truth while he had tyme to doe it after true and effectuall Contrition of such a sinfull cause remaine errours materially only and no sins till it be in his power to examine and reverse them just as vertuous persons in the true Church may by invincible ignorance hold some errour against Faith till they be better instructed And so the finall Conclusion will be that he who effectually repents his sin committed in omitting culpably to seeke the true Church and hath no possible meanes to examine matters
may be saved not by a generall but by a particular contrition not of sins vnknowne but knowne not remaining a formall Protestant but being a reall Catholike having retracted the former malice of his sin and believing in desire all that the Catholike Church believes and so he is a Protestant neither in act seing he doubts of the Protestant Religion nor in voto or desire which is to be a professed member of the true Church and to imbrace the truth and forsake all Errour as in this present Question we expressly speake of the errours of Protestants and enquire whether they can be saved with such errours as likewise our supposition for the present is that the Roman is the true Church and so the Uotum or desire of such a penitent is to forsake the Doctrine of Protestants and to embrace the Religion of the Roman Church But then if such a one survine and come to haue tyme sufficient for seeking and finding out the truth and neglect to doe it he waxeth recidivous and falls into a new sin and his eâ—â—ours grow againe to be sinfull by reason of their new sinfull cause 23. Your example that poyson will not poyson him that receives with it a more powerfull Antidote is either de subjecto non supponente as if the poyson of sin could stand with the Antidote of Contrition or implyes a manifest falshood and contradiction if you suppose that contrition can destroy that sin which one is committing Naturall or corporall poyson may stand with an Antidote but sin the poyson of the soule cannot stand with Contrition and so caÌ„ helpe no more thaÌ„ an Antidote not receyved can hinder the operation of poyson aÌ„d contrition cannot be receyved in his soule who continues the act or affection to a deadly sin And so your example turnes against yourself and this Answer proves to be a more powerfull Antidote than the poyson of your objection which therfore I hope will not poyson any that receives with it the Antidote 23. Thirdly I answer by denying absolutely the case which was proposed that he who hath sinfull errours at the houre of his death can haue true Contrition without actuall direliction of them My reason is because Contrition being a most singular Gift of the Holy Ghost as I proved in the Introduction and including the perfect loue of God is an infallible Disposition to Justifying Grace as therfore God in his holy Providence hath decreed that after baptisme in the ordinary course or de lege ordinaria none shall be saved out of his Uisible Church so he gives not his effectuall Grace to exercise an Act of Contrition in the Will before he endue him with true Faith in the vnderstanding that as his errours were repugnant to Faith so his Repentance and retractation may rectify them by the contrary Truths of Faith For this cause the Apostle after he had sayd God will haue all men saved which words signify the End adds and to come to the knowledge of truth as the Meanes to such an End And this being the ordinary course in vaine is it to dispute what God may doe de potentia absoluta by his absolute Omnipotency or whether there be any physicall or Metaphysicall repugnance between Contrition and Errours per se loquendo damnable since those matters wholy depend on Gods free will and holy pleasure which we cannot know by Logicall humane demonstrations but only by Revelation wherby God hath declared in generall that for Christians there is no salvation without professing the Faith of his Uisible Church and for vs to put exceptions to that generall Rule can haue no other effect than to make men negligent in seeking the Truth in tyme vpon hope that they may be saved with Errours against Faith at the houre of their death when indeed it will proue too late Neither can it be objected that at the houre of death it is not possible to examine particular Controversyes and none can be obliged to an impossible thing For the answer is easily given out of what we haue already sayd First that this ought not so seeme strang to you whose kind of Repentance is impossible at that houre of death as I haue often sayd and so we may apply against you your owne words Pag 390. N. 7. They that confess their sins and forsake them shall find mercy though they confesse them to God only and not to men They that confess them both to God and men if they do not effectually and in tyme forsake them shall not find mercy Now by your doctrine men cannot forsake their sins in tyme who haue not tyme for rooting out all vicious habits and therfore shall not find mercy But by the way what evidenct Scripture haue you that they shall find it who confess their sins only to God seing some Lutherans and other Protestants hold and other confess that it was the Doctrine of ancient holy Fathers that private confession of sins is commanded by God and we haue heard Kemnitius teaching that even Contrition without absolution is not sufficient for pardon of sins either in act or in desire and your resolute speech to the contrary is an affirmation without any proofe Neither can Contrition be sufficient vnless it imply a firme purpose to performe all that God hath commanded wherof Confession of deadly sins is one Secondly I answer that as God is supposed at that tyme to infuse perfect contrition and change the will so also you should suppose that he rectifyes the vnderstanding and the same meanes which he vseth for the one he may vse for the other whether he doe it immediatly by himselfe or by the ministery and helpe of some second cause as a catechist or instructour or good bookes to stirre vp the species and then God may giue his grace to belieue and it would be incomparably more strang that God should giue Repentance to Christians remayning out of his Visible Church for matter of Faith than to cleare their Errours supposing he will giue them Repentance though indeed in our case there can be no true Repentance vnless all sinfull errours be rectifyed 24. That which you alledge out of the Prophet David aboccultis meis munda me cannot signify that sin can be committed without some knowledge as even Socinians confess but only that sins committed by culpable ignorance are not wont to moue vs so much to detestation and sorrow as those which are committed with full knowledg and therfore those hidden sins require a more particular light and Grace of God to present them to our soules so clearly and effectually as we may be perfectly sorrowfull for them in particular and not be deceyved with such a generall ineffectuall sorrow as you obtrude without dereliction of the sins of which men pretend to repent 25. And now I hope it appeares vpon examination of your particular errours concerning Repentance that you make it either insufficient by your pretended necessity of extirpating all vicious habits
places And therfore Charity Maintayned had reason to say that in this particular he never touched the Point really seing he himselfe destroyes what himselfe might seeme once to haue builded 5. All that you haue N. 10. is answered by saying that it is damnable not to belieue any least Point which the Church proposes to be a Divine trurh that is as revealed by God till which tyme one may erre without Heresy Now to determine what Points in particular be so proposed were to run overall particular Articles of Faith Yet to your instances I answer briefly The Quarta decimani who held that Easter was to be kept according to the Rite of the Jewes were justly condemned of Heresy not precisely for the Circumstance of Tyme but for the ground of that Assertion that it was necessary to doe so which would haue brought with it a necessity of keeping all the Rites of the Jewes And therfore you say vntruly that God had not then declared himselfe about Easter But the keeping of Chrismass day ten dayes sooner or later goes vpon no such ground For I never heard that the Jewes kept our Saviours Nativity either according to the new or old Calendar As for believing that there are Antipodes if you can produce any Text of Scripture or definition of Gods Church I will hold it a matter of Faith Sure I am it is a matter of reason not to produce such impertinent examples as you doe The same I say of Predetermination that what the Church shall determine will become a matter of Faith The example of Millenaryes and necessity of Eucharist for Infants which last you vntruly Father vpon S. Augustine you are still obtruding vpon vs without proving what you say as also that S. Austine did not hold it as a matter of Faith that the Bishops of Rome had Right and Power to judge of all appeales from all parts of the world and it is manifestly false that the Church ever determined the Doctrine of the Millenaryes or that S. Austine did deny the Pope had Right to judge of all appeales though for the Practise therof there might be just cause not to vse it promiscuously in all occasions You say Justine Martyr denyes that some good Christians held the contrary to the Millenaryes But even learned Protestants and more skillfull in the Greeke toung than you are interpret S. Justine Martyr in a direct contrary sense as I shew hereafter And in fine our Question is only concerning matters defined by the Church and not what any particular Doctour might hold It seemes you hold it not to be a matter of Faith that Heretikes may giue true Baptisme but S. Austine held and Gods Church believes it to be such and by this example we proue that some Points are matter of Faith which are not evidently contained in Scripture 6. To your N. 13. I answer Charity Maintayned N. 6. said not that a perswasion that men of different Religions may be saved is Atheisme but a ground of Atheisme yea he sayd not this absolutely but thus there is not a more pernicious Heresy or rather marke this modification a ground of Atheisme than a perswasion that men of different Religions may be saved Where you see such a Doctrine is not absolutely called Atheisme but only that it may be rather called a ground of Atheisme than a pure or ordinary kind of Heresy And I pray is not a perswasion that men of different Religions may be saved without repentance a ground and disposition either to deny the Deity which is to be worshipped ōly by a true Religion or not to care much for God or Religion And who would dislike this saying of Charity Maintayned pronounced in generall except a Socinian or some such creature Yourselfe say N. 8. That to deny a thing sufficiently proposed to be revealed by God is to giue God the lye and to say that men may be saved who giue God the lye is it not a ground and disposition to end in Atheisme Potter saith Pag 212. Whatsoever is revealed in Scripture or propounded by the Church out of Scripture is in some sense fundamentall in regard of the Divine Authority of God and his word by which it is recommended that as such is may not be denyed or contradicted without infidelity Why do you not question the Doctor and aske how he can be an infidell who believes the true God Remember your owne saying that the naturall fecundity of errour is to beget Errour And so what will follow of freedom and indifferency for all beliefes of which one only can be true but a flitting from one Errour to another till they hold no Religion at all But the truth is you could not impugne Charity Maintayned but by changing or rather falsifying the Question which was whether men of different Religions may be saved without repentance and you say they may be saved by repentance wherby it may seeme you do not deny but it were a ground of Atheisme to assirme that men of different Religions may be saved without any repentance though they liue and dy in their errour 7. The rest of your Answer being only an Answer to such Demands as Charity Maintayned proposed which haue been handled at large in other places I will only briefly note First what you say Pag 18. N. 26. in these words why an implicite Faith in Christ and his word should not suffice as well as an implicite Faith in your Church I haue desired to be resolved by many of your side but never could hath been expressly answered Chap 2. where I haue shewed that Scripture alone neither extensiue containes all necessary Points of Faith nor as I may say intensiue seing euen those Articles which it containes for the true and certaine vnderstāding of them require the authority of the church to say nothing that we cannot haue an implicite Faith in the Scripture vnless it be resolved into our beliefe of the Church for whose authority we receaue Scripture it selfe Secondly That N. 19. you answer not directly to the Question of Charity Maintayned Part 1. P. 15. N. 12. What visible Church was there before Luther disagreeing with the pretended Church of Protestants But transferr it from a Church to particular men as if it were necessary for vs to shew that every man agreed with the Roman Church seing we know many particular men haue fallen into errours but we affirme that before Luther there was no visible true Orthodox Church which disagreed from the Roman and particularly in those Points wherin Protestants disagree from vs. Thirdly that Pag 23. N 27. as it should be you accuse vs of want of Charity even while you are in the act of giving the same ill measure to vs saying that for want of Charity to Protesiants we alwayes suspect the worst of them and what greater want of Charity can there be in you than not only to suspect but to pronounce and proclaime in print that we want Charity which is
grace who desires that all men should be saved and come to the knowledg of truth Where you see Ch Ma saith it is in our power with Gods grace to find that saving Truth which is but one and is to be found only in the true visible Church of Christ and so it must 〈◊〉 our fault if we misse therof and consequently that our errours will be sinfull and that we cannot effectually repent of them without passing to the Truth that is without destroying those culpable sinfull errours which by Gods grace is in our power to destroy by embracing the contrary truths And afterward Ch Ma saith that the search of this truth will not proue so hard and intricate as men imagine because God hath endued his visible Church with so conspicuous markes of vnity and agreement in Doctrine Vniversality for tyme and place a never interrupted Succession of Pastours a perpetuall visibility from the Apostles to vs c. far beyond any probable pretence that can be made by any other congregations that whosoever doth seriously and vnpartially weigh these notes may easily discerne to what Church they belong Thus Ch Ma to shew how culpable and inexcusable they are who do not actually embrace Catholique Religion and forsake all other Congregations and errours And yet to take away all possibility for you to deceiue the world with this vnjust calumnie Ch Ma hath these very words Let not men flatter and deceiue themselves that ignorance will excuse them For there are so many and so easy and yet withall so powerfull meanes to find the true Church that it is a most dangerous ād pernicious errour to rely vpon the excuse of invincible ignorance What could he haue sayd more than to stile the Hope of Salvation by meanes of ignorance a pernicious errour Yet more and more to confute your calumnie and declare his owne sense he adds I wish them to consider that he can least hope for reliefe by ignorance who once confides therin because his very alledging of ignorance shewes that God hath put some thoughts into his mynd of seeking the safest way which if he relying on Gods Grace do carefully and constantly endeavour to examine discusse and perfitt he shall not faile to find what he seekes and to obtaine what he askes Now if Ch Ma teach so effectually that none must hope to be saved by ignorance with what truth or justice can you say that in his opinion Protestants may be saved without actually retracting their sinfull errours Nay I am sure Ch Ma believes that if God will in his Goodness bring a man to Salvation he will be sure by his Wisdome to apply those Meanes which in the ordinary course of his holy providence he hath appointed for that end which is to embrace the true Faith and to be a true member of the true visible Church 3. You pretend to beleeue that de facto God will bring none to heaven without Faith in Christ and beliefe of Christian Religion If then one should aske whether a Pagan or Jew or Turke could be saved with an vniversall sorrow for all his errours and sins knowne and vnknowne what would you answer If you say they might be saved you contradict yourselfe and grant that Salvation may be had without faith in Christ If you say they could not be saved because God de facto hath appointed Faith in Christ as a necessary condition or meanes for Salvation The same I answer in our case that God hath decreed to saue none without true Faith which is only in the true Uisible Church yea to be a true Christian and to be a Catholike is all one there being not any other true Christian Faith than that which is taught by the Catholique Church nor is there any true Church of Christ but One and therfore as you pretend to hold Christian Faith to be necessary for Salvation you should also hold the same of the Catholique Faith and consequently that none can be saved with any sinfull errour contrary to that Faith nor that it can be true Repentance which doth not exclude any such errour And all that you can Object against this truth may be objected in behalfe of Jewes or Turks against your pretended beliefe that Faith in Christ is necessary to Salvation They might I say demand of you why they may not haue true Contrition and pardon of their sins by a generall repentance of all their offences knowne and vnknowne and among the rest of their errours against or ignorance of Christian Religion and what you answer to them will serve for a confutation of your Arguments against vs. For this cause Charity Maintayned Part 1. Pag 28 N. 3. saith that we hope and pray for the conversion of Protestants and surely our meaning is not that they be converted to vs by remaining in their former beliefe contrary to vs. But Ch M. need not wonder that you falsify him seing you are not ashamed to say Pag 34. N. 6. that according to the grounds of our Catholike Religion Protestants may dy in their supposed errours either with excusable ignorance or with contrition and if they do so may be saved But I beseech you out of what Ground or Principle of Catholique Religion can you dreame to collect that Protestants can be saved by ignorance or with Contrition remayning formall Protestants And it is a comfort for Ch Ma to be calumniated by you in that very thing wherin you calumniate the whole Church of God In the meane tyme by what I haue sayd innumerable places I may say the chiefest part of your Booke are answered which goe vpon this false ground that men may be saved without relinquishing their sinfull and damnable errours which you perpetually affirme without any proofe And what reason can be given why a man cannot be saved without relinquishing other deadly sins for example Hatred Perjury Theft c. and yet that it is not necessary to forsake errours confessed to be sinfull and damnable But it is no wonder that Heretikes are willing to sooth their Heresyes with false priviledges denyed to all other deadly sins 4. To your numbers 1.2.3.4.5.6 I haue answered already You say Pag 33. N. 4. the truth is the corruption of the Church and the destruction of it is not all one For if a particular man or Church may as you confesse they may hold some particular errours and yet be a member of the Church vniversall why may not the Church hold some vniversall errour and yet be still the Church Especially seing you say it is nothing but opposing the Doctrine of the Church that makes an errour damnable and it is impossible that the Church should oppose the Church I meane that the present Church should oppose itselfe Why do you stopp here and not goe forward to declare what lyes involued in your discourse thus In the tyme of the Apostles if a particular man or Church might haue held some errour and yet remained a member of the Church
