is here used in a sense restrained and accommodated to the subject here entreated of and that it signifies not eternally without end of time but perpetually without interruption for the time of their liues So that the force and sense of the Words is that they should never want the Spirits asstance in the performance of their function And that the Spirit would not as Christ was to doe stay with them for a time and afterwards leave them but would abide with them if they kept their station unto the very end of their lives which is mans for ever Neither is this use of the word for ever any thing strange either in our ordinary speech wherein we use to say this is mine for ever this shall be yours for ever without ever dreaming of the Eternity either of the thing or Persons And then in Scripture it not only will bear but requires this sense very frequently as Exod. 21. 6. Deut. 15. 17. his master shall boar his eare through with an awle and he shall serve him for ever Ps. 52. 9. I will praise thee for ever Ps. 61. 4. I will abide in thy Tabernacle for ever Ps. 119. 111. Thy Testimonies have I taken as mine heritage for ever and lastly in the Epist. to Philemon He therefore departed from thee for a time that thou shouldest receive him for ever 75 And thus I presume I have shewed sufficiently that this for ever hinders not but that the promise may be appropriated to the Apostles as by many other circumstances I have evinc'd it must be But what now if the place produced by you as a main pillar of your Churches infallibility prove upon tryall an engine to batter and overthrow it at least which is all one to my purpose to take away all possibility of our assurāce of it This will seem strange newes to you at first hearing not farre from a prodigy And I confesse as you here in this place and generally all your Writers of controversy by whom this text is urged order the matter it is very much disabled to doe any service against you in this question For with a bold sacriledge and horrible impiety somewhat like Procrustes his cruelty you perpetually cut off the head and foot the begining and end of it and presenting to your confidents who usually read no more of the Bible then is alleadged by you only these words I will ask my Father and he shall give you another Paraclete that he may abide with you for ever even the spirit of Truth conceale in the mean time the words before and the words after that so the promise of Gods Spirit may seem to be absolute whereas it is indeed most cleerely and expresly conditionall being both in the words before restrained to those only that love God and keep his Commandements and in the words after flatly denyed to all whom the Scriptures stile by the name of the World that is as the very Atheists give us plainly to understand to all wicked and worldly men Behold the place entire as it is set down in your own Bible If ye love mee keep my Commandements and I will aske my Father and he shall give you another Paraclete that he may abide with you for ever even the spirit of the Truth whom the world cannot receive Now from the place there restored and vindicated from your mutilation thus I argue against your pretence We can have no certainty of the infallibility of your Church but upon this supposition that your Popes are infallible in confirming with the Decrees of Generall Councells we can have no certainty hereof but upon this supposition that the Spirit of truth is promised to him for his direction in this work And of this again we can have no certainty but upon supposall that he performes the condition whereunto the promise of the spirit of truth is expresly limited viz. That he love God and keep his Commandements and of this finally not knowing the Popes heart we can have no certainty at all therefore from the first to the last we can have no certainty at all of your Churches infallibility This is my first argument Frō this place another followes which will charge you as home as the former If many of the Roman See were such men as could not receive the spirit of Truth even men of the World that is Worldly Wicked Carnall Diabolicall men then the Spirit of Truth is not here promised but flatly denied them and consequently we can have no certainty neither of the Decrees of Councells which these Popes confirme nor of the Churches infallibility which is guided by these decrees But many of the Roman See even by the confession of the most zealous defenders of it were such men therefore the spirit of truth is not here promised but denyed them and consequently we can have no certainty neither of the Decrees which they confirme nor of the Churches infallibility which guides herselfe by these Decrees 76 You may take as much time as you think fit to answer these Arguments In the mean while I proceed to the consideration of the next text alleaged for this purpose by you out of S. Paul 1. Ep. to Timothy where he saith as you say the Church is the Pillar and ground of truth But the truth is you are somewhat to bold with S. Paul For he saies not in formall termes what you make him say the Church is the Pillar and Ground of Truth neither is it certain that he meanes so for it is neither impossible nor improbable that these words the pillar and ground of truth may have reference not to the Church but to Timothy the sense of the place that thou maist know how to behave thy selfe as a pillar and ground of truth in the Church of God which is the house of the living God which exposition offers no violence at all to the words but only supposes an Ellipsis of the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the greek very ordinary Neither wants it some likelihood that S. Paul comparing the Church to a house should here exhort Timothy to carry himself as a Pillar in that house should doe according as he had given other Principall men in the Church the name of Pillars rather then having called the Church a House to call it presently a Pillar which may seem somewhat heterogeneous Yet if you will needs have S. Paul referre this not to Timothy but the Church I will not contend about it any farther then to say possibly it may be otherwise But then secondly I am to put you in mind that the Church which S. Paul here speaks of was that in which Timothy conversed and that was a Particular Church and not the Roman and such you will not have to be Vniversally Infallible 77 Thirdly if we grant you out of curtesy for nothing can enforce us to it that he both speaks of the Vniversall Church and saies this of it then I am to remember you that
left them is and hath been the only fountaine of all the Schismes of the Church and that which makes them continue the common incendiary of Christendome and that which as I said before teares into pieces not the coat but the bowels and members of Christ Ridente Turcâ nec dolente Iudae◠Take away these Wals of separation and all will quickly be one Take away this Persecuting Burning Cursing Damning of men for not subscribing to the words of men as the words of God Require of Christians only to believe Christ and to call no man master but him only Let those leave claiming Infallibility that have no title to it and let them that in their words disclaime it disclaime it likewise in their actions In a word take away tyranny which is the Divels instrument to support errours and superstitions and impieties in the severall parts of the world which could not otherwise long withstand the power of Truth I say take away tyranny and restore Christians to their just and full liberty of captivating their understanding to Scripture only and as Rivers when they have a free passage runne all to the Ocean so it may well be hoped by Gods blessing that Vniversall Liberty thus moderated may quickly reduce Christendome to Truth and Vnitie These thoughts of peace I am perswaded may come from the God of peace and to his blessing I commend them and proceed 18 Your fift and last obiection stands upon a false and dangerous supposition That new Heresies may arise For an Heresie being in it selfe nothing else but a Doctrine Repugnant to some Article of the Christian Faith to say that new Heresies may arise is to say that new Articles of Faith may arise and so some great ones among you stick not to professe in plaine tearmes who yet at the same time are not ashamed to pretend that your whole Doctrine is Catholique and Apostolique So Salmeron Non omnibus omnia dedit Deus ut quaelibetaetas suis gaudeat veritatibus quas prior aetas ignoravit God hath not given all things to All So that every age hath its proper verities which the former age was ignorant of Disp. 57. In Ep. ad Rom And againe in the Margent Habet Vnumquodque saeculum peculiares revelationes divinas Every age hath its peculiar Divine Revelations Where that he speaks of such Revelations as are or may by the Church be made matters of Faith no man can doubt that reads him an example whereof he gives us a little before in these words Vnius Augustini doctrina Assumptionis B. Deiparae cultum in Ecclesiam