errour not be damnable yea even though it were damnable and fundamentall which is to be noted because It is nothing but opposing the Doctrine of the Apostles that makes an errour damnable and it is impossible the Apostles should oppose the Apostles The like you may say of Scripture it selfe that it might erre and yet that it could not containe any damnable errour because according to Protestants It is nothing but opposing the Scripture that makes an errour damnable and it is impossible that the Scripture should oppose the Scripture which consequences are absurd and therfore as you would answer by denying the supposition that the Apostles can teach or Scripture can containe any errour so you know we absolutly deny your supposition that the Church can erre in matters of Faith which if we did grant we would not be so foolish as to beliefe that Nothing but opposing the Doctrine of the Church makes an errour damnable but contrarily we would affirme that precisily to oppose the Churches Doctrine that supposition being once made could never be Heresy or a damnable errour And therfore we speake very consequently in First believing that the Church cannot erre and then in avouching that every errour repugnant to the Doctrine of the Church is heresy The Motto in the frontispice of your Booke taken out of Jsaac Casaubon in Epist ad Card Perron Regis Jacobi nomine scriptâ sayth Simpliciter necessaria Rex appellat quae vel expresse Uerbum Dei praecipit credenda faciendaue vel ex Uerbo Dei necessariâ consequentiâ Uetus Ecclesia elicuit Obserue that he speakes of things absolutely necessary to salvation and then I say if the Church be subject to errour how can we be sure that Her Deductions from Scripture are necessary or only probable true or false though to her they may seeme true and necessary You say it is impossible that the present Church should oppose itselfe and do not reflect by this vety saying yourselfe must suppose that the Church can teach nothing but truth For if she may erre in some Points and believe aright in others those errours may be opposite to some truth which she believes though she do not marke that opposition You say Pag 215. N. 46. no mans errours can be confuted who togeather with his errour doth not belieue 〈◊〉 grant some true Principle that contradicts his errour If then the Churches errours may be confuted as you will suppose they may she must belieue some truth that contradicts her errour and therefore if it be impossible that the Church can be opposite to herselfe as you say it is impossible you must grant that she cannot belieue or teach any errour and then indeed it will be impossible for her to oppose herselfe because truth cannot possibly be opposite to truth 10. In the same N. 4. I must touch in a word that you falsify the words of Charity Maintayned Part 1. Pag 19. some may for a tyme haue invincible Ignorance even of some Fundamentall Article of Faith through want of capacity instruction or the like and so not offend either in such Ignorance or errour But you cite them thus Ignorance may excuse errours even in Fundamentall Articles of Faith omitting that necessary limitation for a tyme without which restriction the words sound as if absolvtely a man may liue and dy with invincible ignorance of Fundamentall Articles or of Points absolutely necessary to salvation and so want meanes sufficient to besaved without any fault of his which is not true For if he cooperate with Gods holy Grace they shall be degrees advance to the beliefe of all necessary Points though for a tyme they were ignorant of them And here I reflect that if a Protestant erre in or be invincibly ignorant for a tyme fo some fundamentall Point sufficiently proposed and believed by other Protestants they differ in the beliefe of fundamentall Points and the ignorant party sins not damnably and yet they sin damnably who disbelieue any Point sufficiently knowne to be revealed by God though otherwise it be not fundamentall of it selfe and therfore it is cleare that in matters of Divine Faith consideration is chiefly to be had of the formall and not of the materiall object 11. In your N. 7. you say God hath left meanes sufficient to determine not all Controversyes but all necessary to be determined Which concession is as much as we desire For no man dare say that God hath given any meanes only for superfluous vses or occasions and therfore seing he hath left meanes for deciding all Controversyes necessary to be determined we cannot without injury to his infinite wisdome imagine that there will never be necessity of determining any Since then as I sayd God hath given Authority to his visible Church for determining such Controversyes he will not faile to replenish her with Wisdome to discerne what be the occasions wherin they ought to be determined according to the exigence of particular circumstances Thus the Apostles called a Councell vpon occasion of difference amongst Christians about the Law of Moyses and the first foure Generall Councells which commonly Protestants pretend to receiue were gathered vpon severall occasions of emergent Heresyes The Scripture it selfe was not written all at once but as occasion did require and the same Holy Spirit which assisted Canonicall Writers in writing did appoint to them the tymes and occasions for which their writings would be most seasonable yet after they were once written it was necessary to belieue them as also the Decree of the Apostles in their Councell registred Act 15. and other Generall Councells and commands of the Church If Controversyes rise to such a height that there is periculum in mora danger in delaying to determine them either for avoiding insufferable breach of Charity and Schisme or corruptions in manners or invalidity of Sacraments which cannot be otherwise prevented If silence may be interpreted to imply a consent If errour be like to prevaile vnlesse it be condemned if new Heresyes be in danger to take roote if they be not crushed with speede if these or any other causes require the Decision of Controversyes the Holy Ghost will effectually inspire and direct his Church to apply a convenient remedy according to the Condition of the matter Neither ought it to seeme strang that somthing may grow to be necessary one tyme which was not necessary at another and in the meane tyme men may be saved by an humble preparation of mynd to belieue and obey whatsoever the Church shall in good tyme determine or command And by the way out of this discourse we may inferr that Scripture alone cannot be a Rule to decide all Controversyes in regard that such a Rule or judge must serue for all emergent occasions and Scripture being always the same cannot be applyed sutably to all new different circumstances as I haue often saied 12. You say If some Controversyes may for many Ages be vndetermined and yet in the meane tyme
one cannot be saved without Repentance vnless ignorance accidentally may in some particular person plead excuse For in that case of contrary beliefe one must of necessity be held to oppose Gods Word or revelation sufficiently represented to his vnderstanding by an infallible Propounder which opposition to the Testimony of God is vndoubtedly a damnable sin whether otherwise the thing so testifyed be in it selfe great or small Now what can be more evident than this consequence and conclusion And yet you say The conclusion is true though the consequence of it from the former Premisses either is none at all or so obscure that I can hardly discerne it and then you add the difference may be concerning a thing which being indeed no matter of Faith is yet overvalued by the Partyes at variance and esteemed to be so And lastly you set downe the wild collection I spoke of and deliver it in these words God hath provided meanes sufficient to decide all controversyes in Religion necessary to be decided this meanes is vniversally infallible Therfore of two that differ in any thing which they esteeme a matter of Faith one cannot be saved He that can find any connexion between these Propositions I belieue will be able to find good coherence betweene the deafe plaintiffes accusation in the Greeke Epigramme and the deafe Defendants Answer and the deafe judges sentence and to contriue them all into a formall categoricall sylogisme Thus you But Charity Maintayned never pretended to make a syllogisme and his words which I haue even now alledged cleare him from your vaine imputation and fond collection He sayd expressly vnless ignorance plead excuse which makes the errours against Divine Revelation to be sinfull and damnable seing he speakes of persons not excused by ignorance Neither hath he those words which you add necessary to be decided nor those other which they esteeme a matter of Faith yea he spoke formally and expressly of two men dissenting in matters of Faith and not in Points which they only esteemed to be matters of Faith And because you thinke it impossible to contriue his discourse into a formall categoricall syllogisme which indeed would be impossible to doe with your Additions let vs suppose some Truth to be revealed by God and sufficiently propounded to the vnderstandings of two by a Propounder infallible in himselfe and by them certainly believed to be such which is the direct supposition of Charity Maintayned and that one of them contradicts the other and consequently by so doing opposes a Truth testifyed by God and sufficiently propounded as such And then what say you to this syllogisme Whosoever opposes a Truth witnessed by God and for such sufficiently represented to his vnderstanding by a propounder believed by the party himselfe to be infallible committs a grievous sin and so cannot be saved without repentance but in the case proposed one of the two contradicting partyes opposeth a Truth revealed by God and sufficiently propounded to his vnderstanding by such an infallible propounder Therfore he committs a grievous sin Yourselfe here N. 13. grant that they cannot be saved who oppose any least part of Scripture If they oppose it after sufficient declaration so that either they know it to be contained in Scripture or haue no just probable Reason and which may moue an honest man to doubt whether or no it be there contayned as it happens in our case wherin we suppose that the erring party is in sinfull errour by reason of opposing an infallible Propounder of Divine Truths whosoever that Propounder be This very thing you grant also in the N. 11. where you say Indeed if the matter in agitatiō were plainly decided by this infallible meanes of deciding Controversyes and the partyes in variance knew it to be so and yet would stand out in their dissension this were in one of them direct oposition to the testimony of God and vndoubtedly a damnable sin Which is the very thing that Ch Ma clearly affirmed And now you haue lost your jeast out of the Greeke Epigramme turned by you into a Satyre Thrice happy had it beene for you to haue been deafe dumbe and blind rather than to haue ever heard or spoken any thing or that others should haue seene those vast absurdityes and wicked Heresyes of yours which openly destroy Christian Religion But there is a just judge who is neither deafe nor dumbe nor blind but heares and sees and punisheth all pride contempt and Heresy and the Approbators of them if they do not repent and in tyme declare to the world such their Repentance 17. You speake N. 11. to Ch Ma in this manner You may hope that the erring Part by reason of some veile before his eyes some excusable ignorance or vnavoydable prejudice does not see the Question to be decided against him and so opposes only what you knowe to be the word of God and he might know were he voide of prejudice Which is a fault I confesse but a fault which is incident even to good and honest men very often Concerning which words I aske how can that be a sin which proceeds from some excusable Ignorance or vnavoidable prejudice For if the cause of the errour be vnavoydable and consequently invincible and as you expressly say excusable how can the errour itselfe be sinfull Or if it be a fault as you say it is how is it not a grievous fault consisting in a culpable opposition against Divine Revelation which you perpetually profess to be damnable Or how can a grievous and damnable fault be incident to good and honest men 18 To your saying N. 12. That it is against Charity to affirme that mē are justly chargeable with all the consequences of their opinions I answer as yourselfe and every one must answer to the like objection in a hundred other occasions that men are justly chargeable with all the consequences of their opinions if their not seing those consequences proceede from some voluntary vincible roote as ignorance and errours against divine Faith are sinfull and damnable when they are Effects of sinfull causes 19. In the N. 13. I will only touch in a word that in saying S. Cyprian and Stephen might both be saved because their contrary beliefe was not touching any point contayned in Scripture You either grant that it is not a Point of Faith That Baptisme conferred by Heretikes is valid Wherin for ought I know you contradict the chiefest number of Protestants and in particular your English Church or els that somthing may be a Point of Faith which is not contained in Scripture 20. In your N. 14.15.16.17 there is no difficulty Only it is cleare that you voluntarily alter the state of the Question wherin Ch Ma alwayes supposed that speech was of Points contained in Scripture and that a man opposed the Scripture culpably For which cause N. 17. he sayd According to Protestants Oppose not scripture there is no errour against Faith Oppose it in any least Point the
errour if Scripture be sufficiently proposed which proposition is also required before a man can be obliged to belieue even Fundamentall points must be damnable Which words you shamefully conceale out of guiltyness that they prevented all your Answers about Ignorance or such accidentall and variable circumstances to which you sly before you gaue them Seing it appeares that Charity Maintayned spoke expressly of Scripture sufficiently proposed and N. 15. you say That such Points are fundamentall Our B. Saviour saith S. Marke 16.16 he that does not belieue shall be damned And S. Paul Gal 5.20.21 having reckoned some vices and among the rest Sects concludes They who doe these things shall not obtaine the kingdome of Heaven Will you now stand vp and blaspheme and say that our Saviour and S. Paul should not haue pronounced damnation against disbelievers Sects and Heretykes without adding your limitations to wit vnless ignorance excuse or a generall Repentance obtaine pardon 21. In your N. 15. you giue a new explication of Points Fundamentall and not Fundamentall That these Points either in themselves or by accident are Fundamentall which are evidently contained in Scripture to him that knoweth them to be so Those not Fundamentall which are there-hence deducible but probably only not evidently How many things may be observed in these words First it answers not plainly to the Question of Ch Ma which was whether is there in such denyall of a Point contained in Scripture and sufficiently proposed as Ch. M. expressly speakes any distinction betwixt Points Fundamentall and not Fundamentall sufficient to excuse from Heresy As certainly there is not Secondly by this distinction of yours all that is sufficiently proposed to be contained in Scripture is a Fundamentall Point and every errour in such Points must be a Fundamentall errour and destroy Faith Church and salvation and so you grant what Ch. Ma. desired in his Question though you thought not fitt to Answer it clearly and in direct termes but to involue things by talking of matters nothing to the purpose and therfore I say Thirdly Points deducible from Scripture but probably only are not Points of Faith which requires certitude but may be denyed without sin if one haue probable reason for his denyall as yourselfe confess N. 14. that it is a grievous sin to deny any one Truth contayned in Scripture if he who denyes it knew it to be so or haue no probable reason to doubt of it Otherwise not Ch Ma as I sayd spoke expressly of Points sufficiently knowne to be contayned in Scripture that is of matters of Faith and by what logicke can you distinguish Points of Faith into Points which are of Faith and points which are not of Faith as things which are deduced from Scripture probably only are not matters of Faith as we haue seene out of your owne words Doth not Logick teach that the Diuisum must be affirmed of everie one membrorum dividentium and will you affirme faith of that which is not Faith 23. In your N. 16. To the Question of Ch Ma whether it be not impertinent to alledge the Creed as containing all Fundamentall Points of Faith as if believing it alone we were at liberty to deny all other Points of Scripture you answer It was never alledged to any such purpose But as in other Points so in this you speake for Protestants without any commission or warrant from them For who knowes not that nothing is more common with them than to say that Protestants may be saved and are brethren as agreeing in the substance of Faith because all of them belieue the Creed which reason were plaine non-sense if they may belieue the Creed and yet not be of one Faith nor hope of Salvation by reason of their disagreement in other Points Or what availes it them to agree in necessariò credendis all which you say the Creed containes which yet is very false if they differ in agendis in Articles of Faith by which they are directed for Christian Practise Seing Protestants differ not only in credendis but in agendis Howsoever I take what you giue that the Creed cannot be pertinently alledged as if believing it alone Protestants may disagree in other Points and yet remaine Brethren and so by this very answer you grant what Charity Maintayned intended to proue that disagreement in any one Point of Faith be it great or little cannot stand with Salvation on his side whose errour is culpable As wholosome meate taken alone may nourish but if the same man receiue poyson he shall not escape death in vertue of that meate which otherwise might haue conserved him in life and health Bonum ex integra causa malum ex quocunque defectu One damnable errour is enough to worke perdition though a man belieue all Truths except that which is contrary to such an errour 22. I haue no more to say about this first Chapter except only that you might haue comprized the substance therof in few lines or words if you had not perverted the state of the Question by flying to accidentall and changeable circumstances and vsing needless and endless repetitions of such variable circumstances CHAP XI The Ansvver to his second Chapter CONCERNING THE MEANES WHERBY THE REVEALED TRVTHS OF GOD ARE CONVEYED TO OVR VNDERSTANDING And vvhich must determine Controversyes in Faith and Religion 1. I Find by experience That the reducing of your dispersed and often repeated discourses to some heads frees me of much vnnecessary labour which otherwise must haue beene spent in speaking to every particular Section of yours For in this Chapter I find litle but either passion or calumny or begging of the Question or what is answered already till I come to your N. 30. which also containes nothing but a matter of fact whether Brierly and Ch. Ma and other Catholique Writers haue abused Hooker in saying that he teaches that Scripture cannot be proved to be the word of God by the testimony of scripture itselfe but by some other meanes namely the Church For my part I haue read and considered the place cited by Ch Ma out of Hooker Lib 3. Sect 8. and find that you are like those charitable people who are content to want one eye vpon condition that their adversary be deprived of both You are willing that Hooker contradict Himselfe yourselfe and evident reason itselfe rather than he should seeme to favour vs. I say he must contradict reason which can never proue that Scripture is written by Divine inspiration as I know you will not deny seing all the contents of Scripture might haue bene set downe in writing without the infallible direction of the Holy Ghost You say Pag 114. N. 156. If there were any that believed Christian Religion and yet believed not the Bible to be the word of God though they believed the matter of it to be true which is no impossible supposition for I may belieue a Booke of S. Austines to containe nothing but the truth of God
Epistle to the Hebrews that it was put out of the number by the greatest part of men and yet elswere he receives it as the Epistle of S. Paul And if you will haue a generall explication of S. Herome concerning his rejecting of Bookes not admitted by the Hebrewes heare it in his owne words advers Ruff Apolog 2. wheras I haue reported what the Hebrewes vsed to object against the History of Susanna and the Hymne of the Three Children and the Story of the Dragon Bel which are not in the Hebrew I haue not declared what I thought but what the Jewes were wont to say against vs and he calls Russinus a foolish Sycophant for charging him with the opinion of the Hebrewes about these parts of Daniel And S. Hierome explaining himselse in this manner is acknowledged by Covell Answ to Bourges Pag 87. and Bankcroft Confer before his Majesty How then will you excuse your Church which in her sixt Article saith in generall of all the Bookes which you esteeme Apocryphall among which are the History of Susanna the Hymne of the three Children and that of the Dragon The other Bookes as S. Hierome saith the Church doth reade for example of life and instruction of manners but yet it doth not apply them to establish any Doctrine How can she I say be excused since S. Hierome even according to the Confession of your owne Brethren doth explaine himselfe that he vttered only what the Jewes were wont to say against vs and cals Ruffinus a foolish Sycophant for saying the contrary So as insteed of S. Hierome and the Church of God you put on the person of Ruffinus against S. Hierome and of the Synagogue against the Church of Christ our Lord And so your whole Canon of the Old Testament relyes vpon the Authority of the Jewes Thus far Charit Maint Which you did not well to conceale And while you will not receaue the Canon from the vniversall Church before Luther you send men to the Jewes Now that S. Hierome received the Epistle to the Hebrewes for Canonicall appeares out of his Epistle ad Dardanum where he saith of this Epistle of S. Paul and the Apocalyps of S. John Nos vtraque suscipimus we receaue them both though we haue heard him say before ad Paulinum that the Epistle to the Hebrewes was put out of the number by the greatest part of men But howsoever this were particular Opinyons do nothing concerne the Definitions of the Church as I saied 22. You say N. 92. How can we receiue the Scripture vpon the authority of the Roman Church which hath delivered at severall tymes Scriptures in many places different and repugnant for authenticall and Canonicall Which is most evident out of the place of Malachy which is so quoted for the sacrifice of the Masse that either all the ancâ—ent Fathers had false Bibles or yours is false Most evident likewise from the comparing of the story of Iacob in Genesis with that which is cited out of it in the Epistle to the Hebrewes accordig to the vulgar Edition but aboue all to any one who shall compare the Bibles of Sixtuâ— and Clement so evident that the wit of man cannot disguise it 23. Answer It is intolerable in you to presume that your word must be taken without so much as offering any least proofe for what you say wheras you could not be ignorant but that all difficultyes which either Protestants or any other Heretikes could object against vs haue beene considered and confuted by learned Catholikes And why did you not cite those different and repugnant Texts which you mention in Malachie Yet the Reader at aventure may read Bellarmine De Missa L. 1. C. 10. and Corn à Lapide vpon Malach 1.11 where they learnedly proue the holy Sacrifice of the Masse out of that place and solidly answer all the objections to the contrary For that which you mention of the Story of Jacob in Genesis compared with the Epâ—â—â—â—e to the Hebrewes I wish you had so declared your objection that I might haue applyed a particular and determinate answer therto Now I can only conjecture what you meane and desire the Reader if he desire satisfaction in this matter to peruse what Corn a Lapide writes vpon Heb 11.21 where he learnedly answers the difficulty which may seeme to be in this place compared with the 47. Chap V. 31. of Genesis see also the annotation of the Rhemes testament vpon the said place of S. Paul and the annotation of the Doway translation vpon Gen 47.31 who declare this very well and the former she wes that in your Translation you clearly falsify the Text of Scripture I wonder you do not blush to talke of the Bible of Sixtus and Clement having seene the full Answer which Ch Ma giveth to that objection made also by Potter which is a signe you could not indeed confute what Ch Ma said therin Part 2. Chap 6. N. 3. 24. Your N. 93.94.95.96.67 haue bene sufficiently answered already yet I will touch some Points You say 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 himselfe to teach you not only sufficiently but effectually and irresistibly the true sense of Scripture 25. Answer You will needs be still confounding effectually and irresistibly wherof I spoke enough hertofore For the present I say that God hath obliged himselfe so to teach the Church effectually the true interpretation of Scripture that we are infallibly certaine she is free from all errour in Faith which is a priviledge absolutely necessary as those things are not which you specify N. 96. That he should not only guard them from all errours but guide them to all profitable Truths such as the true senses of all Scripture would be and that he should de end them irresislibly from all vices and infuse into them irresistibly all vertues These things I say are not necessary as true Faith is necessary for constituting one a member of the Church which hath beene proved hertofore even out of Protestants Who will not wonder at these words of yours to Ch Mat If you say he cannot do this without taking away their free will in living I say neither can he necessitate men to belieue aright without taking away their free will in believing and in prefessing their beliefe For who sees not but that by this meanes you take away the infallibility of the Apostles yea of our Saviour himselfe whom you belieue not to be God Or els you must grant that men may be infallible by the Assistance of the Holy Ghost without taking away their free will and so you must either contradict yourselfe or blaspheme against the infallibility of the Apostles and certaine truth of Christian Religion 26. The Answer which you giue N. 97. to the place which Ch Ma N. 18. cited out of S. Austine I would not belieue the
You seeke to shift off the place of S. Austine which Charity Maintayned cited N. 21. You see that you goe about to overtrow all Authority of Scripture and that every mans mynd may be to himselfe a rule what he is to allow or disallow in every Scripture Lib 32. cont Faust Yet it is certaine by Reason and Experience of Protestants and other old and moderne Sectaryes that to take away a Living Judge is to make every mans mynd a Rule what he is to allow or disallow in every Scripture For the Circle of which you speake here and in many other places I haue shewed hertofore at large that no such thing can with any probability be objected against vs but most clearly and vnanswerably against your Brethren 35. It seemes you were well furnished with idle tyme when N. 122. it should be 121. you could at large examine and seriously exagitate these words of Charity Maintayned Part 1. Pag 66. N. 22. Behold what goodly safe Propounders of Faith arise in place of Gods vniversall visible Church which must yield to a single Preacher a neighbour a man himselfe if he can read or at least haue eares to heare Scripture read Which words good safe Propounders of Faith who sees not to be spoken ironicè out of just indignation that men should reject the determination of Pope or Church as Potter expressly does in that Page 247. and then send vs to the Declaration of a particular Preacher of a Neighbour c Surely the Doctor having rejected the Pope and Church should haue proposed some better and safer meanes and did ill to propound such as every one sees are fallible and in no wise safe But I shall be guilty of your fault if I stay longer vpon such trifles 36. Your N. 123. hath beene answered already and in your N. 124. you do not so much impugne Charity Maintayned as Dr Potter cited by Him Part 1. Pag 67. N. 23. in these words Dr Potter acknowledgeth that besides the Law there was a Living Iudge in the Iewish Church indued with an absolutly infallible direction in cases of moment as all Points belonging to Divine Faith are The question then must be not whether Dr Potter spoke true but whether Charity Maintayned cited him truly as I am sure He did For the Doctor Edit 2. Pag 25. Lin 2. a fine writes thus The High Priest in cases of moment had a certaine Priviledge from errour if he consulted the divine Oracle by the judgement of Vrim or by the breast-plate of judgement wherin were Vrim and Thummim wherby he had an absolutly infallible direction Thus He. And that you may see he speakes of such an infallibility as He denyes to the Pope and Church Marke his words immediatly following If any such promise from God to assist the Pope could be produced his decisions might then justly passe for Oracles without examination Till then his words with vs weigh so much as his reasons no more Where you see He grants to the high Priest so great and so large a Priviledge that if any such promise from God to assist the Pope could be produced his decisions might then justly passe for Oracles without examination Which is a large grant and from which every good Christian may well inferr that if such an infallibility were granted to the high Priest and Synagogue to the Jewes much more ought we to yield an absolute infallibility to the Vicar and Church of Christ 37 But N. 124. You answer or Object First Where was that infallible direction in the Iewish Church when they should haue received Christ for their Messias and refused him Or perhaps this was not a case of moment 38. Answer Possibili posito in esse nullum sequitur absurdum Nor is it any wonder that what was prophecyed should be performed Perpetuity was not promised to the Old Law of which it is sayd Ezech 7.26 The Law shall perish from the Priest but to the Church of Christ of which it is sayd the gates of hell shall not prevaile against her The Church is free and signifyed by Sara wife to Abraham the Synagogue was signifyed by Agar the bond woman Gal 4.24 Agar was sent away and repudiated not Sara The Church is vniversall in respect of all that shall be saved because none can be saved out of it as even Calvin expressly grants Instit Lib 4. Cap 1. N. 4. Extra ejus gremium nulla est speranda peccatorum remissio nec vlla salus But diverse were saved out of the Synagogue The Synagogue was not perfect Heb 7.19 The Law brought nothing to perfection And in this sense the ceremonyes and Sacraments of the Synagogue are called weake and poore elements Gal. 4.9 But the Church of Christ is perfect and the Sacraments of the New Law not only signify but giue Grace For which cause S. Austine in Psalm 73. saith The Sacraments of the new Testament giue salvation the Sacraments of the Old promised a Saviour The Synagogue contayned a shadow of good things to come Heb 10.1 The Church hath the light itselfe that is Christ John 1.9 No wonder then if the shaddow faile when the fullness of light appeares and no wonder if our Saviour being present at the Councell of the Jewes and having so preached the Gospell that after some houres he sayd Consummatum est It is consummate No wonder I say if the Jewes might be permitted at that tyme to erre S. Leo Serm 6. de Passion saith Tu verò he speakes to Caiphas a quo jam alienabatur haec dignitas ipse tibi es executor opprobrij ad manifestandum finem veteris instituti pertinet eadem diruptio Sacerdotij He speakes of Caiphas tearing his garments Contrarily you may remember that the Priests being consulted by Herod about the Messias did giue a true answer concerning him Yet good Sir you may reflect that the Point for which the high Priest directly and immediatly sayd He hath blasphemed was not because he then expressly pretended to be the Messias but because he made himselfe the Son of God vpon which Caiphas did rend his garments and afterward they accused him before Pilate because he made himselfe the Son of God and do not you with other Socinians hold it to be indeed a blasphemy to say that our Saviour Christ is the Son of God and consubstantiall to the Eternall Father and do they not in their Catechisme expressly say that it is against Scripture and rectam rationem right reason Which wicked heresy of yours being once supposed to be true the high Priest may easily be excused from errour and blasphemy and so by this example you in particular ought not to proue that he erred in a case of moment but that he spoke truth Neither can you blame him for taking the words of our Saviour that he was the Son of God in a litterall sense seing all orthodoxe Believers vnderstand it so as indeed it is so to be vnderstood And in the meane
in this is persumption For although it were granted which yet is very false that they differ only in Points not Fundamentall yet I haue reason to find fault with the answer because they giue it to shew that notwitstanding their disagreement in Points not Fundamentall yet they are Brethren and may all be in state of salvation which to affirme is both very false and very pernicious seing that errour in any Point revealed by God and sufficiently proposed for such is damnable and excludes salvation even according to your owne doctrine and therfore this Answer doth not free them from what Charity maintayned objected that they abuse this distinction and to this you should haue answered without declining it by impertinent diversions and demands The other part of your Dilemma is this If you say they do not so that is differ not only in not Fundamentalls but in Points Fundamentall also then they are not members of the same Church one with another no more than with you And therfore why should you object to any of them their differences from each other any more then to yourselves their more and greater differences from you Thus you still flying a direct answerto Ch. Ma. and yet granting perforce all that he desires If say you Protestants differ in Points Fundamentall then they are not members of the same Church one with another And then say I they perniciously abuse people with this distinction to perswade them the direct contrary of that which even yourselfe here inferr to perswade men I say that they are members of the same Church and capable of salvation and Brethren though according to your supposition in this part of your Dilemma they differ in Points Fundamentall And this is that to which you should haue answered whether they do not abuse this distinction and either haue acquitted them or done Ch. Ma. Right by an open confession of his saying truly They abuse this distinction You say If Protestants differ in Fundamentalls they are not members of the same Church one with another no more than with vs Catholikes If this beso the more vnreasonable inconsequent and vnjust are they in pretending to be Brethren one to another and yet enemyes to vs wherby you do still more and more make good that they abuse this distinction in pretending to be Brethren one to another and not to vs especially if we call to mynd that many of their chiefest learned men in diverse most important matters agree with vs against other Protestants and yet they must be Brethren and we enemyes even in those very Points in which they agree with vs against other Protestants which is very prodigious 5. Your last words either passe my vnderstanding or else are no better than ridiculous You say to vs Why should you object to any of them their differences from each other any more than to yourselves their more and greater differences from you For my part I can draw no better Argument from these words than this we object to Protestants who pretend to be Brethren of the same Church substance of Faith and hope of salvation that they differ in Fundamentall Points of Faith for as I sayd you speake expressly of such Points in this second Part of your Dilemma therfore we may as well object to ourselves their more and greater differences frō vs frō vs I say who daily proclaime to the world that neither they nor any other Heretikes are our Brethren or of the same Faith Church and hope of salvation How can we object to ourselves a thing wherin we proceede with most evident consequence and Truth If indeed we did pretend to be their Brethren then we might and ought to object against ourselves the great differences between them and vs as now with reason we make such an objection against them But our case being directly contrary to theirs we are obliged to proceed in a contrary way and to professe that there can be no communication of light with darkeness of falshood with truth of Heresy with Catholique doctrine 6. You say in your N. 10. What els do we vnderstand by an vnfundamentall errour but such a one with which a man may possibly be saved I aske whether he may be saved with Repentance or without it If only with Repentance you make no difference between Fundamentall and vnfundamentall Points because with repentance any errour may be forgiven be it never so Fundamentall If you meane a man may be saved with such an errour even without repentance you contradict yourselfe who perpetually affirme that errours not Fundamentall are damnable in themselves and cannot be pardoned without repentance And I haue proved it to be impossible that any culpable errour can be forgiven without relinquishing it 7. To yuur N. 11.12 13.14 I haue answered in severall occasions Only for your N. 11. it must be remembred that I haue proved Communion in Liturgie Sacraments c to be essentiall to the Visible Church which makes your similitude of renouncing the vices of a friend and yet not renouncing a friend to be impertinent because vices are not essentiall to a friend as externall Communion is essentiall to the Church which therfore must needs be forsaken when one departs from that which is essentiall to her 8. Your N. 15.16.17 containe no other difficulty except that which yourselfe create out of nothing while you faine this roving argument and then impute it to Cha Ma Whosoever disbelieues any thing knowen by himselfe to be revealed by God imputes falshood to God and therfore errs Fundamentally But some Protestants disbelieue things which other belieue to be testifyed by God therfore they impute falshood to God and erre Fundamentally But why do you seeke to deceiue the ignorant with such Sophismes as these Doth not Charity Maintayned speake expressly of the case wherin there is Question between two contradicting one another cōcerning some Point which God hath revealed And therfore one of the litigants must really erre against Divine Revelation on and be a formall Heretike if ignorance chance not to excuse him which though perhaps some will conceiue may happen in one or two or a few yet to belieue that whole congregations and Churches should be excused by invincible ignorance notwithstanding all meanes of knowledg that God failes not to affoard can be neither discreete Charity nor charitable discretion but a dangerous and pernicious occasion and incitement to sloath and neglect of seeking the true religion vpon confidence of finding a lawfull excuse by ignorance You say Pag 21. If any Protestant or Papist be betrayed into or kept in any Errour by any sin of his will as it is to be feared many millions are such Errour is as the cause of it sinfull and damnable And Pag 19. and 20. you deny not but that the far greater part of Protestants faile in vsing sufficient diligence to find the truth and that their errours are damnable therfore Ch Ma might well say not only that per
se loquendo of two dissenting in matters revealed by God one must oppose his divine revelation and Veracity which is evidently true but also that de facto it is so in many millions yea in the far greater part of Protestants who therfore erre culpably against the divine Testimony and committ a deadly sin not because others as you speak belieue a thing to be revealed by God which Ch. ma. never sayd nor dreamed but because they themselves ought to haue believed that same thing to be revealed which others did belieue to be such and indeed was such Thus then you ought to reforme your distracted Syllogisme Whosoever disbelieves any thing knowne and which ought to be knowne by himselfe to be revealed by God imputes falshood to God and therfore errs fundamentally But some Protestants you say millions yea the greater part disbelieue those things which others belieue to be testifyed by God and which are and ought to be knowne by themselves to be so testifyed Therfere some Protestants yea millions and the greater part of them impute falshood to God and erre Fundamentally 9. But yet that it may further appeare how much you wrong Ch Ma I must set downe his words which Chap 3. N. 3. are these The difference among Protestants consists not in this that some belieue some Points of which others are ignorant or not bound expressly to know as the distinction ought to be applyed but that some of them disbelieue and directly wittingly and willingly oppose what others belieue to be testifyed by the word of God wherin there is no difference between Points Fundamentall and not Fundamentall Because till Points Fundamentall be sufficiently proposed as revealed by God it is not against Faith to reject them or rather without sufficient proposition it is not possible prudently to belieue them And the like is of Points not fundamentall which as soone as they come to be sufficiently propounded as divine Truths they can no more be denyed than Points Fundamentall propounded after the same manner What could be sayd more clearly to shew that Ch Ma spoke not of whatsoever kind of Objects but expressly of such as are really testifyed by God and not only believed to be such by others but also sufficiently proposed to a mans selfe as Divine Truths and which therfore bring with them a most strict obligation to be believed Your little respect to truth hath forced me to be longer in this point than I expected or desired to be And I hope it appeares that you had no other cause except want of Charity to Charity Maintayned to feare that his hart condemned him of a great calumny and egregious sophistry in imputing Fundamentall and damnable errour to disagreeing Protestants because forsooth some of them disbelieue and wittingly oppose what others do belieue to be testifyed by the word of God Seing Cha Ma expressly required that what others believed to be testifyed by God should also be sufficiently proposed to ones selfe before he could be obliged to belieue which sufficient proposition being supposed yourselfe do not deny but it is a damnable errour to disbelieue any such truth 10. Your N. 18. hath two good propertyes Falshood and Confusion or Obscurity You cite Ch. Ma. speaking thus The difference among Protestants consists not in this that some belieue some Points of which others are ignorant or not bound expressly to know and there you stop but Charity maintayned added these words but that some of them disbelieue and directly and wittingly and willingly oppose what others do belieue to be testifyed by the word of God wherin there is no difference between Points Fundamentall and not Fundamentall c Now I pray is there not a maine difference between ignorance or a not knowing or Nescience of a thing which another believes and a positiue opposition or actuall beliefe of the contrary to that which another believes How many truths are there which men do not know and yet erre not against them be cause their very ignorance keepes them from any judgement concerning them by way of Affirmation or negation but they carry themselves privatively or in a certaine manner passively or abstractively as if there were no such objects 11. But let vs heare what you object against so manifest a truth You say I would gladly know whether you speake of Protestants differing in profession only or in opinion also Answer I vnderstand not well what you meane by differing in profession only or in opinion also Do you meane that they make profession of differing in opinion when indeed they do not differ This were to dissemble and ly in matters of Religion But whatsoever your meaning be I answer that Charity Maintayned spoke expressly of Protestants differing in opinion one disbelieving what another believes as you confesse out of His words But you are willing to raise difficultyes where otherwise none could appeare 12. But then you say If they differ in opinion then sure they are ignorant of the truth of each others opinions It being impossible and contradictious that a man should know one thing to be true and belieue the contrary or know it and not belieue it And if they do not know the Truth of each others opinions then I hope you will grant they are ignorant of it If your meaning were they were not ignorant that each other held these opinions or of the sense of the opinions which they held I answer this is nothing to the convincing of their vnderstandings of the truth of them and these remaining vnconvinced of the truth of them they are excusable if they do not belieue 13. Answer Though it be much against my inclination yet truth commands me to say that here you shew either great ignorance or else write directly against your owne knowledge where you will needs confound pure ignorance with positiue Errour the difference of which I shewed even now and what Logician is ignorant of the division of ignorance into Ignorantiam purae privation is and Ignorantiam pravae disposition is that is a meere want of knowledge of some truth or a positiue errour contrary to it And by your leaue your saying If they differ in opinion they are ignorant of the truth of each others opinions is so far from being true speaking of pure ignorance that it implyes contradiction to say He who errs is ignorant seing to be purely ignorant in the sayd division of ignorance is one member into which ignorance is divided and one membrum dividens cannot in good Logicke include the other and therfore errour cannot include pure ignorance For it were to say one hath no knowledge at all and yet hath a false knowledg or a privation is a positiue entity and a Nothing a Something Your objection He who errs knowes not the contrary Truth and if he knowe not the truth he is ignorant of it is a meere mistake or equivocation For that he who errs knowes not or is ignorant of the contrary by a pure