introduxit The Doctrine of Augustine only hath brought in to the Church the Worship of the Assumption of the Mother of God c. Others againe mince and palliate the matter with this pretence that your Church undertakes not to coyne new Articles of faith but only to declare those that want sufficient declaration But if sufficient declaration be necessary to make any doctrine an Article of Faith then this doctrine which before wanted it was not before an Article of faith and your Church by giving it the Essentiall forme and last complement of an Article of faith makes it though not a Truth yet certainly an Article of faith But I would faine know whether Christ and his Apostles knew this Doctrine which you pretend hath the matter but wants the forme of an Article of faith that is sufficient declaration whether they knew it to be a necessary Article of the faith or no! If they knew it not to be so then either they taught what they knew not which were very strange or else they taught it not and if not I would gladly be informed seeing you pretend to no new Revelations from whom you learn't it If they knew it then either they conceal'd or declar'd it To say they conceal'd any necessary part of the Gospell is to charge them with farre greater sacriledge then what was punished in Ananias and Saphira It is to charge these glorious Stewards and dispensers of the Mysteries of Christ with want of the great vertue requisite in a Steward which is Fidelity It is to charge them with presumption for denouncing Anathema's even to Angels in case they should teach any other doctrine then what they had received from thē which sure could not merit an Anathema if they left any necessary part of the Gospell untaught It is in a word in plaine tearmes to give them the lye seeing they professe plainly and frequently that they taught Christians the whole doctrine of Christ. If they did know and declare it then was it a full and formall Article of faith and the contrary a full and formall Heresie without any need of further declaration and then their Successours either continued the declaration of it or discontinued If they did the latter how are they such faithfull depositaries of Apostolique Doctrine as you pretend Or what assurance can you give us that they might not bring in new and false Articles as well as suffer the old and true ones to be lost If they did continue the declaration of it and deliver it to their Successours and they to theirs and so on perpetually then continued it still a full and formall Article of faith and the repugnant doctrine a full and formall Heresie without and before the definition or declaration of a Councell So that Councells as they cannot make that a truth or falshood which before was not so so neither can they make or declare that to be an Article of Faith or an Heresie which before was not so The supposition therefore on which this argument stands being false and runious whatsoever is built upon it must together with it fall to the ground This explication therefore and restriction of this doctrine whereof you make your advantage was to my understanding unnecessary The Fathers of the Church in after times might have just cause to declare their judgmēt touching the sense of some generall Articles of the Creed but to oblige others to receave their declarations under paine of damnation what warrant they had I know not He that can shew either that the Church of all Ages was to have this Authority or that it continued in the Church for some Ages and then expired He that can shew either of these things let him for my part I cannot Yet I willingly confesse the judgment of a Councell though not infallible is yet so farre directive and obliging that without apparent reason to the contrary it may be sinne to reject it at least not to afford it an outward submission for publique peace-sake 19 Ad § 7. 8. 9. Were I not peradventure more fearefull then I need to be of the imputation of tergiversation I might very easily rid my hands of the remainder of this Chapter For in the Question there discussed you grant for ought I see as much as D. Potter desires and D. Potter grants as much as you desire and therefore that I should
event was what effect was wrought in me by the perusall and consideration of it To deal truly and ingenuously with you I fell somewhat in my good opinion both of your sufficiency syncerity but was exceedingly confirm'd in my ill opinion of the cause maintained by you I found every where snares that might entrap and colours that might deceive the simple but nothing that might perswade and very little that might move an understanding man and one that can discerne between discourse and sophistry In short I was verily perswaded that I plainly saw and could make it appear to all dis-passionate and unprejudicate Iudges 〈◊〉 a vein of sophistry and calumny did run clean through it from 〈◊〉 begining to the end And letting some friends understand so much 〈◊〉 my selfe to be perswaded by them that it would not be either unproper for me nor un-acceptable to God nor peradventure altogether unserviceable to his Church nor justly offensive to you if you indeed were a lover of Truth and not a maintainer of a Faction if setting aside the second Part which was in a manner wholly employed in particular disputes repetitions and references and in wranglings with D. Potter about the sense of some super-numerary quotations and whereon the main question no way depends I would make a faire and ingenuous Answer to the first wherein the substance of the present Controversy is confessedly contained and which if it were clearly answered no man would desire any other answer to the second This therefore I undertook with a full resolution to be an adversary to your errors but a friend and servant to your person and so much the more a friend to your person by how much the severer and more rigid adversary I was to your errors 4 In this work my conscience beares me witnesse that I have according to your advice proceeded alwayes with this consideration that I am to give a most strict account of every line and word that passeth under my pen and therefore have been precisely carefull for the matter of my book to defend truth only and only by Truth And then scrupulously fearefull of scandalizing you or any man with the manner of handling it From this rule sure I am I have not willingly swerved in either part of it and that I might not doe it ignorantly I have not only my self examined mine owne work perhaps with more severity then I have done yours as conceiving it a base and unchristian thing to goe about to satisfie others with what I my self am not fully satisfied But have also made it passe the fiery tryall of the exact censures of many understanding judges alwaies heartily wishing that you your selfe had been of the Quorum But they who did undergoe this burthen as they wanted not sufficiencie to discover any heterodoxe doctrine so I am sure they have been very carefull to let nothing flip dissonant from truth or from the authorized doctrine of the Church of England and therefore whatsoever causelesse and groundlesse jealousy any man may entertain concerning my Person yet my book I presume in reason and common equity should be free from them wherein I hope that little or nothing hath escap'd so many eyes which being weighed in the ballance of the Sanctuary will be found too light And in this hope I am much confirm'd by your strange carriage of your selfe in this whole businesse For though by some crooked and sinister arts you have got my Answer into your hands now a yeare since and upwards as I have been assured by some that know it and those of your own party though you could not want every day faire opportunityes of sending to me and acquainting me with any exceptions which you conceived might be justly taken to it or any part of it then which nothing could have been more welcome to me yet hitherto you have not been pleased to acquaint mee with any one Nay more though you have been at sundry times and by severall waies entreated and sollicited nay press'd and importun'd by me to joyne with me in a private discussion of the Controversy between us before the publication of my Answer because I was extremely unwilling to publish any thing which had not passed all manner of tryals as desiring not that I or my Side but that truth might overcome on which Side soever it was though I have protâ—sted to you and set it under my hand which protestation by Gods help I would have made good if you or any other would undertake your cause would give me a faire meeting and choose out of your whole Book any one argument wherof you were most confident and by which you would be content the rest should be judged of and make it appeare that I had not or could not answer it that I would desist from the work which I had undertaken and answer none at all though by all the Arts which possibly I could devise I have provoked you to such a tryall in particular by assuring you that if you refus'd it the world should be inform'd of your tergiversation notwithstanding all this you have perpetually and obstinately declined it which to my understanding is a very evident signe that there is not any truth in your cause nor which is impossible there should bee strength in your arguments especially considering what our Saviour hath told us every one that doth evill hateth the light neither commeth to the light least his deeds should be reproved but he that doth truth commeth to the light that his deeds may be made manifest that they are wrought in God 5 In the meane while though you despaired of compassing your desire this honest way yet you have not omitted to tempt me by base and unworthy considerations to desert the cause which I had undertaken letting me understand from you by an acquaintance common to us both how that in case my work should come to light my inconstancy in religion so you miscall my constancy in following that way to heaven which for the present seemes to me the most probable should bee to my great shame painted to the life that my owne writings should be producâ—d against my selfe that I should bee urged to answer my owne motives against Protestantisme and that such things should be published to the world touching my beliefe for my painter I must expect should have great skill in perspective of the doctrine of the Trinity the Deity of our Saviour and all supernaturall verities as should endanger all my benefices present or future that this warning was given me not out of feare of what I could say for that Catholiques if they might wish any ill would beg the Publication of my booke for respects obvious enough but out of a meer charitable desire of my good and reputation and that all this was said upon a supposition that I was answering or had a minde to answer Charity maintained If not no harme was done To which coâ—â—â—â—us premonition as I remember I desired
for Salvation if they deny it to us 17 Seaventhly whether any one Errour maintained against any one Truth though never so small in it selfe yet sufficiently propounded as testified or revealed by almighty God doe not destroy the Nature and Vnity of Faith or at least is not a grievous offence excluding Salvation 18 Eightly if this be so how can Lutherans Calvinists Zuinglions and all the rest of disagreeing Protestants hope for salvation since it is manifest that some of them must needs erre against some such truth as is testified by almighty God either fundamentall or at least not fundamentall 19 Ninthly we constantly urge and require to haue a particular Catalogue of such points as he calls fundamentall A Catalogue I say in particular and not only some generall definition or description wherein Protestants may perhaps agree though wee see that they differ when they come to assigne what points in particular be fundamentall and yet upon such a particular Catalogue much depends as for example in particular Whether or no a man doe not erre in some point fundamentall or necessary to salvation and whether or no Lutherans Calvinists and the rest doe disagree in fundamentalls which if they doe the same Heaven cannot receiue them all 20 Tenthly and lastly I desire that in answering to these points â—he would let us knowe distinctly what is the doctrine of the Protestant English Church concerning them and what he utters only as his owne private opinion 21 These are the Questions which for the present I finde it fit and necessary for me to aske of D. Potter or any other who will defend his cause or impugne ours And it will be in vaine to speake vainely and to tell me that a Foole may aske mere questions in an houre then a wise man can answer in a yeare with such idle Proverbs as that For I aske but such questions as for which he giues occasion in his Book and where he declares not himselfe but after so ambiguous and confused a manner as that Truth it selfe can scarce tell how to convince him so but that with ignorant and ill-judging men he will seeme to haue somewhat left to say for himselfe though Papists as he calls them and Puritans should presse him contrary waies at the same time and these questions concerne things also of high importance as whereupon the knowledge of Gods Church and true Religion and consequently Saâ—â—ation of the soule depends And now because hee shall not taxe me with being like those men in the Gospell whom our blessed Lord and Saviour charged with laying heavy burdens upon other mens shoulders who yet would not touch them with their finger I oblige my selfe to answer upon any demand of his both to all these Questions if he finde that I haue not done it already and to any other concerning matter of faith that he shall aske And I will tell him very plainely what is Catholique doctrine and what is not that is what is defined or what is not defined and rests but in discussion among Divines 22 And it will be here expected that he performe these things as a man who professeth learning should doe not flying from questions which concerne things as they are considered in their owne nature to accidentall or rare circumstances of ignorance incapacity want of meanes to be instructed erroneous conscience and the like which being very various and different cannot bee well comprehended under any generall Rule But in delivering generall doctrines we must consider things as they be ex natura rei or per. se loquendo as Divines speak that is according to their natures if all circumstances concuâ—re proportionable thereunto As for example some may for a time 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 and yet we must absolutely say that errour in any one fundamentall point is damnable because so it is if we consider things in themselues abstracting from accidentall circumstances in particular persons as contrarily if some man judge some act of vertue or some indifferent action to be a sinne in him it is a sinne indeed by reason of his erroneous conscience and yet we ought not to say absolutely that vertuous or indifferent actions are sinnes and in all sciences we must distinguish the generall Rules from their particular Exceptions And therefore when for example he answers to our demand whether he hold that Catholiques may be saved or whether their pretended errours be fundamentall and damnable he is not to change the state of the question and haue recourse to Ignorance and the like but to answer concerning the errours being considered what they are apt to be in themselues and as they are neither increased nor diminished by accidental circumstances 23 And the like I say of all the other points to which I once againe desire an answere without any of these or the like ambiguous termes in some sort in some sense in some degree which may be explicated afterward as strictly or largely as may best serue his turne but let him tell vs roundly and particularly in what sort in what sense in what degree he understands those the like obscure mincing phrases If he proceed solidly after this manner and not by way of meere words more like a Preacher to a vulgar Auditor then like a learned man with a pen in his hand thy patience shall be the lesse abused and truth will also receiue more right And since we haue already laid the grounds of the question much may be said hereafter in few words if as I said he keep close to the reall point of every difficulty without wandring into impertinent disputes multiplying vulgar and threed-bare objections and arguments or labouring to prove what no man denies or making a vaine oftentation by citing a number of Schoolemen which every â—uny brought up in Schooles is able to doe and if he cite his Authors with such sincerity as no time need be spent in opening his corruptions and finally if he set himselfe a worke with this consideration that we are to giue a most strict accompt to a most just and unpartiall Iudge of every period line and word that passeth under our pen. For if at the latter day we shall be arraigned for every idle word which is spoken so much more will that be done for every idle word which is written as the deliberation wherewith it passeth makes a man guilty of more malice and as the importance of the matter which is treated of in bookes concerning true faith and religion without which no Soule can be saved makes a mans Errours more materiall then they would be if question were but of toyes The Answere to the PREFACE TO the First and Second If beginings be ominous as they say they are D. Potter hath cause to look for great store of uningenuous dealing from you the very first words you