ignorance or Nescience I deny That he is ignorant by a positiue errour or ignorance prauae dispositionis I grant and so when you assume He who knowes not the truth is ignorant of it you must distinguish according to the double sense of ignorance which hath beene declared and not speake with such confusion This same distinction I find in Dr. Potter Pag 243. where speaking of some Fundamentall Articles of Faith he hath these words These are so absolutly necessary to all Christians for attaining the end of our Faith that is the salvation of our soules that a Christian may loose himselfe not only by a positiue erring in them or denying of them but by a pure ignorance or nescience or not knowing of them Where you see he distinguishes between error and not knowing and therfore one may be ignorant of what another believes and yet not erre against it or disbelieue it As it is one thing not to be hot and another to be hold Now Charity Maintayned expressly distinguishes between pure ignorance and errour and therfore you do very ill first to confound them and then vpon that affected mistake frame your Objections The same equivocation you haue Pag 25. where you make a shewe of great subtility but indeed the Reader will finde nothing but vanity as I shewed in that place 14. You say to Charity Maintayned If your meaning were they were not ignorant that each other held these opinions or of the sense of the opinions which they held c I answer that this saying of yours is nothing to the purpose For though de facto Protestants are not ignorant what opinion other Protestants hold and therfore their disagreement is more patent and not only against the opinions by whomsoever they might chance to be held but also against opinions knowne to be defended by them whom they will needs call Brethren Yet indeed it is meerly accidentall and in no wise necessary to our present purpose that one Protestant should be conscious or know that he differs in opinion from another For if it were revealed to some in the Indyes that Christ is God and Saviour of the world and he did assent to that truth while another in Europe did dissent from the like Revelation sufficiently proposed this second doth truly disbelieue what the former believes no lesse than if he had knowne that the other believes it And therfore Charity Maintayned said Protestants disbelieue and wittixgly and willingly oppose what others do belieué to be testifyed by the word of God without saying vnnecessarily that they disbelieue what they know others belieue because as I sayd this knowledge is not necessary for our present purpose concerning the disagreement of Protestants in matters of Faith Much lesse to the purpose yea directly against syncerity is your saying That if their vnderstandings be not convinced they are excusable if they do not belieue Seing Charity Maintayned did speake of objects sufficiently proposed as revealed by God which are his expresse words in this very number which you impugne 15. In your N. 19.20.21.23 nothing occurrs of difficulty which hath not beene answered elswhere And you falsify Ch. Ma. when N. 20. you say he concludes that there is nodifference betweene errours in Points Fundamentall and not Fundamentall wheras he expressly saith in his N. 3. which here you answer and N. 4. that they do not differ in this that both of them are against Gods Revelation and damnable which yourselfe often grant yet you know that in other respects he puts a maine difference betweene them even in the number next precedent and declares the matter at large Surely this is no good dealing 16. In your N. 22. you still voluntarily mistake the state of the Question though Charity Maintayned had stated it very clearly N. 3. as we haue seene i. e. that when we treate whether errour excludes salvation we speake of Points sufficiently proposed as revealed by God and not in case of invincible ignorance want of instruction or the like This being presupposed Charity Maintayned N. 4. saith thus Dr Potter forgetting to what purpose Protestants make vse of their distinction doth sinally overthrow it and yields as much as we can desire Speakinge Pag 211. of that measure and quantity of Faith without which none can be saved he saith It is enough to belieue some things by a virtuall Faith or by a generall and as it were a negatiue Faith wherby they are not denyed or contradicted Now our question is in case that divine truth although not Fundamentall be denyed and contradicted and therfore even according to Him all such denyall excludes salvation Thus Charity Maintayned whose words you cite very imperfectly in this manner It is enough by Dr Potters confession to belieue some things negatively i.e. not to deny them therfore all denyall of any divine Truth excludes salvation Thus say you omitting these very next words of Charity Maintayned now our question is in case that divine Truths although not Fundamentall be denyed and contradicted And therfore even according to Him all such denyall excludes salvation And that Dr Potter alwayes supposes a sufficient Proposition before one can be obliged not to deny or contradict those Points of which he speakes is evident because one could not be obliged vnder sin not to contradict them if they be not sufficiently proposed Which Proposition he requires Universally in matters of Faith And in this very place he saith There is a certaine measure and quantity of Faith without which none can be saved but every thing revealed belongs not to this measure And then he adds the a foresayd words It is enough to belieue some things by a virtuall Faith or by a negatiue Faith wherby they are not denyed Where it appeares that as no man is obliged to belieue those Fundamentall Points without the beliefe wherof none can be saved vnless they be sufficiently proposed so none can be obliged not to contradict Points not Fundamentall if they want sufficient Proposall And this is yet further demonstrated by Charity Maintayned who immediatly after the words of which you take notice and cite as His though imperfectly saith thus After He Dr Potter speakes more plainly in the very next Pag 212. It is true whatsoever is revealed in Scripture or propounded by the Church out of Scripture is in some sense Fundamentall in regard of the divine Authority of God and his word by which it is recommended that is such as may not be denyed or contradicted without infidelity such as every Christian is bound with humility and reverence to belieue whensoever the knowledge therof is offered to him marke whensoever the knowledg therof is offered to him And further Pag 250. he saith where the revealed will or word of God is sufficiently propounded obserue sufficiently propounded there he that opposeth is convinced of errour and he who is thus conuinced is an Heretike and Heresy is a worke of the flesh which excludeth from heauen Galat 5.20.21
And hence it followeth that it is Fundamentall to a Christians Faith and necessary for his salvation that he belieue all truths of God wherof he may be convinced that they are from God Marke convinced that they are from God which implyes a sufficient proposall Now with what conscience could you conceale all these cleare words of Potter which by Charity Maintayned are set downe immediatly after those which you cite out of Him Charity Maintaryned and impugne them Yea the Doctor Pag 213. in the very same threed of discourse which Charity Maintayned alledged out of his Pag 211. of which you take notice and endeavour to defend saith Fundamentall properly is that which Christians are obliged to belieue by an expresse and actuall Faith In other Points that Faith which the Cardinall Perron calls the Faith of adherency or non-repugnance may suffice to witt an humble preparation of mynd to belieue all or any thing revealed in Scripture when it is sufficiently cleared You see these words are in effect the very same which you answer it is enough by Dr Potters confessing to belieue some things negatively c and that He expressly requires that a thing be sufficiently cleared before one can be obliged to a non-repugnance or a non-denyall of it Which doctrine of Potter being once supposed certainly this is a good Argument It is enough for salvation not to deny some things when they shall be sufficiently propounded as revealed by God Therfore the denyall of them when they are so proposed is not enough for salvation but excludes it Can you possibly haue any thing to object against so manifest a deduction and truth as this is 17. You say N. 22. it is As if you should say One horse is enough for a man to goe a journey Therfore without a Horse no man can goe a journey As if some divine truths viz Those which are plainly revealed might not be such as of necessity were not to be denyed And others for want of sufficient declaration denyable without danger 18. Answer You could not even for a fee haue pleaded more effectually in fauour of Charity Maintayned than now you doe while your intention is to impugne Him You grant that truths sufficiently declared are such as of necessity are not to be denyed But both Dr Potter and Charity Maintayned in the words of which we treat expressly speake of truths sufficienty declared as I haue proved therfore even by your owne confession they cannot be denyed which is the inference of Charity Maintayned I confesse my selfe to find great difficulty how to frame any answer to your example of a Horse because I cannot penetrate what vse or application you intended or could make of it Only I wish you to consider that when Dr Potter saith it is enough to belieue some things by as it were a negatiue Faith wherby they are not denyed so that one haue an humble preparation of mynd to belieue them when they are sufficiently cleared that they are revealed as we haue heard him speake he supposes that it is necessary to salvation to haue such a preparation of mynd And then your similitude must goe thus A horse is necessary for a man to goe a journey therfore without a horse no man can goe a journey and so we may say it is necessary and not only sufficient for salvation in preparation of mynd not to reject any Point sufficiently propounded as testifyed by God Therfore whosoever is not so prepared excludes himselfe from salvation which is that we would haue Or els thus A horse is enough for a man to goe a journey not absolutly but vpon condition that he be not lame or extremely weake or otherwise vnable to travell Therfore if a horse be lame or otherwise vnable he is not enough for a man to goe a journey which consequence will teach vs to make this inference it is enough for salvation that one belieue some things with an implicite Faith not absolutly but vpon condition that he be ready to imbrace and belieue them actually and explicitly when they shall be sufficiently propounded in particular Therfore an implicite Faith is not sufficient for salvation if he want such a readiness of mynd which is our Conclusion Never the lesse if your Faith be so strong that you will needs haue one horse though lame and loaden with as many diseases as a horse to be enough or sufficient though not necessary for a man to goe a journey and for that cause that this is no good consequence One horse is enough for a man to goe a journey therfore without a horse no man can goe a journey you know that not only Catholikes but Potter yourselfe and all Protestants as we haue heard you affirme hertofore and all Christians must deny the parity it being most certaine and evident that the beliefe of all Points Fundamentall is not enough for salvation but is of itselfe taken alone as it were lame and too weake without a mynd ready not to contradict whatsoever is sufficiently propounded as witnessed by God which is absolutely necessary to salvation and therefore we must still conclude that all denyall of any Divine Truth sufficiently propounded excludes salvation though one be supposed to belieue all Points which are Fundamentall of their owne nature These are the best considerations that I can draw from your example of a horse which yet you see make strongly for vs against yourselfe 14. You are pleased N. 24. to summe vp or as you speake bring out of the cloudes the discourse of Charity Maintayned in his Chap 3. N. 5. and then you censure it thus Which is truly a very proper and convenient Argument â—o close vp a weake discourse wherin both the PropositionÌ„s are false for matter confused and disordered for the forme and the Conclusion vtterly inconsequent 20. Answer You are so far from bringing out of the cloudes the discourse of Charity Maintayned that you haue cast over it a cloude and darknesse which neither you nor any body els will be able to remoue from it and place it in its owne former light except by hearing his owne words which are these I will therfore conclude with this Argument According to all Philosophy and Divinity the Unity and distinction of every thing followeth the nature and essence therof and therfore if the nature and being of Faith be not taken from the matter which a man believes but from the motiue for which he believes which is Gods Word or Revelation we must likewise affirme that the Unity and Diversity of Faith must be measured by Gods Revelation which is a like for all Objects and not by the smalness or greatness of the matter which we belieue Now that the nature of Faith is not taken chiefly from the greatness or smalness of the things believed is manifest because otherwise one who believes only Fundamentall Points and an other who together with them doth also belieue Points not Fundamentall should haue Faith of formall
a small than in a great matter as your selfe here affirme expressly that Gods Revelation is an equall Motiue to induce vs to belieue all Objects revealed by him But you say this sense is impertinent which you must giue me leaue to deny For if it be alike damnable to reject Gods testimony whether the matter be in itselfe great or small it followes that whosoever dissents from the least Point sufficiently propounded to be revealed by God sins damnably and is not capable of salvation without repentance so that of two dissenting in an Object knowne to be a divine truth one of them cannot be saved without repentance And it is strang that still you will be altering the state of the Question notwithstanding that Cha Ma expressly declared that we speake of persons to whom the Divine Revelation is sufficiently propounded for such Where now are the false Propositions the disorder of forme the inconsequence of the Conclusion which you so contemptuously objected to Cha ma But chiefly where shall we find in all these your diversions and tergiversations a direct Answer to the discourse of Cha ma that the Essence and vnity or diuersity of Faith is chiefly to be attended in order to the Formall object which is Divine Revelation and not in respect of the matter of Fundamentall or not Fundamentall Points and consequently that it is impossible that when two disagree in matters sufficiently declared to them to be divine truths both can be saved Your N. 25. hath beene answered at large hertofore 27. For the answer which in your N. 26 you giue to the N. 9.10.11 of Ch Ma if the Reader will take the paines to peruse those numbers in Ch Ma he will find that there is a great difference to take things from the Originall itselfe and to receaue them from a Coppy drawne by a partiall hand of an vnsincere Adversary Cha Ma proves the Church Catholique to be vniversally infallible because otherwise she might either propose things contrary to divine Revelation or els propose for a revealed Truth that which is not such which were a damnable sin and Dr. Potter confesses that the Church cannot erre damnably 28. To this you answer that the Church may do these things by Ignorance or mistake and so without damnable sin But this answer is confuted by what hath beene sayd hertofore For if it be evident in Scripture that the Church may erre in some Points she cannot but know that she exposes Herselfe to danger of errour against the divine Testimony and consequently sins damnable vnless she hath evident Scripture for what she proposes which cannot happen when she proposes a falshood If it be not evident in Scripture that she may erre in some Points then you who take Scripture for the sole Rule of Faith cannot be sure that she may erre especially if we reflect that Scripture assures vs as Protestants grant that she is Infallible in some namely in Fundamentall Points and doth not tell vs what those Points in particular be Besides you teach Pag 277. N. 61. that there is promised to the Church not only an assistance not to erre in things absolutely necessary but a farther assistance is conditionally promised even such an Assistance as shall lead vs if we be not wanting to it and ourselves into all not only necessary but very profitable truth and guarde vs from all not only destructiue but also hurtfull errours And therfore to Char Maint saying that a Church not erring in Fundamentalls doth as much as our Saviour exacts at her hands as much as lyes in her power to doe you answer This is manifestly vntrue For Gods assistance is alwayes ready to promote Her farther It is ready I say but on condition the Church does implore it on condit on that when it is offered in the Divine directions of Scripture and reason the Church be not negligent to follow it Which words do not well agree with your answer that the Church may erre by Ignorance or Mistake and so without damnable sin seing on the one side every errour against Divine Revelation is of itselfe a damnable sin and on the other the Church wants not sufficient assistance not to erre and in fact shall be sure not to erre if she be not negligent to follow Gods Assistance when it is offered in the divine directions of Scriptuae and reason and therfore her Errours must needs be culpable as proceeding only from her owne negligence In this very N. 26. which I confute yourselfe assirme that she cannot be excused from headlong and pernicious temerity in proposing Points not Fundamentall to be believed by Christians as matters of Faith if it be vnderstood of such vnfundamentall Points as she is not warranted to propose by euident Text of Scripture Indeed if she propose such as matters of Faith certainly true she may well be questioned quo warranto She builds without a foundation and says Thus saith the Lord whâ—n the Lord doth not say so which cannot be excused froÌ„ rashnesse and high presumption But though she may erre in some pointe not Fundamentall yet may she haue certainty enough in proposing others evidently and vndeniably set downe in Scripture and consequently may be without all rashnesse proposed by the Church as certaine divine revelatioÌ„s These be your words which clearly overthrow your owne Answer For I argue thus If the Church proceed vpon evident Scripture she cannot erre in those things If not she always exposes herselfe to danger of errour for the matter which may proue false and to certaine actuall errour for the manner by proposing as a Point of Faith certainly true which yet is always vncertaine if she in such things may be deceaved as you say she may whensoever she is not warranted by evident Text of Scripture Thus by your owne grounds the Church is either certaine that she errs not as relying vpon evident Scripture or if she haue not such evidence she is certaine that she exposes herselfe and others to errour against Divine Revelation which cannot be excused from a great sin of rashnesse and high presumption And then when will your excuse of ignorance or mistake haue place which cannot happen when she hath evidence of Scripture and will not excuse when she wants such evidence And so there is no meane betweene certainty that she errs not and committing a sin by exposinge Herselfe to a knowne danger of errour against the Divine Revelation 29. By the way I would know how your Doctrine That God hath promised to the Church such an assistance as shall lead vs into all not only necessary but very prositable truth if we be not wanting to it agree with what you say in your Answer to the Direction N. 32. It is not absolutely necessary that God should assist his Church any farther then to bring her to salvation Is it not necessary that God keepe his promise And how do you find fault with Cha. Ma. for saying that if the Church
be infallible only in Fundamentall Points if she erre not in such Points she performes as much as our Saviour exacts at her hands seing he exacts no more than that which may bring her to salvation and it is not necessary that God assist her for more than salvation Or if he absolutely exact more than is necessary men are bound to doe more than is necessary and so more shall be necessary than is necessary because it is necessary to doe what we are bound to doe 30. You say to Ch. Ma The ground of your errour here is your not distinguishing betweene Actuall certainty and Absolute infallibility But in this you speake either against your owne conscience or against manifest truth For if you say the meaning of Cha. ma. to be that whosoever is actually certaine of one thing must haue an absolute infallibility in all other matters your Conscience cannot but tell you that He could haue no such meaning as if because I am actually certaine what I am doing at this instant I must therfore be infallible and know certainly what every one is doing in the Indyes But if you meane that it is an errour in Ch Ma to say that if one haue actuall certainty of a thing he must be infallible both in that ād all other for which he hath the same or like grounds to make him certaine then you erre against manifest truth it being evident that if I clearly see my selfe to haue an vndoubted Ground to belieue a thing it is impossible that I should erre in any other for which I also evidētly see that I haue the same certaine ground This is our case If I be actually certaine by evidence of Scripture of the truth of one thing I am certaine that I cannot erre in any other Point for which I haue the like evidence of Scripture as he who actually assents to a demonstration knowne to be such can neither erre in it nor in any other knowne to haue the like certainty This being supposed your examples proue against yourselfe as I shewed in an other like occasion 31. I haue already particularly and at large answered your N. 27.28.29 In your N. 30 33.34 you impugne Ch Ma. whose words I wish you had set downe as you found them in Him and not as you collect and offer them to the Reader whom therfore I must intreate to peruse the Author himselfe Ch. Ma. N. 13. saith That to limite the generall promises of our Saviour for his Church to Points Fundamentall as namely that the gates of Hell shall not prevaile against Her and that the Holy Ghost shall lead them into all truth c. is to destroy all Faith For by this manner of interpreting and limiting words whatsoever is delivered in Scripture concerning the infallibility of the Apostles or of Scripture it selfe may be restrained to infallibility in Fundamentall Points And in this Ch. Ma. hath reason For seing you haue no certaine Rule of Faith but Scripture whatsoever you cannot proue by evident Scripture cannot be to you certaine or a Point of Faith Let vs then take these words Matth. 16.18 The gates of Hell shall not prevaile c. Which our B. Saviour pronounced of the Church and those other Jo 16. V. 13.14.16 The spirit shall lead you into all truth and shall abide with you for ever which promise Potter saith Pag 153. was made directly and primarily to the Apostles who had the spirits guidance in a more high and absolute manner than any since them yet it was made to them for the behoofe of the Church and is verifyed in the Church vniversall The first words The gates of Hell shall not prevaile against Her Potter Pag. 153. limites they shall not prevaile so far as to sever it from the foundation that is that She shall not erre in Fundamentall Points Now I beseech you produce some evident Text of Scripture declaring that those words are not to be vnderstood as they sound that the Church shall be secure from all errours against Faith even in Points not Fundamentall which errours are gates that leade to hell seing they are as you often confesse damnable in themselves and so lead to hell and damnation but with this limitation that she shall be secured for Points Fundamentall Produce I say some such evident Text of Scripture and not topicall discourses of your owne In the meane tyme while you are busy about that impossible taske of producing some such Text 32. I will ponder the second place The spirit shall lead you into all truth and shall abide with you for ever which Potter saith is vnderstood of the Apostles and of the vniversall Church but so as being referred to the Apostles it signifyes all truths Fundamentall and not Fundamentall Points which is a harder explanation than that of the former words out of S. Matthew The gates of hell c. because you are engaged to alledge some evident Text of Scripture to proue that the very selfsame as I may saie indivisible Text which is acknowledged to speake both of the Apostles and of the Church must be forced and as it were racked to speake one thing of the Apostles and another of the Church All truth for the Apostles not all but only Fundamentall truth for the Church Bring I say some such evident Text of Scripture But it seemes you did easily perceiue that no such place could be pretended and therfore in stead of Scripture or the Word of God you offer only your owne conceits discourses and seeming congruences which are far beneath that certainty which is required for an act of divine Faith There is not say you N. 30. the same reason for the Churches absolute Infallibility as for the Apostles and Scriptures For if the Church fall into errour it may be reformed by comparing it with the Rule of the Apostles doctrine and Scripture But if the Apostles erred in delivering the Doctrine of Christianity to whom shall we haue recourse for the discovering and correcting their errour 33. Answer I haue often sayd that in matters knowne by revelation only and depending on the free will or decree of Almighty God we are not to proue by humane reason what he hath decreed Protestants grant that both the Apostles and the Church are infallible for Fundamentall Points If then one should make vse of your reason and say There is not the same reason for the Churches infallibility in Fundamentall Points as for the Apostles For if the Church fall into such errours it may be reformed by comparing it with the Rule of the Apostles doctrine and Scripture But if the Apostles haue erred in delivering the doctrine of Christianity to whom shall we haue recourse for the discovering and correcting their errour What would you answer Would you grant that the Church is not infallible in Fundamentall Articles because there is not the same reason for Her infallibility in Fundamentall Points as there is for the Apostles That were to deny the