sufficiently propounded as Divine Truths all that your Church propounds for such That you may not neither For the Question betweene us is this Whether your Churches Proposition be a sufficient Proposition And therefore to suppose this is to suppose the question which you knowe in Reasoning is alwaies a fault Or Lastly doe you mean for I knowe not else what possibly you can meane by sufficiently presented to his vnderstanding as revealed by God that which all things considered is so propos'd to him that he might and should and would belieue it to be true and revealed by God were it not for some voluntary and avoidable fault of his owne that interposeth it selfe betweene his understanding and the truth presented to it This is the best construction that I can make of your words and if you speake of truths thus propos'd and rejected let it be as damnable as you please to deny or disbelieue them But then I cannot but be amaz'd to heare you say That D. Potter never tells you whether there be any other points of faith besides those which we are bound to belieue explicitely which a man may deny or disbelieue though they be sufficiently presented to his understanding as truths revealed or testified by Almighty God seeing the light it selfe is not more cleare then D. Potters Declaration of himselfe for the Negatiue in this Question p. 245. 246. 247. 248. 249. 250. of his Book Where he entreats at large of this very Argument beginning his discourse thus 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 whereof he may be convinced that they belong to the doctrine of Iesus Christ. To this conviction he requires three things Cleare Revelation Sufficient Proposition and Capacity understanding in the hearer For want of cleare Revelation he frees the Church before Christ the Disciples of Christ from any damnable errour though they believed not those things which he that should now deny were no Christian. To sufficient Proposition he requires two things 1. That the points be perspicuously laid open in themselues 2. So forcibly as may serue to remoue reasonable doubts to the contrary and to satisfie a teachable minde concerning it against the principles in which he hath been bred to the contrary This Proposition he saies is not limited to the Pope or Church but extended to all meanes whatsoever by which a man may be convinced in conscience that the matter proposed is divine Revelation which he professes to be done sufficiently not only when his conscience doth expresly beare witnesse to the truth but when it would doe so if it were not choaked and blinded by some unruly and unmortified lust in the will The difference being not great between him that is wilfully blind him that knowingly gainesaieth the Truth The third thing he requires is Capacity and Abilitie to apprehend the Proposall and the Reasons of it the want whereof excuseth fooles and madmen c. But where there is no such impediment and the will of God is sufficiently propounded there saith hee hee that opposeth is convinced of errour and he who is thus convinced is an Heretique and heresie is a work of the Flesh which excludeth from salvation he meanes without Repentance And hence it followeth that it is fundamentall 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 from God This is the Conclusion of Dr Potters discourse many passages whereof you take notice of in your subsequent disputations and make your advantage of them And therefore I cannot but say againe that it amazeth me to heare you say that he declines this Question and never tells you whether or no there bee any other points of faith which being sufficiently propounded as divine Revelations may be denied and disbelieved Hee tells you plainely there are none such and therefore you cannot say that he tels you not whether there be any such Againe it is almost as strange 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 understanding as a truth revealed by God For to say that any thing is a thing in question me thinks at the first hearing of the words imports that it is by some affirm'd and deni'd by others Now you affirme I grant but what Protestant ever denied that it was a sinne to giue God the lye Which is the first and most obvious sense of these words Or which of them ever doubted that to disbelieue is then a fault when the matter is so proposed to a man that he might and should and were it not for his owne fault would beleiue it Certainly he that questions either of these justly deserues to haue his wits call'd in question Produce any one Protestant that ever did so and I will giue you leaue to say it is the only thing in question But then I must tell you that your ensuing Argument viz To deny a truth witnessed by God is damnable But of two that disagree one must of necessity deny some such truth Therefore one only can be saved is built upon a ground cleane different from this postulate For though it be alwaies a fault to deny what either I doe know or should knowe to be testified by God yet that which by a cleanly conveyance you put in the place hereof To deny a truth witnessed by God simply without the circumstance of being knowne or sufficiently proposed is so farre from being certainely damnable that it may be many times done without any the least fault at all As if God should testifie something to a man in the Indies I that had no assurance of this testification should not be oblig'd to beleiue it For in such cases the Rule of the Law has place Idem est non esse non apparere not to be at all and not to appeare to me is to me all one If I had not come and spoken unto you saith our Saviour you had had no sinne 10 As little necessitie is there for that which followes That of two disagreeing in a matter of faith one must deny some such truth Whether by such you understand Testified at all by God or testified and sufficiently propounded For it is very possible the matter in controversie may be such a thing wherein God hath not at all declare himselfe or not so fully and clearely as to oblige all men to hold one way and yet be so overvalued by the parties in variance as to bee esteemed a matter of faith and one of those things of which our Saviour saies He that beleiveth not shall be damn'd Who sees not that it is possible two Churches may excommunicate and damne each other for keeping Christmasse tenne daies sooner or later as well as Victor excommunicated the
errours which were not damnable I answere All that we forfake in you is only the beliefe and practice and profession of your Errors Hereupon you cast us out of your Communion And then with a strange and contradictious and ridiculous hypocrisy complain that we forsake it As if a man should thrust his friend out of doores and then be offended at his departure But for us not to forsake the beliefe of your Errors having discovered them to be Errors was impossible and therefore to doe so could not be damnable believing them to be Errors Not to forsake the practice and profession of them had been damnable hypocrisie supposing that which you vainly runne away with and take for graunted those errors in themselves were not damnable Now to doe so and as matters now stand not to forsake your Communion is apparently contradictious seeing the condition of your Communion is that we must professe to believe all your doctrines not only not to be damnable errors which will not content you but also to be certain and necessary and revealed truths So that to demand why we forsake your Communion upon pretence of Errors which were not damnable is in effect to demand why we forsooke it upon our forsaking it For to pretend that there are Errors in your Church though not damnable is ipso facto to forsake your Communion and to doe that which both in your account and as you think in Gods account puts him as does so out of your Communion So that either you must free your Church from requiring the belief of any errour whatsoever damnable and not damnable or whether you will or no you must free us from Schisme For schisme there cannot be in leaving your communion unlesse we were obliged to continue in it Man cannot be obliged by Man but to what either formally or virtually he is obliged by God for all just power is from God God the eternall truth neither can nor will obliege us to believe any the least and the most innocent falshood to be a divine truth that is to erre nor to professe a known errour which is to lye So that if you require the belief of any errour among the conditions of your Communion our obligation to communicate with you ceaseth and so the imputation of schisme to us vanisheth into nothing but lies heavy upon you for making our seperation from you just and necessary by requiring unnecessary and unlawfull conditions of your Communion Hereafter therefore I intreat you let not your demand be how could we forsake your Communion without Schisme seeing you err'd not damnably But how we could doe so without Schisme seeing you err'd not at all which if either you doe prove or we cannot disprove it we will I at least will for my part returne to your Communion or subscribe my selfe Schismatique In the mean time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 23 Yet notwitstanding all your Errors we doe not renounce your Communion totally and absolutely but only leave Communicating with you in the practise and profession of your Errors The tryall whereof will be to propose some forme of worshipping God taken wholly out of Scripture and herein if we refuse to joyn with you then and not till then may you justly say we have utterly and absolutely abandoned your Communion 24 To the sixteenth Your sixt demand I have already satisfied in my answeres to the Second and the Fourth and in my reply Ad § 2. toward the end And though you say your repeating must be excused yet I dare not be so confident and therefore forbear it 25 To the seaventeenth To the seaventh Whether errour against any one truth sufficiently propounded as testified by God destroy not the Nature and Vnity of Faith or at least is not a grievous offence excluding salvation I answere if you suppose as you seem to doe the proposition so sufficient that the party to whom it is made is convinc'd that it is from God so that the denyall of it involves also with it the denyall of Gods veracity any such errour destroyes both faith and salvation But if the Proposall be only so sufficient not that the party to whom it is made is convinc'd but only that he should and but for his own fault would have been convinc'd of the divine verity of the doctrine proposed The crime then is not so great for the beliefe of Gods veracity may well consist with such an Errour Yet a fault I confesse it is and without Repentance damnable if all circumstances considered the proposall be sufficient But then I must tell you that the proposall of the present Roman Church is only pretended to be sufficient for this purpose but is not so especially all the Rayes of the Divinity which they pretend to shine so conspicuously in her proposalls being so darkned and even extinguished with a cloud of contradiction from Scripture Reason and the Ancient Church 26 To the Eighteenth To the eight How of disagreeing Protestants both parts may hope for salvation seeing some of them must needs erre against some Truth testified by God I answere 1. The most disagreeing Protestants that are yet thus farre agree that these books of Scripture which were never doubted of in the Church are the undoubted word of God and a perfect rule of faith 2. That the sense of them which God intended whatsoever it is is certainly true So that they believe implicitely even those very truths against which they erre and why an implicit faith in Christ and his Word should not suffice as well as an implicit faith in your Church I have desired to be resolved by many of your Side but never could 3. That they are to use their best endeavours to beleive the Scripture in the true sense and to live according to it This if they performe as I hope many on all Sides doe truly and syncerely it is impossible but that they should believe aright in all things necessary to salvation that is in all those things which appertain to the Covenant between God and man in Christ for so much is not only plainly but frequently contained in Scripture And believing aright touching the Covenant if they for their parts perform the condition required of them which is syncere obedience why should they not expect that God will performe his promise and give them salvation For as for other things which lye without the Covenant and are therefore lesse necessary if by reason of the seeming conflict which is oftentimes between Scripture and Reason and Authority on the one side and Scripture Reason and Authority on the other if by reason of the variety of tempers abilities educations unavoidable prejudices whereby mens understandings are variously form'd and fashion'd they doe embrace severall Opinions whereof some must be erroneous to say that God will damne them for such errors who are lovers of him and lovers of truth is to rob man of his comfort and God of his goodnesse it is to make Man
desperate and God a Tyrant But they deny Truths testified by God and therefore shall be damn'd Yes if they knew them to be thus testified by him and yet would deny them that were to give God the lye and questionlesse damnable But if you should deny a truth which God had testified but only to a man in the Indies as I said before and this testification you had never heard of or at least had no sufficient reason to believe that God had so testified would not you think it a hard case to be damned for such a denyall Yet consider I pray a little more attentively the difference between them and you will presently acknowledge the question between them is not at any time or in any thing Whether God saies true or no or whether he saies this or no But supposing he saies this and saies true whether he meanes this or no As for example between Lutherans Calvinists and Zwinglians it is agreed that Christ spake these words This is my Body and that whatsoever he meant in saying so is true But what he meant and how he is to be understood that 's the question So that though some of them deny a truth by God intended yet you can with no reason or justice accuse them of denying the truth of Gods Testimony unlesse you can plainly shew that God hath declared and that plainly and clearly what was his meaning in these words I say plainly and clearly For he that speaks obscurely and ambiguously and no where declares himselfe plainly sure he hath no reason to be much offended if he be mistaken When therefore you can shew that in this and all other their Controversies God hath interposed his Testimony on one side or other so that either they doe see it and will not or were it not for their own voluntary and avoidable fault might and should see it and doe not let all such Errors be as damnable as you please to make them In the mean while if they suffer themselves neither to be betraid into their errors nor kept in them by any sin of their will if they doe their best endeavour to free themselves from all errors and yet faile of it through humane frailty so well am I perswaded of the goodnesse of God that if in me alone should meet a confluence of all such errors of all the Protestants in the World that were thus qualified I should not be so much afraid of them all as I should be to ask pardon for them For whereas that which you affright us with of calling Gods Veracitie in Question is but a Panicke feare a fault that no man thus qualified is or can be guilty of to ask pardon of simple and purely involuntary errors is tacitely to imply that God is angry with us for them and that were to impute to him the strange tyranny of requiring brick when he gives no straw of expecting to gather where he strew'd not to reap where he sowed not of being offended with us for not doing what he knowes we cannot doe This I say upon a supposition that they doe their best endeavours to know Gods will and doe it which he that denyes to be possible knowes not what he saies for he saies in effect That men cannot doe what they can doe for to doe what a man can doe is to doe his best endeavour But because this supposition though certainly possible is very rare and admirable I say secondly that I am verily perswaded that God will not impute errors to them as sinnes who use such a measure of industry in finding truth as humane prudence and ordinary discretion their abilities and oportunities their distractions and hindrances and all other things considered shall advise them unto in a matter of such consequence But if herein also we faile then our errors begin to be malignant and justly imputable as offences against God and that love of his truth which he requires in us You will say then that for those erring Protestants which are in this case which evidently are farre the greater part they sinne damnably in erring and therefore there is little hope of their Salvation To which I answer that the consequence of this Reason is somewhat strong against a Protestant but much weakned by coming out of the mouth of a Papist For all sinnes with you are not damnable and therefore Protestants errors might be sinnes and yet not damnable But yet out of courtesy to you we will remove this rubbe out of your way and for the present suppose them mortall sinnes and is there then no hope of Salvation for him that commits them Not you will say if he dye in them without repentance and such Protestants you speak of who without repentance dye in their errors Yea but what if they dye in their errors with repentance then I hope you will have Charity enough to think they may be saved Charity Mist. takes it indeed for granted that this supposition is destructive of it selfe and that it is impossible and incongruous that a man should repent of those errors wherein he dies or dye in those whereof he repents But it was wisely done of Him to take it for granted for most certainly He could not have spoken one word of sense for the confirmation of it For seeing Protestants believe as well as you Gods infinite and most admirable perfections in himselfe more then most worthy of all possible love seeing they believe as well as you his infinite goodnesse to them in creating them of nothing in creating them according to his own image in creating all things for their use and benefit in streaming down his favours on them every moment of their lives in designing them if they serve him to infinite and eternall happinesse in redeeming them not with corruptible things but the pretious blood of his beloved sonne seing they believe as well as you his infinite goodnesse and patience towards them in expecting their conversion in wooing alluring leading and by all meanes which his wisdome can suggest unto him and mans nature is capable of drawing them to Repentance Salvation Seeing they believe these things as well as you and for ought you know consider them as much as you and if they doe not it is not their Religion but They that are too blame what can hinder but that the consideration of Gods most infinite goodnesse to them and their own almost infinite wickednesse against him Gods spirit cooperating with them may raise them to a true and syncere and a cordiall love of God And seeing sorrow for having injur'd or offended the person beloved or when we fear we may have offended him is the most naturall effect of true love what can hinder but that love which hath oftimes constrained them to lay down their lives for God which our Saviour assures us is the noblest sacrifice we can offer may produce in them an universall sorrow for all their sinnes both which they know they have