be sure that they attaine the true sense of Scripture vnless they first know what points in particular be Fundamentall because in other they may erte as they say the Church may Besides it hath bene shewed that in the Principles of Protestants it cannot be convinced that Scripture is infallible except only in fundamentall Points and so men cannot rely on Scripture vnless first they be sure what points be Fundamentall Neither is there the same reason for vnderstanding not the bare words but the sense of Scripture intended by the Holy Ghost as there is for vnderstanding som plain place in Aristotle or conceyving some evident naturall truths which are connaturall to humane reason and are not capable of different senses as the words of Scripture are Which may be proved even by the Examples which you bring as evident as I haue shewed hertofore that they are not so Neither can any Protestants learne them from Scripture alone with such certainty as is necessary to an Act of Faith which according to all good Christians must be infallible and therfore you say only Protestants may be certain enough of the Truth and certainty of one of the places which you alledg as evident but your enough is not enough for the absolute certainty of Divine Faith And therfore Charity Maintayned did you no wrong at all and much less a palpable injury as you speak in saying you cannot with certainty learne of Scripture fundamentall Points of Faith which is manifest by the examples which you say are Truths Fundamentall because they are necessary parts of the Gospell and yet it is evident that Protestents cannot agree about their meaning as I haue demonstrated about these sentences God is and is a rewarder of them that seek him that there is no salvation but by Faith in Christ That by Repentance and Faith in Christ Remission of sinnes may be obtained That there shall be a Resurrection of the Body Which are the Instances which here you giue as Truths both Fundamentall and evident 63. Your N. 51. hath bene answered in severall occasions And all that you say N. 52. is directly nothing to the purpose but passes from objects considered in themselves wherof Protestants confess some to be Fundamentall others not to accidentall circumstances as if Protestants did differ not in Fundamentall points or in assigning a particular Catalogue of them but only in accidentall circumstances of ignorance repentance and the like But of this I haue spoken hertofore as also I haue confuted your similitude about a medicine of twenty ingredients c which therfore I think needless to repeete 64. Your N. 53. I haue answered in diverse places Your N. 54. is nothing but a long digression to which the particular Answer would require a whole Booke or volume directly against the scope of this Work which is only to treate in generall of the Church and Scripture and you know very well that Catholik Writers haue fully answered all your Demands as also you know how many doubts might be proposed to Protestants abovt Scripture which to them is the only rule of Faith if I had a mynd to digrees Your N. 55.56.57.58.59.60.61.62.63.64.65 haue bene answered at large 95. I desire the Reader to peruse the N. 21. of Charity Maintayned and he will finde that you make an argument as his which is nothing like his discourse He saieth not as you N. 66. cited him in these words We may not depart from the Church absolutely and in all things Therfore we may not depart fram it in any thing which you call an Argument à dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid The Argument of Ch. Ma. is Dr. Potter teacheth Pag 75. That there neither was nor can be any just cause to depart from the Church of Christ no more than from Christ himself But if the Church could erre in any points of Faith they may and must forsake her in those and if such errours should fall out to be concerning the Churches Lyturgie Sacraments c. they must leaue her externall Communion which being essentiall to the Church they must divide themselves from her in that which isessentiall to make one a member of the same Church which I hope is more than to argue ad dictum secundum quid For what greater separation can there be from the Church than in that which is essentiall to make one be vnited to her Your saying that a man may leaue the vice of his friend or brother and yet not leaue his friend or brother is impertinent seing vices are not essentiall to men as externall Communion is to make one a member of the Church 66. You object what Dr. Potter saieth of the Catholique Church P. 75. he extends presently after to euery true though never so corrupted part of it And why do you not conclude from hence that no particular Church according to his judgement can fall into any ertour and call this a demonstration too 67. Answer If the Doctour will not contradict himself according to his judgment the Catholique Church cannot fall into errour against any Truth necessary to salvation as a particular Church may and therefore this may but that can never be forsaken or if he will affirme that no particular Church can be forsaken he must say that no such Church can erre in any point necessary to salvation For if she did so erre her Communion must be forsaken and I haue shewed externall Communion to be essentiall to the members of the Church Whereby is answered your N. 67. where you grant that we may not cease to be of the Church nor forsake it absolutely and totally no more than Christ himselfe Since therefore they absolutely forsake the Church who disagree from Her in profession of Faith and divide themselves from her externall Communion you must grant that they can no more doe so than they can divide themselves from Christ I know not to what purpose or vpon what occasion you say to Ch Ma In other places you confes his doctrine to be that even the Catholique Church may erre in Points not fundamentall which you do not pretend that he ever imputed to Christ himself 68. Your manner of alledging the words of Charity Maintayned in your N. 68. gives me still occasion to wish you had alledged them as you found them You make Charity Maintayned speak thus Dr. Potter either contradicts himself or els must grant the Church infallible because he saies if we did not differ from the Roman we could not agree with the Catholique which saying supposes the Catholique Church cannot erre And then you say with your vsuall modesty This Argument to giue it the right name is an obscure and intriate nothing I confess that reading the words which you impute to Charity Maintayned I found difficulty to penetrate the force of his Argument But the words of Charity Main are these If saith Dr. Potter we did not dissent in some opinions from the present Roman Church we could
Chapter Moreover how do these things agree with your saying heere N. 78. If we grant that the Apostle calls the Catholique Church the pillar and ground of Truth and that not only because it should but because it alwayes shall and will be so yet after all this you haue done nothing vnless you can shew that by Truth heere is certainly ment not only all necessary to salvation but all that is profitable absolutely and simply All. How I say doth this agree with your saying now cited out of your Pag 105. N. 139. To make any Church an infallible guide in Fundamentalls would be to make it Infallible in all things which she proposes and requires to be believed seing you say also that although it were granted that S. Paule affirmed that the Church shall and will be the Pillar of all necessary truth yet it doth not follow that she is so in all Truth And now how many clustars as I may say of Contradictions may be gathered from your owne words related by me in this small compass 76. First The Church is an infallible Teacher in Fundamentalls and yet is not an infallible guide or if you grant her to be an infallible Guide then Secondly you say to make any Church an infallible Guide in Fundamentalls would be to make it infallible in all things which she proposes and requires to be believed and yet you say the Church is an infallible Teacher or guide in all Fundamentalls and deny her to be infallible in all things which she proposes and requires to be believed Thirdly How can you make a distinction between the Churches being infallible in Fundamentalls and an infallible Guide in Fundamentalls seing you teach that she is both infallible in Fundamentalls and a Teacher of them Fourthly How doe you say That to be a Teacher of all necessary truth is the Essence of the Church and that any company of men were no more a Church without it then any thing can be a man and not be reasonable And yet in this Chapter N. 39. to proue that there is a wide difference betweene being infallible in Fundamentalls and an infallible Guide in Fundamentalls you say A man that were destitute of all meanes of communicating his thoughts to others might yet in himself be infallible but he could not be a Guide to others A man or a Church that were invisible so that none could know how to repaire to it for direction could not be an infallible Guide and yet he might be in himself infallible For these examples if they be to any purpose declare that to be a Guide or Teacher is accidentall and not the Essence of the Church and for that purpose you bring them and yet I never imagined that the Essence of any thing is separable from it as you say it is impossible a thing can be a man and not be reasonable Fiftly If it be essentiall to the Church to be an infallible Teacher or Guide in Funmentalls which you say she cannot be without an vniversall infallibility in all Points seing every errour destroyes that vniversall infallibility which is essentiall to such a Teacher as the Church how can you say that every errour doth not destroy the Church but that she may erre and yet the gates of hell not prevaile against her To what purpose then do you talk of eyes and hands which are not essentiall or necessary parts of a man or of biles and botches which are accidentall to his body and not necessaryly destructiue thereof as you must suppose wheras infallibility is essentiall to the Church of Christ and is destroyed by errour which cannot possibly consist with infallibility that is with certainty never to erre Into how may inextricable difficulties and contradictions do you cast yourself vpon a resolution not to acknowledg the infallibility of Gods Church the only meanes to cleare all these perplexityes And how inconsequently and perniciously and you compare botches and biles to errour against Faith which you confess to be damnable sinnes and without repentance absolutely inconsistent with salvation 77. But to returne to the maine point If the Church were not vniversally infallible Christian Faith could not be infallible as I proved hertofore and so the gates of Hell should prevaile against Christianity which by that meanes should come to want a thing absolutely necessary to salvation necessitate medij to witt divine infallible Faith Your Parity betweene a particular man or congregation and the vniversall Church hath bene answered hertofore and is confuted by what we haue saied heere that infallibility is essentiall to the vniversall Church and nothing can exist without that which is essentiall to it but no such Priviledge of infallibility is necessary or is promised to particular men or Churches Finally seing that according to Potter and other Protestants the Promise of our Saviour that the gates of Hell shall not prevaile against the Church must be vnderstood of the whole Church as well Primitiue as of consequent Ages by what evident Text of Scripture can you proue that the same words must haue different significations in order to the Primitiue Church which was infallible in all Points of Faith and the vniversall Church of following Ages As in a like occasion I saied hertofore Yourself N. 72. speak to Charity Maintayned thus vnless you will say which is most ridiculous that when our Saviour saied He will teach you c and he will shew you c He meant one you in the former clause and an other you in the latter If it be most ridiculous that one word should be referred to different Persons I may say ad hominem why ought it not to seeme most ridiculous that in the same sentence the same words the gates of Hell shall not privaile must signify two differēt kinds of not prevailing one against fundamētall ād an other against vnfundamentall errours in order to one and the same word Church 78. In your N. 71. you pretend to answer the Text which Ch Ma saieth may be alledged for the infallibility of the Church out S. Jo 14. V. 16.17 I will ask the Father and he will give you another Paraclete that he may abide with you for ever the spirit of truth And Jo 16.13 but when he the Spirit of truth commeth he shall teach you all truth You answer first that one may fall into error if this all truth be not simply all but all of some kind Secondly that one may fall into some error even contrary to the truth which is taught him if it be taught him only sufficiently and not irresistibly so that be may learne it if he will not so that he must and shall whether be will or no. Now who can assertaine me that the Spirits teaching is not of this nature Or how can you possibly reconcile it with your Doctrine of free will in believing Thirdly you say N. 72. that these promises were made to the Apostles only 79. Answer These places were alledged by Dr.
which is not vniversally or necessarily true it being in rigor sufficient that they be not disbelieved This was the scope of Charity Maintayned to shew that to alledg the Creed as containing all Fundamentall Points was nothing to the purPose for relief of Protestants who differ in such manner as what one believes to be revealed by God an other rejects and disbelieves and therfore though it were granted that Protestants did agree in all the articles of the Creed which thing I haue demonstrated not to be true nevertheless they could not all pretēd to be saved because some of them must be convinced to reject Divine Revelations But now for the Point in hand you know all Christians belieue Every Text of Scripture to be revealed by God are they therfore obliged to be still exercising an explicite act of Faith concerning them Rather of the two and speaking in generall and perse loquendo or ex natura rei if they be not Fundamentall articles it may so fall out that you are never obliged to affoard them any such positiue Assent and so you remaine obliged never to dis belieue them and yet never obliged explicitely to belieue them which is a true proposition against your vniversall contradictory Doctrine that No point to any man at any time can be necessary not to be disbelieved but it is to the same man at the same tyme necessary to be believed 5. The rest of this Number as also your N. 12.13.13 for this Number is put twice 14.15.16 there is no N. 17. haue bene answered already C. Mist with all Divines supposes that no man can be obliged to belieue any point not sufficiently propounded as Dr. Potter also teaches and is evident to the very light of naturall Reason I beseech the Reader for confuting your N. 15. to peruse Ch. Ma. N. 3. And how do you tell vs in this N. 15. that the certainty you haue of the Cteed is from constant Tradition seing you profess that we haue no vniversall Tradition except that which delivers to vs the Scripture If you belief the Creed that it was from the Apostles and containes the principles of Faith as you say for vniversall Tradition and not for Scripture as you expresly confess you free men from obligation of reading or knowing the Scripture for all necessary points of belief which by this meanes they may find independently of Scripture and with as much certainty as you belieue Scripture which you profess to receiue from vniversall Tradition for which you also belieue the Creed And so you overthrow the most vniversall Doctrine of Protestants that Scripture is necessary and that not from Tradition but from it alone we must learne all things belonging to salvation And how did we heare you say Pag. 178. N. 80. that the Apostles did by their preaching while they lived and by their writings or Scripture after their death doe keepe men in vnity seing now you acknowledg a Tradition distinct from and independent of Scripture whereby we may be kept in vnity Now if we receiue the Creed from the Church we must belieue her to be infallible and that to oppose any proposall of hers is damnable though one belieue the whole Creed and therfore it is impertinent to alledg the Creed to assert vnity of Faith among Protestants while they differ in other points of Faith not contayned in the Creed and so Ch. Ma. saied truly that it was both fals and impertinent to say The Creed containes all necessary points of Faith But heere I must intreate you to consider how you can say as you doe in this place 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 Seing Pag. 149. N. 37. you say expresly Protestants ground their beliefe that such and such things only are fundamentalls only vpon Scripture and goe about to proue their assertion true only by Scripture Can Protestants ground their belief that such and such things only are fundamentalls only vpon Scripture and yet not ground vpon Scripture the certainty which they haue that the Creed containes all fundamentalls and so know all fundamentalls independently of Scripture 6. You say N. 18. That the last objection of Ch. Ma. stands vpon a false and dangerous supposition That new heresies may arise But with what conscience do you object this to Ch. Ma. who only repeats what Dr. Porter affirmed Pag. 126. about the arising of new Heresies which is so manifest that you expresly take notice of it and reject the Doctrine of the Doctor in that behalf I beseech the Reader to see Ch. Ma. where he demonstrates that seing the Doctor confesses that new Heresies may arise and that therefore the Creed was necessarily explained by other Creeds of Nyce c. so it will need particular explanation against other emergent Heresies and so is not nor ever will be of itself alone a sufficient Catalogue of all Points of Faith which deduction of Ch. Ma. is so cleare that you giue only this answer This explication of Dr. Potter and restriction of this doctrine that the Creed containes a Catalogue of all necessary Points of Faith whereof you make your advantage was to my vnderstanding vnnecessary And so you leaue your client and acknowledg the Argument of Ch. Ma. to be convincing As for the thing itself All that you object against D. Potter whom I now defend against you can receiue strength only from equivocation the thing itself being cleare That we admit no new Revelation but only new application or declaration of that which was revealed which application is certainly necessary before one can be obliged to belieue vnless you will haue men belieue they know not what Now whether you will call this application or declaration only a necessary condition sine qua not or parte of the formall object of Faith makes nothing to our present purpose but is learnedly handled by Catholique Divines Certaine we are that it is not the totall or principall but only a partiall and secondary object if it belong at all to the formall object of our Belief neither can any man imagine that the application to vs of Divine Revelations is the essentiall forme and last complement of an Article of Faith if by last complement and essentiall forme you meane that which is the chiefest and most principall which is only the Divine Testimony or Revelation and therefore you shew either ignorance or some worse thing in supposing that we make Divine Revelation to be the matter and sufficient declaration to be the forme of an Article of Faith No doubt but the Apostles declared what our Saviour had revealed to them but when inimicus homo superseminavit zizania and some began to doubt or broach errours against those revealed Truths a declaration was necessary to be made by that Meanes which God hath left to decide Controversyes in Religion as we saied hertofore about Canonicall Books of
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
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
And thē further it followes that you must recall your Doctrine and say that if the Church may fall into errour not damnable to her it must be in case it be invincible and yet it cannot be invincible if she haue sufficient Assistance to lead her into all not only necessary but profitable truth and therfore you must deny that she hath such an assistance and we must conclude that by not erring in any fundamentall point she performes her duty to God and so can not be forsakē without Schisme For you doe not deny the proposition of Ch Ma N. 20. that the externall Communion of the Church cannot be forsaken as long as she performes the duty which she oweth to God Besides how doe you not contradict yourselfe in saying Who is ther that can put her in sufficient caution that these errours about profitable matters may not bring forth others of higher quality such as are pernicious and pestilent and vndermine by secret consequences the very Foundations of Religion and piety For if the errours be such as you describe they come to be concerning things not only profitable but necessary as vndermining the very foundations of Religion and therfor to say she erres culpably in them is to say that she erres damnably and fundamentally and you must say she erres culpably if she haue assistance sufficient to avoid them By this discourse and other points handled heretofore is answered your N. 62.63 as also your N. 64.65.66.67.68.69.70.71.72.73 only it is to be observed that N. 64. you paralell the security of private men from errour in fundamentalls to that of the vniversall Church And N. 68. you will not see the reason of a consequence deduced by Ch. Ma. which had been very cleare if you had set downe his words which are these N. 22. P. 185. Since it is not lawfull to leaue the communion of the Church for abuses in life and manners because such miseries cannot be avoyded in this world of temptation and since according to your Assertion no Church may hope to triumph over all sinne and errour and I add what the Doctour sayth Pag 39. that it is a great vanity to hope or expect that all learned men in this life should absolutely consent in all the pieces of Divine truth you must grant that as she ought not to be left by reason of sinne so neither by reason of errours not fundamētall because both sinne and errour are according to you impossible to be avoided till she be in heaven and that it is a great vanity to hope or expect the contrary in this life And is not this a cleare consequence The Church cannot be forsaken for sinnes because they cannot be avoided in this life therfor seing errours at least in not fundamentalls cannot be avoyded in this life the Church cannot be forsaken for them 20. To your N. 72. it is sufficient to say that although we must not doe evill to avoide evill yet when a position is such as evill cannot but follow of it ex natura rei it is a clear argument that such a Position includes falshood and errour Now as Ch. Ma. proves N. 24. your grounds doe of their owne nature giue scope to perpetuall Schismes and divisions And then the consequence is cleare that they are false and erroneous His words which you by abbreviating make ineffectuall are they who separate themselves will answet as you doe prompt that your Church may be forsaken if she fall into errours though they be not Fundamentall and further that no Church must hope to be free from such errours which two grounds being once layd it will not be hard to inferr the consequence that she may be forsaken 21. All that N. 74.75.76.77 you vtter with too much heate is answered by putting you in minde that Ch. Ma. never affirmes that Protestants say the cause of their separation and their motiue to it was absolutely and independently of any separation precisely because they did not cut her of from hope of salvation as you impose vpon him for which foolish reason even Catholiks might be sayd to be Schismatiks from their owne Church because they are sure she is not cut of from hope of salvation but that supposing their separation from vs vpon other causes for example pretended corruptions they pretend to be excused from Schisme and say they did well to forsake her because they doe not hold that she is cut of from hope of salvation Which to be true he C Ma shewes out of Potters words And yourselfe P. 284 N 75. say to C Ma can you not perceaue a difference betweene justifying his separation from Schisme by this reason and making this the reason of his separation And whosoever reads Ch Ma N. 27. will finde that which I say to be true For he expresly sayth that both they who doe and doe not cut of the Church of Rome from hope of salvation agree in the effect of separation Only this effect of separation being supposed without which ther could be no imaginable Schisme they doe alleadge for their excuse that they did it in a different manner because the one part of which we speake conceaved that though they did separate yet they should be excused from Schisme because they did not cut of from hope of salvation the Roman Church ād so this was the motiue or reason for which they judged they might separate from her without the sinne of Schisme and consequently they would not haue done it if they had not had this reason or motiue and consideration wherby to excuse themselves Thus your examples of one saying to his Brother I doe well to leaue you because you are my Brother or of a subject saying to his Soveraigne Lord I doe well to disobey you because I acknowledge you to be my lawfull Soveraigne are meere perversions of Ch. Ma. his words who sayth truly against Potter that if one should part from his Brother vpon some cause and excuse such his departure from fault because he still acknowledges him to be his Brother or if a subject should disobey his Soveraigne vpon some motiue and then should thinke to justify his fact by saying he still acknowledges him to be his lawfull Soveraigne C Ma I say affirmes that such an excuse may justly seeme very strange and rather fit to aggravate then to extenuate or excuse the departure of the one from his Brother and disobedience of the other to his Souveraigne And yet this is our case For both the violent and moderate Protestants agree in the same effect of separation from the Roman Church and disobedience to her Pastours with this only difference that the one sorte sayth that she is cut of from the hope of Salvation and the other sayes she is not and pretend to be excused from Schisme because they say so though they separate themselves from her no lesse then the other doe 22. To your N. 78.79 I answer that when the Fathers and Divines teach that
cause Now your selfe here N. 9. confesse that without credible reasons and inducements our choice even of the true Faith is not to be commeÌ„ded as prudent but to be condemned of rashness and levity I say an act of Faith must alwayes be prudent not that every one must be able to giue to others an account of his faith as you interpret the matter but that the capacity of the believer and all other circumstances considered the beliefe of such a man is indeed prudent I wonder what could moue you N. 10. to say to Charity Maintayned It is against Truth and Charity to say as you doe that they with cannot doe soe that is cannot giue a Reason and account of their Faith either are not at all or to no purpos true believers whereas Charity Maintayned hath no such matter 8. In your N. 11.12 you say It is not Heresy to oppose au Truth proposed by the Church but only such a Truth as is an essentiall part of the Gospell of Christ 9. Answer you haue no constancie in your doctrine Here you say Heresy cannot be without errour against some essentiall part of the Gospell of Christ And every errour against any Doctrine revealed by God is not a damnable Heresy vnless it be revealed publickly plainely with a command that all should belieue it By essentiall I suppose you meane Necessary and Fundamentall as contrarily Pag. 140. N. 26. you say not Fundamentall â— e. no essentiall point of Christianity But contrary to this your doctrine in other places you teach that whatsoever is opposit to Scripture is an Heresy as Pag 101. N. 127. you say If Scripture be sufficient to informe vs what is the Faith it must of necessity be also sufficient to teach vs what is Heresy seing Heresy is nothing but a manifest deviation from and opposition to the Faith But you will not deny that every text of Scripture is sufficient to make a thing a matter of faith therfore you caÌ„not deny but that errour against any such text being a deviation from and an opposition to Faith must necessarily be heresy which is more cleare in your groundes who teach that it is impossible to know what points in Scripture be fundamentall and consequently what is Heresy if you take it for a deviation only from fundameÌ„tall points And this you declare clearly in the same Number Pag 102. Saying If any man should obstinatly contradicÌ„t the truth of any thing plainely delivered in Scripture who doth not see that every one who believes the Scripture hath a sufficient meanes to discover and condemne and avoyd that Heresy without any need of an infallible guide You teach also that as things are ordered there is equall necessity of believing all things contained in Scripture whether they be Fundamentall or not Fundamentall and nothing is more frequent in your Booke than that it is a damnable sinne to disbelieue any one truth sufficiently propounded to be revealed by God and what sinne can it be but the sinne of Heresy which is opposit to the Theologicall vertue of Faith Potter also speakes clearly to this purpose saying Pag 98. He is justly esteemed an Heretick who yealds not to Scripture sufficiently propounded and yet it is cleare that in Scripture there are millions of truths not Fundamentall And Pag 128. An obstinate standing out against evident Scripture cleared vnto him makes an Heretick And Pag 247. If a man by reading the Scriptures be convinced of the truth this is a sufficient proposition to proue him thâ—t gainesayeth any such truth to be an Heretick and obstinate opposer of the Faith And Pag 212. It is true whatsoever is revealed in Scripture or propounded by the Church out of Scripture is in some sense Fundamentall in regard of the Diuine Authority of God and his word by which it is recommended that is such as may not be denyed or contradicted without in fidelity Such as every Christian is bound with humility and reverence to belieue whensoever the knowledge therof is offered to him And further Pag 250. Where the revealed will or word of God is sufficiently propounded there he that opposeth is convinced of errour and he who is thus convinced is an Heretique and Heresy is a worke of the flesh which excludeth from heaven Gal 5.20.21 And hence it followeth that it is Fundament all to a Christians Faith and necessary for his salvation that he belieue all revealed truths of God whereof he may be convinced that they are of God And Pag 57. Whosoever either wilfully opposes any Catholick verity maintayned by this Church the fellowship of the Saints or the Catholick visible Church as doe Heretiks 〈◊〉 perversly divides himselfe fromthe Catholik communion as doe Schismatiks the condition of both these is damnable And Field L. 2. C. 3 speakes plainely Freedom from Fundamentall errour may be found among Heretiks Therefore errour against points not fundameÌ„ntall is Heresy seing they be may Heretiks aÌ„d yet be free froÌ„ fundameÌ„tall error Fulk in his Rejoinder to Bristow P. 82. The parliament determined Heresy by contrariety to the Canonicall Scripture Can you expect a greater authority then that of the Parliament But no wonder if Heresies be familiar and ripe among you if they consist only in fundamentall errours and that you are not able to determine what errours be fundamentall and theÌ„ who will be carefull to avoyd they know not what For the rest of this number I need only say that it is vnreasonable in you to desire a proofe of that which here you expresly grant to be true and is cleare of itselfe that either the Protestant or Roman Church must erre against the word and testimony of God seing they hold contradictories in matters belonging to faith and it is a fond thing in you to say that Ch Ma hath for his reason their contradiction only seing we alwayes speake of contradiction in matter of Faith Your N. 13. containes no difficulty supposing we haue already proved the infallibility of the Church as we haue done in divers places 10. To your N. 14. I answer that if Luther were an Heretick who can deny but that they who followed and persist in the same Doctrine must also be such seing it is a foolery to thinke that all of them can be excused by ignorance Besides we speake per se loquendo that the Doctrine of it selfe being Hereticall the defenders of it must also be Heretiks abstâ—acting from ignorance c. And so your distinction out of S. Austin of Haeretici and Heraeticorum sequace is not pertinent neither did Charity Maintayned ever affirme that all 's Arians who followed their teachers were excused from formall Heresy by Salvianus and I am sure Ch Ma himselfe is far from any such opinion yea even Dr. Potter who Pag 119. alleadgeth the words of Salvianus sayth he speakes of some Arian Hereticks from whence it doth not follow that he spoke of all those who followed their teachers and those of whome he spoke he
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
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.
he call his Faith That of the Roman Church Or that which is contained in the Books of Origen If he answer the Roman then we are Catholiques who haue translated nothing of the error of Origen And yet further Ibid. Lib. 3. know thou that the Roman Faith commended by the voyce of the Apostle doth not receyue these delusions though an Angell should denounce otherwise than it hath once bene preached 24. To these words of S. Hierom you answer First that he writing to Damasus a Pope might be apt to write over-truths An answer not deserving a confutation Secondly you say S. Hierom chose rather to believe the Epistle to the Hebrewes Canonicall vpon the Authority of the Easterne Church then to reject it from the Canon vpon the Authority of the Roman But this hath bene answered heretofore neither was there ever any decree of the Roman Church Pope or Councell excluding that Epistle from the Canon or rejecting any Book of the old or New Testament which was afterward admitted Thirdly you ask How was it possible that S. Hierom should ever belieue that Liberius Bispop of Rome either was or could haue bene wrought over by the sollicitation of Fortunatianus Bishop of Aquileiae and brought after two yeares banishment to subscribe Heresy Sr. It is a signe you want solid Objections when you fly to so farre fetched evasions and your proceeding is inexcusable in dissembling the Answer which Ch. Ma. Part. 2. Chap. 3 N. 30. gives out of Baronius Ann. 357. and Bellarmine De Roman Pont. Lib. 4. Cap. 9. who affirme that Liberius never subscribed to Arianisme or any error against Faith but only to a Point which concerned matter of fact and even greater Protestants than you doubt of that which you will needs haue to be vndoubted But indeed this old Objection is directly nothing to the purpose of proving that Liberius did ever define ex cathedra any errour against Faith but only that de facto by force of feare theates banishment and other sufferings he did subscribe against S. Athanasius as S. Peter denied our Saviour without forfeit of his Faith though he failed in the profession thereof our Saviour having saied Oravi pro te Petre vtnon deficiat Fides tua or as the same Apostle was reprehended by S. Paul even after the comming of the holy Ghost and yet I hope you will not denie but that one might haue saied I am in the coÌ„munio of the Chair of Peter I know that the Church is built vpoÌ„ tkat Rock whosoever gathereth not with thee scattereth and the same I say S. Hierom might haue saied of and to Liberius defining as Pope not as failing in fact as a man and we see that both before and after that forced act he was constaÌ„t not only in the true faith which he never lost but also in the profession thereof and what he did by force and feare must no more be imputed to him as Pope than a confession extorted by torture can be of force without a voluntary ratification Our Saviour saied men were to obey the words of the Scribes aÌ„d Pharisees not their deeds Is it not a doctrine of your owne Pag. 144 N. 31. that the doctrine of the Apostles was either fals or vncertain in no part of that which they delivered â—onstantly And certaine it is that Liberius did not make good his subscription if ever he subscribed to an errour but revoked it assoone as he was at liberty and as I may say taken of the Torture as alwaies before he had defended the Catholique truth If Marcellinus sacrificed to Idolls who will therefore say that he believed or defined Idolary to be Lawfull And vniversally if you will judg mens Faith by their Actions whosoever committs theft murther or any other sinne against the commandements must be condemned for an Heretique as believing theft to be Lawfull Finally if you will haue the strength of of S. Hieroms ArgumeÌ„t to cosist in this that Damasus was in the right only actually and accidentally the Saint had begged the Question and proved his owne Doctrine to be true because Damasus held with him and that which Damasus held de facto was true though Damasus might erre as other Bishops might whereas it is cleare that S. Hierom as his words express grounds himself vpon that firme and stable Rock of which our Saviour saied Thou art a Rock and vpon this Rock c. And this last overthrowes the evasion to which you â—llie N. 24. for interpreting the words of S. Ambros. 25. For your N. 25.26.27 I wonder how you could dissemble what Ch. Ma. hath Part. 2. Chap. 2. N. 31. whereof see also Bellarm in De Rom. Pont. Lib. 4. Cap. 7. where this matter is handled at large And who will not make a difference betwene S. Cyprian being disinterressed and delivering a generall Doctrine and prescriptions against all Heretiques and S. Cyprian speaking in a particular point wherein he was ingaged and which Protestants confess to haue bene an errour condemned by the whole Church against the Donatists namely the rebaptization of such as had bene baptized by Heretiques and by those very Bishops who once adhered to S. Cyprian as Charity Maint in the place cited even now shewes out of S. Hierom. And you do but deceiue your Reader in not making a difference betwene a Decree of Pope Stephen and a Definition of Faith which difference you might haue learned in that very place which you cite out of Bellarmine and we haue now alledged In fine all must answer the difficulty about S. Cyprian seing he was in an errour against Faith and therefore could be excused only by ignorance or pardoned by repentance In vaine N. 26. you tax the translation of Ch. Ma. as if he should not haue saied out of S. Cyprian Epist 55. ad Cornel. They are hold to saile to the Chaire of Peter and to the principall Church from whence Priestly Vnity hath spruing Neither do they consider that they are Romans whose Faith was commended by the preaching of the Apostle to whom falshood cannot haue accesse but should haue sayd to whom perfidiousness cannot haue accesse But this you say without proofe against the scope and connection of S. Cyprians words which speak of Faith commended by S. Paul not of Fidelity and consequently of falshood or perfidiousness or errour contrarie to Faith not of perfidiousness contrarie to the Morall vertue of fidelity For what congruity is there in this speach The Faith of the Romans is commended by the Apostle therefore perfidiousness or perfidious dealing cannot haue access to them as if all who belieue aright must also besincere and vpright honest men Wheras the consequence is very good and cleare that if their Faith be true errour against Faith or falshood cannot be approved by them You would proue that in vaine S. Cyprian had exhorted Cornelius to take heed of those Heretiques if he had conceived the Bishop of Rome to be infallible for matters of Faith
than words even that Maximianus who succeeded your wicked great Grandfather Nestorius in the Sea of Constantinople was a monk and a holy man and farre from being a parasite and an Embassage was sent to Rome from him the Emperour and people in congratulation of the victory gotten chiefly by meanes of Pope Caelestinus against Nestorius all which declared the Authority of the Roman Church 1200 yeares agoe though you tell vs you cannot beleeue it aÌ„d though you take notice of Maximianus who succeeded Nestorius yet you thought fit to dissemble this Embassage c. Whereof more may be seene in Baronius Ann 431.432 Your answer given N. 37. to the Anthority cited by Ch. Ma. out of John Patriarch of Constantinople cannot satisfy any who reads his words and your answer which is so evident that I need say no more 34. For answer to your N. 38.39.40.41 if in any occasion particularly in this I must intreate the Reader not to trust your summing vp the Discourse of Ch Ma N. 20.21.22.23 but to trust only his owne eyes which if he doe I am sure he will finde all that you object against vs in the saied Numbers to be answered already when we proved that Faith is the Gift of God and that in the ordinary course of Gods Providence it is exauditu by the preaching of Pastors Prelats Doctors c. And the necessity of a perpetuall succession of Bishops in the true Church besides what hath bene saied heretofore appeares by the confession of the best learned Protestants as may be seene in Brereley Tract 2. Sect 6. and Tract 2. Cap 3. Sect 4. and Tract 2. Cap 2. Sect 3. Subdivis 2. No man can doubt but that God may teach vs in what manner he pleases but seing de facto he will haue men to be taught by men aÌ„d that Faith is his Gift as we proved in the Introduction we shall be sure never to attaine this inward gift otherwise than by those outward meanes nor can we belieue the Doctrine of Christ without the Introduction of Teachers appointed and taught by his Holy Spirit Neither doth if follow that by this meanes one should be necessitated to be an Heretique because that there should haue bene a perpe â—uall Succession of believers in all points Orthodox is not a thing which is in our power as you argue most weakely and seing Protestants teach that Heresie is a deviation from Scripture and that it is not in the power of man to conserue Scripture incorrupted Protestants may be Heretiques whether they will or no if your objection were of any force And why do you not make this argument Men cannot sinne vnles they exist and be in their right witts But that a man be in his right witts or exist is not in his Power for who can be his owne creator Therefore sinning or not sinning depends not on these things As therefore men may be Heretiques and sinners because de facto God conserves Scripture and preserves men in their being so seing he hath promised to conserue his Church without errour against Faith and gives every one sufficient grace to follow her Directions if they refuse to doe so they become Heretiques by their owne free-will not by any necessity Your saying By this reason you should say as well that no man can be a good Bishop or Pastour or King or Magistrate or Father that succeeds a bad one is manifestly impertinent seing the Direction of Faith is not the personall life but the publik Definition and doctrine of such as God hath appointed to be our Guides and whom he hath commanded vs to obey 36. Seing your N. 39. containes only a heap or rabble of demands without telling vs what you hold I were much to blame If I would spend time about theÌ„ especially I having proved out of Fathers and learned Protestants that the true Church cannot subsist without a succession of Bishops which is the point you desire should be proved before you answer the argument of Ch. Ma. and your owne demands whereof I must tell you in generall some are ridiculous some dangerous and tending to confusion some begg the Question some containe shrewd insinuations against the necessity of Bishops some are evidently fals and all of no force against vs. You ask whether Ch Ma in saying the Donatists Sect was confined to Africa do not forget himself and contradict what he saied N 17. that they had some of their Sect residing in Rome But this is a poore contradiction For even D. Potter Pag 125. cites S. Austine affirming that the Donatists held the Church to haue perished through the whole world except in their Sect in Africa and Pag 126. the Doctor denies not but they had some of their Sect in Rome and you expresly affirme it yet because they were so few as could not make any considerable number it may well be saied that their Sect de facto was confined to Africa as they were wont to say and as Ch Ma must speake in their sense concerning them and he is expresly warranted by S. Optatus Lib 2. saying that the Donatists Bishop in Rome was Episcopus sine populo Non enim grex aut populus appellandi fuerant pauci qui inter quadraginta quod excurrit basilicas locum vbi colligerent non habebant 37. All that is materiall in your N 40. hath bene answered heretofore to your small credit You haue no reason to alter the Translation of Ch. Ma. of the words of Tertullian How is it likely that so many and so great Churches should erre in one Faith Quid vetisimile est vt tot ac tantae in vnam Fidem erraverint Which you say should be translated should erre into one Faith For it is certaine that your obscure expression should erre into one Faith must signifie that it is not likely so many different Churches agreeing should erre in that Faith in which they agree which is according to the cleare expression of Ch Ma And it is cleare that the reason why they could not erre into one Faith must be because error could not consist with one Faith for if it could they might erre into one Faith and so your Translation if it be good must be beholding to his expression You say in the Pag 362. that the Roman Church is Catholique to herself alone and Hereticall to all the rest of Christian Churches and in this Pag 332. N. 11. you say It is not Heresy to oppose any Truth propounded by the Church but only such a Truth as is an essentiall part of the Gospell of Christ Which sentences put together conclude the Roman Church to want what is essentiall to a Church and yet you expresly teach in other parts of your Book that she errs not in essentiall or fundameÌ„tall points How will you saue yourself from a contradiction in this As also in your saying that it is not Heresy to oppose any truth but only such a truth as in an essentiall part