of the New Testament they giue a farre different rule saying All the Books of the New Testament as they are commonly received we doe receiue and account them Canonicall This I say is a rule much different from the former Of whose authority was NEVER any doubt in the Church For some Books might be said to be Commonly received although they were sometime doubted of by some If to be Commonly received passe for a good rule to know the Canon of the New Testament why not of the Old Aboue all we desire to know upon what infallible ground in some Bookes they agree with us against Luther and divers principall Lutherans and in others jump with Luther against us But seeing they disagree among themselues it is evident that they haue no certaine rule to know the Canon of Scripture in assigning whereof some of them must of necessity erre because of contradictory propositions both cannot be true 10 Moreover the letters syllables words phrase or matter contained in holy Scripture haue no necessary or naturall connection with divine Revelation or Inspiration and therefore by seeing reading or understanding them we cannot inferre that they proceed from God or be confirmed by divine authoritie as because Creatures involve a necessary relation connection and dependance on their Creator Philosophers may by the light of naturall reason demonstrate the existence of one prime cause of all things In Holy Wrâ—â— there are innumerable truths not surpassing the spheare of humane wit which are or may be delivered by Pagan Writers in the selfe same words and phrase as they are in Scripture And as for some truths peculiar to Christians for Example the mystery of the blessed Trinitie c. The only setting them down in Writing is not enough to be assured that such a Writing is the undoubted word of God otherwise some sayings of Plato Trisâ—egistus Sybils Ovid c. must be esteemed Canonicall Scripture because they fall upon some truths proper to Christian Religion The internall light and inspiration which directed and moved the Authors of Canonicall Scriptures is a hidden Qualitie infused into their understanding and will and hath no such particular sensible influence into the externall Writing that in it we can discover or from it demonstrate any such secret light and inspiration and therefore to be assured that such a Writing is divine we cannot know from it selfe alone but by some other extrinsecall authority 11 And here we appeale to any man of judgement whether it be not a vaine brag of some Protestants to tell us that they wot full well what is Scripture by the light of Scripture it selfe or as D. Potter words it by that glorious beame of divine light which shines therein even as our eye distinguisheth light from darknesse without any other help then light it selfe and as our eare knowes a voice by the voice it selfe alone But this vanity is refuted by what we said even now that the externall Scripture hath no apparent or necessary connection with divine inspiration or revelation Will D. Poiter hold all his Bretheren for blinde men for not seeing that glorious beam of divine light which shines in Scripture about which they cannot agree Corporall light may be discerned by it selfe alone as being evident proportionate and connaturall to our faculty of seeing That Scripture is Divine and inspired by God is a truth exceeding the naturall capacity and compasse of mans understanding to us obscure and to be believed by divine faith which according to the Apostle is argumentum non apparentium an argument or conviction of things not evident and therefore no wonder if Scripture doe not manifest it selfe by it selfe alone but must require some other meanes for applying it to our understanding Neverthelesse their own similitudes and instances make against themselues For suppose a man had never read or heard of Sunne Moone Fire Candle c. and should bee brought to behold a light yet in such sort as that the Agent or Cause efficient from which it proceeded were kept hidden from him could such a one by only beholding the light certainly know whether it were produced by the Sunne or Moone c. Or if one heare a voice and had never known the speaker could he know from whom in particular that voice proceeded They who look upon Scripture may well see that some one wrote it but that it was written by divine inspiration how shall they know Nay they cannot so much as know who wrote it unlesse they first know the writer and what hand he writes as likewise I cannot know whose voice it is which I heare unlesse I first both know the person who speakes and with what voice he useth to speak and yet even all this supposed I may perhaps be deceaved For there may be voices so like and Hand so counterfeited that men may be deceaved by them as birds were by the grapes of that skilfull Painter Now since Protestants affirme knowledge concerning God as our supernaturall end must be taken from Scripture they cannot in Scripture alone discerne that it is his voice or writing because they cannot know from whom a writing or vioce proceeds unlesse first they know the person who speakeâ— ' or writeth Nay I say more By Scripture alone they cannot so much as know that any person doth in it or by it speak any thing at all because one may write without intent to signifie or affirme any thing but onely to set downe or as it were paint such characters syllables and words as men are wont to set copies not caring what the signification of the words imports or as one transcribes a writing which himselfe understands not or when one writes what another dictates and in other such cases wherein it is cleare that the writer speakes or signifies nothing in such his writing and therefore by it we cannot heare or understand his voice With what certainty then can any man affirme that by Scripture it selfe they can see that the writers did intend to signifie any thing at all that they were Apostles or other Canonicall Authors that they wrote their own sense and not what was dictated by some other man and finally and especially that they wrote by the infallible direction of the Holy Ghost 12 But let us be liberall and for the present suppose not grant that Scripture is like to corporall light by it selfe alone able to determine and moue our understanding to assent yet the similitude proues against themselues For light is not visible except to such as haue eyes which are not made by the light but must be presupposed as produced by some other cause And therefore to hold the similitude Scripture can be cleare onely to those who are endued with the eye of faith or as D. Potter aboue cited saith to all that haue eyes to discerne the shining beames thereof that is to the believer as immediatly after he speaketh Faith then must not originally proceed from Scripture but