of the Gospell Do you not profess through your whole Book that voluntary error against any revealed truth is a damnable sinne And what sinne can it be except the sinne of Heresy But of this particular els where Never was there Writer so repugnant to himself as you are Now for your N. 41. If the true Church cannot be without Succession of Bishops whatsoever Church wants them cannot be a true Church as if speach were necessary to the being of a man as it is not want of it would be a sure argument that he is not a man and so your argument that though speach be a certaine signe of a living man yet want of it is no sure Argument that he is dead is retorted against yourselfe 37. You would drawe me in your N. 42. to enter vpon an vnreasonable discourse wherein you do not so much impugne the Catholique Church as all Christianity and you are still like yourself in despising S. Austine and saying that the places alledged out of him by Ch Ma N. 24. deserue not the name of a proofe and yet S. Austine Lib de Pastorib Cap 8. saieth in express tearmes the thing for which he was alledged namely that not all Heretiques are spred over the face of the â—arth but that Faithfull people are dispersed through the whole world And the arguments which you bring to the contrary are answered by these words of S. Austine in the same place Not all Heretiques are spred over the face of the Earth and yet there are Heretiques spred over the whole face of the earth some heere some there yet they are waÌ„ting in no place they know not one an other One Sect for example in Africa ' an other Heresy in the East an other in Aegipt an other in Mesopotamia In divers places they are divers One Mother Pride hath begot them all as one Mother the Catholique Church hath brought forth all faithfull people dispersed throughout the whole world No wonder then if Pride breed Dissention and Charity vnion To this true distinction of S. Austine we maie add that sometyme when the Fathers speak of the multitude of some particular Sects they meane of some particular place or Country but not comparing those Heretiques with the whole vniversall Church diffused through the whole world You tell vs S. Austine saies Ep. 48. ad Uinc the Professors of error surpassed the Number of the Professors of Truth in proportion as the sands of the Sea doe the starres of the Heaven But I find in that Epistle these words of S. Austine Fortasse non frustra dictum sit de Semine Abrahae sicut stellae Coeli sicut arena quae est ad oram maris vt in stellis Coeli pauciores firmiores clarioresque intelligantur in arena autem maritimi Litoris magna multitudo infirmorum atque carnalium In which words it seemes that S Austine speakes not of Professors of error as you say but of perfect and imperfect Catholiques which is nothing to our purpose 38. Your N. 43.44 containe nothing which hath not bene answered or els is of no consideration You find fault with Ch. Ma that being to proue Protestants to be guilty of Heresie he strikes into an other accusation of them that the Faith even of the Truth they hold is not indeed true Faith But put case it were not does it follow that the having of this Faith makes them Heretiques Aristotle believed there were Intelligences which moved the spheares he believed this with an humane perswasion aÌ„d will you make Aristotle an heretique because he believed so Answer Ch Ma having proved Protestants to be guilty of heresie and consequently not capable of salvation because Heresie is a deadly sinne if everie Heresie haue also this effect that it destroyes all true supernaturall Faith even of all those points wherein they doe not erre and that true supernaturall Faith is necessary to salvation how could Ch. Ma. without prevarication forbeare to infer that seing Protestants are proved to be guilty of Heresie they must be subject to the inseparable effect thereof which is to be deprived of all supernaturall Faith and so be incapable of Salvation vpon a double Title that is both for a positiue error against Faith and for want of supernaturall infallible Faith caused by that error Whatsoever you are pleased to say yet I belieue every one beside your self will conceyue that Ch Ma did not digress if indeed it be true that every Heresie destroyes all Faith as he proved it does but never dreamed that every Heresie makes the true belief though only humane of all other Articles to be Heresie or that Aristotle was an Heretique because he believed only with an humane perswasion that there were Intelligences which moved the spheares but if hee or any other believed all the mysteryes of Christian Faith only with an humane perswasion as he believed those Intelligences no good Christian can belieue that such a perswasion were sufficient for salvation and so your Argument turnes against yourself Neither haue you any reason to say that Ch Ma hath disjoyned his discourse vpon this Point For it was necessary that first the grounds should be laied and the nature of Faith declared before he could by degrees proue Protestants to be Heretiques and thereby to be deprived of all supernaturall Faith necessary to salvation 39. Your N. 45.46 haue bene answered in divers occasions You overlash exorbitantly when N. 47. you say to Ch Ma Do you not see and feele how void of reason and how full of imprety your sophistry is And why Let the Reader judge of the cause Ch Ma saieth Every Protestant as I suppose is perswaded that his owne opinions are true and that he hath vsed such meanes as are wont to be prescribed for vnderstanding of Scripture as praier conferring of divers Texts c This supposition not affirmation being premised that Protestants haue vsed such meanes as themselves prescribe for interpreting and yet that they disagree in many importantmatters of Faith it cleerely followes that the meanes which they prescribe are not certaine nor effectuall seing they being put in practise attaine not that End for the procuring whereof they were prescribed From whence will follow this principally intended conclusion that the only effectuall meanes to compass that end must be to acknowledg an infallible Living Guide And I pray what impiety or sophistry is there in this You say The first of those suppositions that every Protestant is perswaded that his opinions are true must needs be true but the second is apparently false I meane that every Protestant is perswaded that he hath vsed those meanes which are prescribed for vnderstanding of Scripture But that which you collect from these suppositions is cleerely inconsequent and by as good Logick you might conclude that Logick and Geometry stands vpon no certaine grounds because the disagreements of Logicians and Geometricians shew that some of them are deceived 40. Answer If every Protestant be
denieth him in all seing there is one only Christ the same in all The Magdeburgians in Praefat Centur 6. They are Anti-Christs and divels Beza de puniendis haereticis They are infidels and Apostates Mort Lib 1. Apolog. Cap 7. Either you must giue the name of Catholiks to Protestants or we must deny them the name of Christians Yourself Pag 23. N 27. speaking of Uerityes contained in the vndoubted Books of Scripture say He that doth not belieue all can hardly belieue any neither haue we reason to belieue he doth so Which is more than Catholique Divines teach who affirme that an heretique may belieue some articles of Faith by an humane opinion not purelie for Divine Revelation and so you also must vnderstand that he who doth not belieue all that is contained in the vndoubted Books of Scripture can hardly belieue any for the Authority of Scripture but if he belieue them it must be with mixture of some other reason and so fall farre short of Divine supernaturall Faith Wittenbergenses in Refutat Ortodox Consensus As he who keepeth all the Law but offendeth in one is witness saint Iames guilty of all So who believeth not one word of Christ though he seemes to belieue the other articles of the Creed yet believeth nothing and is damned and incredulous Schlusselburgh Lib. 1. Theolog. Calvin Art 1. Most truly wrote S. Chrisostom in 1. Gallat He corupteth the whole doctrin who subuerteth it in the least Article Most truly saied Ambrose E pist ad demetriadem he is out of the number of the Faithfull and lot of Saints who dissenteth in any point from the Catholike Truth Calvin Ephes 4. V. 5. vpon that One God one Faith writeth thus As often as thou readest the word one vnderstand it put emphatically as if he had saied Christ cannot be divided Faith cannot not be parted Perkins in Explicat Symboli Colum 512 Thus indeed fareth the matter that a man failing in one article faileth and erreth in all Wherevpon Faith is termed an entire copulatiue As I saied of your words so I say of these that they containe more than Catholiques affirme and to giue them a true sense they must be vnderstood that he faileth and erreth in as much as he believes not with a divine but only with an humane Faith Spalatensis contra Suarem C. 1. N. 7 Divine Faith perisheth wholy by the least detraction and consequently it is no true Church no not visible in which entire Faith is not kept in publik profession 44. The same is the Doctrine of the ancient Fathers Tertullian de praescrip Cap 2. saieth Heresies are to destroy Faith and bring everlasting death And Cap 37. If they be heretiks they can be no Christians S. Cyprian Epist 73. saieth that both by the testimonie of the Gospell and Apostle Heretiks are called Anti-christs S. Austine Enchirid Cap 5. Christ in name only is found with any Heretiks S. Chrysostom cited by Ch Ma N. 33. in Galat 17. saieth that the least error in matter of Faith destroieth Faith Let them heare sayth this holy Father what S. Paul sayth Namely that they who brought in some small errour had overthrowne the Ghospell For to shew how a small thing ill mingled doth corrupt the whole he sayd that the Ghospell was subverted For as he who clips a litle of the stamp from the kings mony makes the whole piece of no value so whosoever takes away the least particle of sound Faith is wholy corrupted But enough of this You do but cavill and yourself know you doe so in saying to Ch Ma that there is not one Catholique Divine who delivers for true Doctrine this position of yours thus nakedly set downe That any error against any one revealed truth destroies all divine Faith For you cannot be ignorant that when this Question is propounded by Divines it is necessarily vnderstood of culpable error otherwise it could be no Question And whereas you say There is not one Catholique Divine who delivers c. Your self did reade in Ch Ma S. Thomas delivering that Doctrine in the same manner 2. 2. Q. 5. à 3. For having propounded the Question Whether he who denieth one Article of Faith may retaine Faith of other Articles in his Conclusion he saieth It is impossible that Faith even informed or Faith without Charity remaine in him who doth not belieue some one Article of Faith although he confess all the rest to be true What say you to this Is not S. Thomas one Catholique Divine or is he not one instar omnium And yet he both proposes and answers this Question supposing not expressing that he speakes of culpable errour and afterward he speaks expresly of Heretiques as also Ch Ma in this very Number expresly specifies Protestants whom you know we belieue to erre culpably against many revealed Truths You goe forward and speak to Ch Ma in this manner They Catholique Divines all require not yourself excepted that this truth must not only be revealed but revealed publiquely and all things considered sufficiently propounded to the erring party to be one of those which God vnder pain of damnation commands all men to belieue But you are more bold than well advised in taking vpon you to know what all Catholique Divines hold and you are even ridiculous in telling Ch Ma what his opinion is I beseech you produce any one Catholique Divine teaching that all Divines hold that the errour which destroyes all divine Faith must be revealed publiquely Who is ignorant that many great Divines teach that he were properly an Heretique who should reject or disbelieue a private Divine Revelation sufficiently knowne to be such by never so secret meanes Do not yourself heere cite Estius whom you stile one of the most rationall and profound Doctors of our Church saying It is impertinent to Faith by what meanes we belieue the prime verity For many of the Ancients as Adam Abraham Melchisedeck Iob receyved the Faith by speciall Revelation Do you not remember that Zacharie was punished for his slowness in believing a revelation made privately to him and of a particular object You speak very confusedly when you say They Catholique Divines require that this Truth be one of those which God vnder pain of Damnation commands all men to belieue For all Catholique Divines agree that it is Heresie to deny any revealed truth proposed by the Church though other wise it be not comāded to be believed ād you do not only teach through your whole Book that it is damnable to disbelieue any Truth sufficiciently propounded as revealed by God but you saie further that whatsoever one is obliged not to disbelieue at any time at the same tyme he is oblged to belieue it which latter part though it be false as I haue shewed heretofore yet it shewes that you must affirme that God vnder paine of damnation commands all men to belieue positively and explicitely all truths sufficiently propounded as revealed by God so that this
your saying is not only confused but false in the opinyon of Catholique Divines and much more in your opinyon 45. You say Thomas Aquinas vainly supposeth against reason and experience that by the commission of any deadly sinne the Habit of Charity is quite extirpated But against this provd Pelagian conceypt of yours I haue proved in the Introduction that Charity being a supernaturall Habit infused only by the Holy Ghost and not acquired by any naturall Acts cannot be knowne by humane experience to be present or absent and being a loue of God aboue all things cannot possibly consist with any least deadly sinne I desire the Reader to see of this matter S. Thomas 2. 2. Q. 24. a 12. Corp where he cites S. Aug saying Quòd homo Deo sibi praesente illuminatur absente autem continuò tenebratur à quo non locorum intervallo sed voluntatis aversione disceditur 46. Concerning the second Reason of S. Thomas you say to C Ma Though you cry it vp for an Achilles and think like the Gorgons head it will turne vs all into stone and insult vpon Dr. Potter as if he durst not come neare it yet in very truth having considered it well I find it a serious graue prolix and profound nothing I could answer it in a word by telling you that it beggs without all proofe or colour of proofe the main Question between vs that the infallibility of your Church is either the formall motiue or rule or a necessary condition of Faith which you know we flatly deny and all that is built vpon it has nothing but winde for foundation 47. Answer What Reader will not conceiue out of your words that Ch. Ma. had vsed some such vaine brag as you express by Achilles Gorgons head insulting c Whereas he without any evenleast commendation saies positively that S. Thomas proves his conclusion first by a parity with Charity which is destroyed by every deadly sinne and then by a farther reason which there he setts downe at large in the words of that holy Saint 2. 2. Q. 5. A. 3. and is comprised in this Summe Ad 2. A man doth belieue all the articles of faith for one and the selfsame reason to wit for the prime verity proposed to vs in the Scripture vnderstood aright according to the Doctrine of the Church and therfore whosoever falls from this reason or motiue is totally deprived of Faith Your pride is intollerable in despising the Reason of S. Thomas as a serious graue prolix nothing and your saying is ridiculous that he beggs the main Question between vs about the infallibility of the Church For how could he begg that Question which when he wrote was granted and taught by all Divines But you do not vnderstand the force of his Argument which consists in this that if one assent to one Object for some motiue or Reason and assent not to another for which there is the same motiue or reason it appeares that he Assents to this other not for that motiue common to both but for some other particular Reason Now though S. Thomas specifie the authority of the Church because de facto she is the proposer of diviue Truths yet his argument is the same though it be applied to Scripture And therfore the same holy Doctor 1. Part. Q. 1. A. 8. Ad 2. without mentioning the Church saieth Innititur sides nostra revelationi Apostolis Prophetis factae qui Canonicos Libros scripserunt and we haue heard yourself saying Pag 23. He that doth not belieue all the vndoubted parts of the vndoubted Books of Scripture can hardly belieue any neither haue were ason to belieue he doth so Yea D. Lawd P. 344. saieth expresly We belieue all the Articles of Christian Faith for the same formall reason in all namely because they are revealed from and by God and sufficiently applied in his word an by his Churches Ministration 48. To this āswer which I haue confuted you add to vse your words a larg confutation of this vaine fancy out of Estius vpon 3. sē 23. dist § 13. But Estius is so farre from saying the Doctrine of S. Thomas to be a vain fancy that he saieth The Question is on both sides by the Doctours probably disputed Which is sufficient for our main Question that according to this Doctor the Protestants cannot pretend to be a true Church which must certainly and not only probably haue Divine supernaturall Faith which is absolutely necessary to saluation necessitate medij Besides his last express words shew that the Faith which remaines in an Heretique is not sufficient for salvation and therefore Protestants and all Heretiques even for want of necessary Faith cannot be saved His words are Neque tamen propterea fatendum erit Haereticos aut Judaeos Fidem habere sed Fidei partem aliquam Fides enim significat aliquod integrum omnibus suis partibus completum vt sit idem Fides simpliciter Fides Catholica Quae nimirum absolutè hominem fidelem Catholicum constituat Vnde Hereticus simpliciter infidelis esse Mark Fidem amisisse juxta Apostolum 1. Tim. 1. Fidei naufragium fecisse dicitur licet quaedam eâ teneat firmitate assensus promtitudine voluntatis qua ab alijs omnia quae fidei sunt tenentur Neither is the argument of S. Thomas sufficiently confuted by Estius in saying It is impertinent to Faith by what meanes we belieue the prime Uerity For although now the ordinary meanes be the Testimony and preaching of the Church yet it is certain that by other meanes faith hath bene given heretofore and is given still This discourse I say doth not confute the Argument of S. Thomas being vnderstood as I declared formally that whosoever disbelieves any article sufficiently propounded as a divine Truth the same man cannot belieue an other sufficiently propounded to him by the same meanes whatsoever that meanes be 49. To the other argument of S. Thomas taken from a parity of faith with the Habit of Charity which is lost by every deadly sinne Estius doth not answer and I am sure he would haue bene farr from saying as you doe that by the commission of any deadly sinne the habit of Charity is not quite extirpated And this Argument is stronger than perhaps appeares at the first sight For Faith hath no less connection and relation to the object of Faith than Charity to the object of Charity And therfore as Charity doth so loue God aboue all things that it cannot stand with any sinne whereby God is grievously offended so we must say of the habit of Faith that it is not compatible with any error whereby his Prime Uerity is culpably rejected and as it is essentiall to Charity as long as it exists to overcome all temptations against the Loue of God so Faith must of its owne nature beate downe and reject all errour against the Divine Testimony or Revelation that both for will and vnderstanding we may say
Nonne Deo subjecta erit anima mea which entire submission and subjection is evidently more necessary in Faith than in Charity against which some sinnes may be veniall whereas every errour against any truth sufficiently propounded as revealed by God is a deadly sinne nor can be excused ob parvitatem materiae 50. You conclude and say to Ch. Ma. Your Corollaries drawen from it the Doctrine of S. Thomas That every errour against Faith involves opposition against Gods testimony That Protestants haue no Faith no certainty and that you haue all Faith must together with it fall to the ground Which words are either non-sense or evidently false For who ever denied not your self excepted that every errour against Faith involves an opposition against Gods testimony which is the very essence of errour against Faith that is of Heresy 51. Your N. 50.51.52 haue bene answered heretofore and are answered by this one consideration That your Faith is not raised aboue the probable motives or Arguments of Credibility which being evident your kind of Faith must be evident but our Catholique Faith is an assent aboue the saied motives and is certaine though not evident as I haue declared els where and by this meanes your imitation of the Argument of Ch Ma to proue that the pretended faith of Protestants implied not obscurity falls to the ground because we belieue with a greater certainty than is derived from the sole motives of credibility so that your Faith must haue evidence but cannot haue certainty The Faith of Protestants who pretended to be assured what Bookes be Canonicall by the private spirit must be certaine and evident and consequently not obscure and therefor Calvin Lib Institut Cap 7. Sect 2. saieth that by the spirit men may discerne true Scripture as we discerne lucem à tenebris album à nigro suaue ab amaro light from darkness white from black sweete from sower And so the Faith of Catholiques only remaines both certaine and obscure as Christian Faith ought to be 52. Your N. 53.54.55 haue bene either answered already or els containe meere sayings without any proofe That the Jewes before our Saviours tyme conserved the Scripture is no wonder since at that tyme they were the true Church and afterward it was not in their power to corrupt it at their pleasure in regard the Apostles and other converted to Christian Religion could manifestly haue convinced them as shameless falsaries But what hath this to doe with that Church which was the vniversall Church of Christ before Luther and if it be fallible and so could haue bene permitted to corrupt Scripture you can at this tyme haue no certainty of the Bible That Luther opposed the Roman Church appeares by what I sayd heretofore and is demonstrated by Ch Ma Part 1. Chap 5. N. 29. and yourself N. 73. describe the man in such manner as makes the matter credible of it self 53. You tell vs N. 56. that the Bible only is the Religion of Protestants Of this we haue saied enough heretofore Now I will only put you in minde First that this cannot agree with your Doctrine that Scripture is not a materiall object of Faith nor which men are obliged to belieue For if it only be the Religion and Faith of Protestants and yet be not a point or object of Faith which you are bound to belieue it followes that Protestants haue no Religion or Point of Faith at all Secondly We haue heard you say Pag 287. N. 82. that some Protestants tooke for the model or Idaea of their Reformation not Scripture only but also the Decrees of Councells and the Writings of the Fathers of the first fiue Ages Thirdly you say Whatsoever els they Protestants belieue besides Scripture and the plain irrefragable indubitable consequences of it well may they hold it as a matter of Opinion but as matter of Faith and Religion neither can they with coherence to their owne grounds belieue it themselves nor require the belief of it of others without most high and most Schismaticall presumption It is strang that the Approbators of your Book and other Protestants did not see a thing verie evident That in these words you declare Protestant pretended Bishops and the Church of England to haue bene guilty of most high and most Schismaticall presumption for requiring the belief of the 39. Articles some of which you belieue neither to be contained in Scripture nor to be the plain irrefragable indubitable consequences of it but to be fals and repugnant to it So that we haue reason more and more to be even amazed that such a Book could at such a tyme be published 54. Your N. 57 and the rest till your N. 72. inclusiuè haue bene answered in different occasions respectiuè Vnfortunate man Who will not compassionate your disorder of minde and pen when N. 66. you are not ashamed to say of Catholiques It is too too apparent that your Church hath got and still maintaines her authority over mens consciences by counterfeiting false stories by obtruding on the world supposititious writings by corrupting the monuments of former times and defacing out of them all which any way makes against you by warres by perfecutions by Massacres by Treasons by Rebellions in short by all manner of carnall meanes whether violent or fraudulent If Luther found the Roman Church and such as were vnited with her that is all Orthodox Christian Churches in such a state as you describe what a scandall must it needs haue bene to Jewes Turks Pagans and all the enemies of Christian Religion 55. Whosoever reads your N 73. will find that you abandon Luther and that you grant very much in favour of the Roman Church as will appeare by reading Ch Ma heere N. 32. and I obserue that you confess with Luther that in the Papacy are many good things that haue come from them to vs and then why do you alwaies deny that you receiue Scripture from vs which is one of those many good things that haue come from vs to you as Luther expressly confesses 56. In your N. 74. you involue and make things seeme obscure which are very cleare You cite Ch. Ma. as if he saied in generall certainty and prudence are certaine grounds of supernaturality which is evidently fals it being manifest that some naturall knowledg may be certaine and prudent You say also that Ch Ma makes perswasion and opinion all one And why because he saieth the Faith of Protestants is but an human perswasion or opinion as if you should haue saied when you say this or that we make this and that all one or in saying such a one studied in Oxford or Cambridg we make Oxford or Cambridg all one The truth is Ch. Ma. neither intended to make them all one or different it being sufficient for his purpose that the Faith of Protestants was not a certaine divine assent call it otherwise what you please You ask how we can assure you that our Faith is not our
and say to you if nothing were revealed nothing could be necessary to be believed would you not say he did but cavill The rest of this Number tasts of nothing but gall and bitterness and is such as if you were now aliue you would haue wished vnwritten Seing our salvation is either endangered or secured according to the proportion that we are in danger of sinne or secured from it with what consequence can you so hypocrytically talk of taking alwaies the absolutely safest way for avoiding all sinne and yet teach that men are not alwaies obliged to take the safest meanes for salvation especially since you also teach that to avoide sinne to the vttermost of our power is a necessary meanes of salvation Neither do you consider that while you pretend to teach that for avoiding sinne it is not sufficient to follow a truly probable and prudent opinion you do much more confirme the chiefe Purpose and Intent of Cha Ma which was to proue that in things absolutely and indispensably necessary to salvation men are obliged to seek and embrace the safer patte and in the meane tyme I pray you see if by your Divinity you can perswade all litigants to parte with theyr goods though they prudently and probably Judge they maintayne a just cause because forsooth it is safer to yeald than overcome seing it is not impossible but the Adversarie may be in the right And though heere you talk magnificently of the necessity men haue to avoide sinne to the vttermost of their power as a necessary meanes of salvation yet Pag 19. N. 26. you were content to say I am verily perswaded that God will not impute errours to them as sinnes who vse such a measure of industry in finding truth as humane prudence and ordinary discretion their abilities and oportunities their distractions and hinderances and all other things considered shall advise them in a matter of such consequence Lastly who will not wonder to see you so much depress Probability in morall cases seing you teach that even Christian Faith vpon which salvation depends doth not excede Probability 17. Your N. 9.10.11.12.13.14.15 are answered out of grounds laied heretofore And in particular that Cha Ma N. 5. saied very truly that seing all Protestants pretend the like certainty and goe vpon the same grounds and haue the same Rules for interpreting Scripture and yet cannot agree it is a signe that their very Rules and grounds are vncertaine and insufficient to settle an Act of Faith as I declared aboue and if this could truly be saied of Protestants and Papists of all Christians of all Religions of all Reason it is cleare that they could not truly pretend to any certainty But God be ever blessed for it we Catholiques haue Rules and an infallible Authority the Church most able to erect a certaine infallible belief With what conscience can you say that Arcudius acknowledges that the Eucharist was in Cyprians time given to infants and esteemed necessary or at least profitable for them For this disjunctiue necessary or at least profitable may signifie that Arcudius doubts whether it were not esteemed necessary which never came to his thoughts Yea he proves expresly and largelie that it is not necessary We grant that it might be profitable to infants by producing Grace in their soules but it being not necessary the Church for just causes may think fitt not to administer it to them Your talking of an humane Law obliging men to confess their secret sinnes and even sinfull thoughts will I belieue rather cause laughter than any belief that such a Law could oblige and therfore seing you do not denie but that the Protestant Centurie Writers alledged by Cha Ma N. 5. acknowledg that in the tymes of Cyprian and Tertullian priuate confession even of Thought was vsed and commanded and thought necessary we must infer that it was held necessary as commanded by God yea seing you say it might be then commanded and being commanded be thought necessary shewes that you dare not deny but that private or auricular Confession was vsed as a thing commanded even in those primitiue Ages You know the story of the Protestants in Germanie who finding by experience the huge inconveniences that accompanied the want of Confession supplicated the Emperour that he would command it by some Law but were deservedly rejected with scorne as if men would think themselves obliged to obey his Law who had rejected the Law of God in that matter To all which if we add that you belieue not that true Priests haue power to absolue from sinne and if they had yet Protestants not being true Priests what Law of man can be of force to oblige men to confess even their thoughts 18. Your N. 16.17.18 touch only vpon what hath bene handled in other places and need no Answer heere How litle hope of salvation Protestants can conceyue from the Doctrine of Cha Ma and how impossible it is for them to repent and not relinquish their errours hath bene shewed at large heretofore 19. Though your N. 19.20.21.22.23.24.25.26.27.28.29 containe no new difficulty yet I answer them briefly by these considerations that S. Austine and other Catholiques never granted that the Donatists had true Divine Faith but only that they believing divers or most of the Truths which Catholiques believed had the same Faith or Belief materially as the Jewes belieue many Truths contayned in the Old Testament which Christians belieue and yet cannot be saied to haue true supernaturall saving Faith that you are very ignorant of Catholique Divinity if you conceiue as by your words it seems you do that we hold an Hereticall or Schismaticall Bishop not to administer validè though illicitè such Sacraments as depend only vpon Potestas Ordinis and therefore you say vainely to Char Ma Which Doctrine if you can reconcile with the present Doctrine of the Roman Church Eris mihi magnus Apollo That Dr Potter citing the doctrine or saying of the Donatists in a different letter ought not to haue saied more than the words of S. Austine in the margent vpon which the Doctor grounds himself did express which was only Baptisme not salvation whatsoever otherwise the Donatists held against the salvation of Catholiques That Dr Potters words that Protestants cut vs not of from the hope of salvation and therefore are excused from Schisme haue beene considered heretofore and your defense of them confuted That whosoever reads the N. 8. and 9. of Cha Ma will finde that your answer is in no wise satisfactorie consisting meerely of Points which you know we deny our Argument being grounded vpon the Confession of the most and best learned Protestants who deny not salvation to vs which we cannot yeald to them and so in the judgement of both parts we are safe but you are not That the Act of Rebaptization was sacrilegious and the error that it was lawfull an Heresie after the matter was declared by the Church And concerning S. Cyprian see
what hath bene saied heretofore and also by Cha Ma Part 2. Chap 4. N. 4. which you were willing to conceale In your N. 27. you say as S. Austine saies that Catholiques approue the Doctrine of Donatists but abhorre their Heresy of Rebaptization c But you should say in stead of Doctrine Baptisme as Cha Ma hath it For how can S. Austine approue the Doctrine of Donatists and yet hold that they taught an Heresy of Rebaptization 20. In your N. 29. you say to Cha Ma I conceiue you were led into errour by mâ—â—â—aking a supposition of a confession for a confession a Rhetoricall concession of the Doctors for a positiue assertion He saies indeed of your errors Though of themselves they be not damnable to them which belieue as they profess yeâ— for vs to profess what we belieue not were without question damnable But to say though your errors be not damnable we may not profess them is not to say your errors are not damnable but only though they be not As if you should say though the Church erre in points not fundamentall yet you may not separate from it Or though we do erre â—in believing Christ really present yet our errour frees vs from Idolatry or as if a Protestant should say Though you do not commit Idolatry in adoring the Host yet being vncertaine of the Priests intention to consecrate at least you expose yourself to the danger of it I presume you would not think it fairely done if any man should interpret either this last speach as an acknowledgment that you do not commit idolatry or the former as confessions that you doe erre in points not fundamentall that you do erre in believing the reall presence And therefore you ought not so to haue mistaken D. Potters words as if he had confessed the errors of your Church not daÌ„nable when he saies no more but this Though they be so or suppose or put the case they be so yet being errors we that know theÌ„ may not profess the to be divine truths 21. Answer is It possible that a man should speak so correctingly aÌ„d magisterially as you doe in this place aÌ„d yet be so palpably mistakeÌ„ as you are you say Dr. Potter saies of our errors Though of themselves they be not damnable to them which belieue as they profess yet for vs to profess c. vpon which words you ground your whole discourse and yet both you and the Doctor disclaime from these words though of themselves they be not damnable and put them among the errata of the Printer in both your Books to be corrected thus though in the issue they be not damnable so as you obtrude to vs the fault of the Print for the words of Dr. Potter and will needs haue Ch Ma partaker of your gross mistake in a point vpon which you say a great part of his Book is grounded Now then the print being corrected in this manner though in the issue they be not damnable to them which belieue as they profess I beseech you doth not though signifie that indeed they are not damnable to them which belieue as they profess And is not this the constant doctrine of Dr. Potter and yourself that Catholiques who in simplicity of hart belieue as they profess may be saved And therefore your owne correction and this very place of the Doctor so corrected returnes vpon yourself and proves that he spoke not as vpon a supposition of a confession but vpon a confession concession and positiue assertion and that you should haue vnderstood it so though it had bene as He and you cite it though of themselves they be not damnable And who is ignorant That the word though joynd with a verb of the present tense implies a thing existent in truth and if you will express only a supposition you must vse an other Tense and say though your errors were not damnable in themselves yet c or though your errors were supposed not to be damnable c and your declaring Though they be so by suppose or put the case they be so is against the common sense of all that vnderstand English Neither will any Catholique say though the Church erre in points not fundamentall yet you may not separate from her but though the Church did erre in points not fundamentall or suppose the Church did erre in such points yet you may not separate from her For betwene the Present and Preter-imperfect-tense in our case there is as great difference as betwene a positiue Affirmation and a meere suppositioÌ„ which as Phiosophers speak nihil ponit in esse The like I say of your other exaÌ„ple though we do erre in believing Christ really present yet that whosoever did speak in that manner could not be excused from denying the reast presence and the same is evident in your other examples which therefore still returne against yourself If one should say though Christian Religion be superstitious and fals yet many Christian men lead a morall life would any Christian take such a speach in any other sense than that Christian Religion is fals Or if one should say Though Mr. Chilling worth deny the blessed Trinity the Incarnation of the Sonne of God originall sinne c yet he pretends to be a Protestant and to defend their cause against Ch Ma who would not vnderstand that speach as an assertion and not only as a Supposition that you deny the Trinity Or if one should say to an other though thou be a knaue and my enemy yet I will pray for the were this a meere supposition And heere it may seeme some what strange that the Doctor both in the first and second Edition of his Book should haue though of themselves they be not damnable and you also in your first Edition for I haue not the second and therfore cannot examine it should haue the same yea and ground your discourse against Ch Ma vpon it and yet in the correction of the Errata both of you haue in the issue neither can I see any reason hereof except because that strength of truth and coherence with some Principles of Protestants made you say that our errours are not damnable of themselves and yet vpon further advise finding this confession also disadvantagious you though best to turne of themselves into in the issue But the truth is that in these matters of damnable fundamentall not fundamentall errours of the infallibility of the vniversall Church of the nature of Heresie and the like Protestants haue no settled grounds but must say and vnsay as they are prest by different or contrary occasions as hath bene noted els where and therefore it imports litle what you cite out of Potter against vs seing that can only shew that he is forced to contradict himself as also other Protestants are Now how full the Doctor yourself and other chiefest Protestants are in favour of vs and our salvation hath bene proved heretofore at large out of their owne
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
Church acknowledged to be Infallible in Fundamentall Points rather than forsake her communion for Points not necessary to salvation especially with danger of forsaking her in some necessary Point Or if you say It is Fundamentall to the Faith of a Christian to belieue whatsoever is sufficiently propounded as revealed by God as Dr. Potter grants and the thingh it selfe is evidently true then you must either affirme that the Church did not erre in any Point of Faith or els that she erred Fundamentally and ceased to be a Church which is against your present supposition and against Potter who P. 126. teaches that to say the church remayned only in the part of Donatus was an errour in the matter and nature of it properly hereticall And much worse must it be to say she remayned no where and so while you pretend to fly the fained errours of the Church you fall into a formall and proper heresy 131. If we consider what may be inferred not absolutely but vpon some impossible supposition That the Church erres in Points of Faith not Fundamentall we must inferr that she may be forsaken because she erres in matters of Faith and yet may not be forsaken because as we have seene out of the Holy Fathers it is never lawfull to forsake the Church What then is to be concluded but that as I haue sayd hertofore she cannot erre and therfore cannot be forsaken vpon any termes Divines teach that at least per se loquendo non potest dari perplexitas that is there cannot happen a case wherin a man whatsoever he doth is sure to commit some sinfull thing because it is a first principle in nature that nothing is is more in our freedome than to sin or not to sin And yet this cause of perplexity must perpetually happen if the Church could erre that is one must judge that she were to be forsaken and not to be forsaken and so remaine miserably perplexed We must therefore for avoyding this absurdity conclude that the Church cannot erre in any matter of Faith 132. But yet to come to the last part of my Advertisement If we persist in the supposition That one is perswaded the Church doth erre must he therfore forsake her communion as Luther and his fellowes did In no case For then we must call to mynd the Doctrine of Divines in case of perplexity that if one be in a vincible or culpable errour for one of the contradictory parts it is in his power and he is obliged to depose that errour which if he do not he shall not be excused from sin notwithstanding his perplexity and seeming excuse of a necessity to sin whatsoever he does If we suppose his errour to be invincible for example he beleeves the Church may not in any case be forsaken and yet that she erres and that he should sin in pro fessing those supposed errours this supposition I say being once made I dispute not whether such a perplexity be possible in this particular matter or no then enters the Doctrine of all Divines that he is obliged to embrace the lesser evill and to follow the generall Axiome exduobus malis minus est eligendum as we see nature exposes the arme to defend the head And in dubijs pars tutior est eligenda And therfore your saying Pag 283. N. 72. We must not do evill to avoide evill taken vniversally and in all cases is manifestly false against the light of Reason and your allegation of Scripture Pag 168. N. 63. you must not do evill that good may come theron is not to the purpose For we speake not of attaining a voluntary greater good but of avoiding a greater evill necessary to be committed vnless a lesser evill be embraced This then being certaine that in case of perplexity one is obliged to embrace the lesser evill the Question may remaine whether by doing so he is excused from all fault or only from being guilty of that greater sin which he avoides by choosing the lesser Certaine it is that he committs not so grievous a sin as if he had betaken himselfe to the other part But diverse great Divines as Amicus Tom 3. D. 15. Sect 3. N. 43. Tho Sanch Tom 1. in Decalog Cap 11. N. 14. alij are of opinion that he commits no sin at all because in that case of invincible Perplexity it is not in his power to avoide that which otherwise were a sin and can be none in him because every sinne essentially requires freedome of will He harh say they freedom to chuse either of those two parts taken as it were materially or considered per modum naturae but not formally and morally so to chuse them as to avoide sin absolutely seing he must of necessity chuse one side and therfore by embracing the lesser evill he does as much as lyes in his power to doe for avoiding sin and consequently is not culpable or blameworthy Now according to these Doctrines whosoever leaves the Church vpon pretence of errours not Fundamentall cannot be excused from Schisme because to profess such errours had been either a lesse sin than to leaue the Church and so in the opinion of all Divines he was obliged to embrace that less evill and not leaue the Church or it had been no sin at all in the opinion of diverse good Divines and then much less can he be excused for leaving the Church without any necessity at all Yea seing this last opinion is probable he might prudently conforme his conscience to it and by that meanes free himselfe from not only sin but also from danger therof by following a probable and prudent dictamen that to profess errours not Fundamentall were no sin at all in that case and vpon that supposition of insuperable perplexity Nay I say more that if this latter opinion of Divines be true a man shall not sin though he be of a contrary mynd and thinke in his conscience that he sins by choosing the lesser evill though not so grievously as he had done by adhering to the other part My reason is because this latter opinion is grounded vpon the impossibility which the perplexed person hath to avoide sin and one cannot sin in doing that which he cannot avoide though by an erronious conscience he judge that he sins as if one cannot heare Masse vpon a holy day or kills a man with a weapon violently put into his hand and with his hand by like violence carryed to that fact in those or the like cases no sin is committed though the partyes should thinke they sin And this is true though that part or less ill which is embraced be intrinsecè malum evill of it self or of its nature which is well to be observed for our case of professing knowne errours which of it selfe is evill because no sin of any kind can be committed when it is impossible to avoid it According to which considerations to elect the profession of errours rather then the desertion of the