them the argument which S. Augustine opposed to the Manicheans in these words I would not believe the Gospell unlesse the authority of the Church did move me Them therefore whom I obeyeâ— saying Believe the Gospell why should I not obey saying to me Doe not believe Manichaeus Luther Calvin c. Choose what thou pleasest If thou shalt say believe the Catholiques They warne me not to give any credit to you If therefore I believe them I cannot believe thee If thou say Do not believe the Catholiques thou shalt not doe well in forcing me to the faith of Manichaeus because by the preaching of Catholiques I believed the Gospell it selfe If thou say you did well to believe them Catholiques commending the Gospell but you did not well to believe them discommending Manichaeus Dost thou think me so very foolish that without any reason at all I should believe what thou wilt and not believe what thou wilt not And doe not Protestants perfectly resemble these men to whom S. Augustine spake when they will have men to believe the Roman Church delivering Scripture but not to believe her condemning Luther and the rest Against whom when they first opposed themselves to the Roman Church S. Augustine may seem to have spoken no lesse prophetically then doctrinally when he said Why should I not most diligently inâ—uire what Christ coÌ„manded of them before all others by whose authority I was moved to believe that Christ commanded any good thing Canst thou better declare to me what he said whom I would not have thought to have been or to be if the belief thereof had been recommended by thee to mee This therefore I believed by fame strengthned with celebrity consent Antiquity But every one may see that you so few so turbulent so new can produce nothing deserving authority What madnesse is this Believe them Catholiques that we ought to believe Christ but learn of us what Christ said Why I beseech thee Surely if they Catholiques were not at all and could not teach me any thing I would more easily perswade my selfe that I were not to believe Christ then that I should learn any thing concerning him from any other then them by whom I believed him If therefore we receive the knowledge of Christ and Scriptures from the Church from her also must we take his doctrine and the interpretation thereof 19 But besides all this the Scriptures cannot be Iudge of Controversies who ought to be such as that to him not only the learned or Veterans but also the unlearned and Novices may have recourse for these being capable of salvation and endued with faith of the same nature with that of the learned there must be some universall Iudge which the ignorant may understand and to whom the greatest Clerks must submit Such is the Church and the Scripture is not such 20 Now the inconveniences which follow by referring all Controversies to Scripture alone are very clear For by this principle all is finally in very deed and truth reduced to the internall private Spirit because there is really no middle way betwixt a publiquâ— externall and a private internall voyce and whosoever refuseth the one must of necessity adhere to the other 21 This Tenet also of Protestants by taking the office of Iudicature from the Church comes to conferre it upon every particular man who being driven from submission to the Church cannot be blamed if he trust himselfe as farre as any other his conscience dictating that wittingly he meanes not to cozen himself as others malitiously may doe Which inference is so manifest that it hath extorted from divers Protestants the open Confession of so vast an absurdity Hear Luther The Governours of Churches and Pastors of Christs sheep have indeed power to teach but the sheep ought to give judgement whether they propound the voice of Christ or of Aliens Lubertus saith As we have demonstrated that all publique Iudges may be deceived in interpreting so we affirme that they may erre in judging All faithfull men are private Iudges and they also have power to judge of doctrines and interpretations Whitaker even of the unlearned saith They ought to have recourse unto the more learned but in the meane time we must be carefull not to attribute to them over-much but so that still we retaine our owne freedome Bilson also affirmeth that The people must be discerners and Iudges of that which is taught This same pernicious doctrine is delivered by Brentius Zanchius Cartwright and others exactly cited by Brerely and nothing is more common in every Protestants mouth then that he admits of Fathers Councells Church c. as farre as they agree with Scripture which upon the matter is himselfe Thus Heresy ever fals upon extreames It pretends to have Scripture alone for judge of Controversies and in the meane time sets up as many Iudges as there are men and women in the Christian world What good Statesmen would they be who should ideate or fancy such a CoÌ„mon wealth as these men haue framed to themselues a Church They verifie what S. Augustine objecteth against certaine Heretiques You see that you goe about to overthrow all authority of Scripture and that every mans minde may be to himselfe a Rule what he is to allow or disallow in every Sâ—â—ipture 22 Moreover what confusion to the Church what danger to the Common wealth this deniall of the authority of the Church may bring I leaue to the consideration of any judicious indifferent man I will only set down some words of D. Potter who speaking of the Proposition of revealed Truths sufficient to proue him that gain-saith them to be an Heretique saith thus This Proposition of revealed truths is not by the infallible determination of Pope or Church Pope Church being excluded let us heare what more secure rule he will prescribe but by whatsoever meanes a man may be convinced in conscience of divine revelation If a Preacher doe clear any point of faith to his Hearers if a private Christian doe make it appeare to his Neighbour that any conclusion or point of faith is delivered by divine revelation of Gods word if a man himselfe without any Teacher 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 gainsaith any such proofe to be an Heretique and obstinate opposer of the faith Behold what goodly safe Propounders of faith arise in place of Gods universall visible Church which must yeeld to a single Preacher a Neighbour a man himselfe if he can read or at least haue eares to heare Scripture read Verily I doe not see but that every well-governed Civill Commonwealth ought to concurre towards the exterminating of this doctrine whereby the Interpretation of Scripture is taken from the Church and conferred upon every man who whatsoever is pretended to the contrary may be a passionate seditious creature 23 Moreover
of the Truth but the perfection of it which are very different things though you would faine confound them For Scripture might very well be all true though it containe not all necessary Divine Truth But unlesse it doe so it cannot be a perfect Rule of Faith for that which wants any thing is not perfect For I hope you doe not imagine that we conceive any antipathy between Gods word written and unwritten but that both might very well stand together All that we say is this that we have reason to believe that God de Facto hath ordered the matter so that all the Gospell of Christ the whole covenant between God and man is now written Whereas if he had pleas'd he might so have disposed it that part might have been written and part unwritten but then he would have taken order to whom we should have had recourse for that part of it which was not written which seeing he hath not done as the progresse shall demonstrate it is evident he hath left no part of it unwritten We know no man therefore that saies It were any injury to the written Word to be joyn'd with the unwritten if there were any wherewith it might be joyn'd but that we deny The fidelity of a Keeper may very well consist with the authority of the thing committed to his custody But we know no one â—ociety of Christians that is such a faithfull Keeper as you pretend The Scripture it selfe was not kept so faithfully by you but that you suffered infinite variety of Readings to creep into it all which could not possibly be divine and yet in severall parts of your Church all of them untill the last Age were so esteem'd The interpretations of obscure places of Scripture which without Question the Apostles taught the Primitive Christians are wholy lost there remaines no certainty scarce of any one Those Worlds of Miracles which our Saviour did which were not written for want of writing are vanished out of the memory of men And many profitable things which the Apostles taught and writ not as that which S. Paul glances at in his second Epistle to the Thessalon of the cause of the hindrance of the comming of Antichrist are wholly lost and extinguished So unfaithfull or negligent hath been this keeper of Divine verities whose eyes like the keepers of Israell you say have never flumbred nor slept Lastly we deny not but a Iudge and a Law might well stand together but we deny that there is any such Iudge of Gods appointment Had he intended any such Iudge he would have nam'd him least otherwise as now it is our Iudge of controversies should be our greatest controversy 11 Ad § 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. In your second Paragraph you summe up those arguments wherewith you intend to prove that Scripture alone cannot be Iudge in controversies Wherein I professe unto you before hand that you will fight without an Adversary For though Protestants being warranted by some of the Fathers have called Scripture the Iudge of Controversies and you in saying here That Scripture alone cannot be Iudge imply that it may be called in some sense a Iudge though not alone Yet to speak properly as men should speak when they write of Controversies in Religion the Scripture is not a Iudge of Controversies but a Rule only and the only Rule for Christians to judge them by Every man is to judge for himselfe with the Iudgement of Discretion and to choose either his Religion first and then his Church as we say or as you his Church first and then his Religion But by the consent of both sides every man is to judge and choose and the Rule whereby he is to guide his choyce if he be a naturall man is Reason if he be already a Christian Scripture which we say is the Rule to judge controversies by Yet not all simply but all the Controversies of Christians of those that are already agreed upon This first Principle that the Scripture is the word of God But that there is any man or any company of men appointed to be judge for all men that we deny and that I believe you will never prove The very truth is we say no more in this matter then evidence of Truth hath made you confesse in plain termes in the beginning of this chapter viz. That Scripture is a perfect Rule of faith for as much as a writing can be a rule So that all your reasons whereby you labour to dethrone the Scripture from this office of Iudgeing we might let passe as impertinent to the conclusion which we maintaine and you have already granted yet out of curtesy we will consider them 12 Your first is this a Iudge must be a person fit to end controversies but the Scripture is not a person nor fit to end controversies no more then the Law would be without the Iudges therefore though it may be a Rule it cannot be a Iudge Which conclusion I have already granted Only my request is that you will permit Scripture to have the properties of a Rule that is to be fit to direct every one that will make the best use of it to that end for which it was ordained And that is as much as we need desire For as if I were to goe a journey and had a guide which could not erre I needed not to know my way so on the other side if I know my way or have a plain rule to know it by I shall need no guide Grant therefore Scripture to be such a Rule and it will quickly take away all necessity of having an infallible guide But without a living Iudge it will be no fitter you say to end Controversies then the Law alone to end suits I answere if the Law were plain and perfect and men honest and desirous to understand aright and obey it he that saies it were not fit to end controversies must either want understanding himself or think the world wants it Now the Scripture we pretend in things necessary is plain perfect and men we say are oblig'd under pain of Damnation to seek the true sense of it and not to wrest it to their preconceived Phansies Such a law therefore to such men cannot but be very fit to end all controversies necessary to be ended For others that are not so they will end when the world ends and that is time enough 12 Your next encounter is with them who acknowledging the Scripture a Rule only and not a Iudge make the holy Ghost speaking in Scripture the judge of Controversies Which you disprove by saying That the holy Ghost speaking only in Scripture is no more intelligible to us then the Scripture in which he speakes But by this reason neither the Pope nor a Councell can be a Iudge neither For first denying the Scriptures the writings of the Holy Ghost to be judges you will not I hope offer to pretend that their decrees the writings of men are more capable of
that these controversies about Scripture are not decidable by Scripture and have shewed that your deduction from it that therefore they are to be determin'd by the authority of some present Church is irrationall and inconsequent I might well forbeare to tire my selfe with an exact and punctuall examination of your premises 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which wether they be true or false is to the Question disputed wholly impertinent Yet because you shall not complaine of tergiverâ—ation I will runne over them and let nothing that is materiall and considerable passe without some stricture or animadversion 30 You pretend that M. Hooker acknowledgeth that That whereon we must rest our assurance that the Scripture is Gods word is the Church and for this acknowledgement you referre us to l. 3. Sect. 8. Let the Reader consult the place and he shall finde that he and M. Hooker have been much abused both by you here and by M. Breerly and others before you and that M. Hooker hath not one syllable to your pretended purpose but very much directly to the contrary There he tells us indeed that ordinarily the first introduction and probable motive to the belief of the verity is the Authority of the Church but that it is the last Foundation whereon our belief hereof is rationally grounded that in the same place he plainly denies His words are Scripture teacheth us that saving Truth which God hath discovered unto the world by Revelation and it presumeth us taught otherwise that it selfe is divine and sacred The Question then being by what meanes we are taught this some answere that to learne it we have no other way then tradition As namely that so we believe because we from our Predecessors and they from theirs have so received But is this enough That which all mens experience teacheth them may not in any wise be denied and by experience we all know that the first outward motive leading men to esteeme of the Scripture is the Authority of Gods Church For when we know the whole Church of God hath that opinion of the Scripture we judge it at the first an impudent thing for any man bred and brought up in the Church to be of a contrary minde without cause Afterwards the more we bestow our labour upon reading or hearing the mysteries thereof the more we find that the thing it self doth answer our received opinion concerning it so that the former inducement prevailing somewhat with us before doth now much more prevaile when the very thing hath ministred farther reason If Infidels or Atheists chance at any time to call it in question this giveth us occasion to sift what reason there is whereby the testimony of the Church concerning Scripture and our own perswasion which Scripture it selfe hath setled may be proved a truth infallible In which case the ancient Fathers being often constrained to shew what warrant they had so much to rely upon the Scriptures endeavoured still to maintaine the Authority of the bookes of God by arguments such as the unbelievers themselves must needs think reasonable if they judge thereof as they should Neither is it a thing impossible or greatly hard even by such kinde of proofes so to manifest and cleare that point that no man living shall be able to deny it without denying some apparent principle such as all men acknowledge to be true By this time I hope the reader sees sufficient proofe of what I said in my Reply to your Preface that M. Breerelies great ostentation of exactnesse is no very certain argument of his fidelity 31 But seeing the beliefe of the Scripture is a necessary thing and cannot be prov'd by Scripture how can the Church of England teach as she doth Art 6. That all things necessary are contain'd in Scripture 32 I have answered this already And here again I say That all but cavillers will easily understand the meaning of the Article to be That all the Divine verities which Christ revealed to his Apostles and the Apostles taught the Churches are contained in Scripture That is all the materiall objects of our faith whereof the Scripture is none but only the meanes of conveying them unto us which we believe not finally and for it selfe but for the matter contained in it So that if men did believe the doctrine contained in Scripture it should no way hinder their salvation not to know whether there were any Scripture or no. Those barbarous nations Irenaeus speaks of were in this case and yet no doubt but they might be saved The end that God aimes at is the beliefe of the Gospell the covenant between God and man the Scripture he hath provided as a meanes for this end and this also we are to believe but not as the last object of our faith but as the instrument of it When therefore we subscribe to the 6. Art you must understand that by Articles of Faith they mean the finall and ultimate objects of it and not the meanes and instrumentall objects and then there will be no repugnance between what they say and that which Hooker and D. Covell and D. Whitaker and Luther here say 33 But Protestants agree not in assigning the Canon of holy Scripture Luther and Illyricus reject the Epistle of S. Iames. Kemnitius and other Luth. the second of Peter the second and third of Iohn The Epist. to the Heb. the Epist. of Iames of Iude and the Apocalyps Therefore without the Authority of the Church no certainty can be had what Scripture is Canonicall 34 So also the Ancient Fathers and not only Fathers but whole Churches differed about the certainty of the authority of the very same bookes and by their difference shewed they knew no necessity of conforming themselves herein to the judgement of your or any Church For had they done so they must have agreed all with that Church and consequently among themselves Now I pray tell me plainly Had they sufficient certainty what Scripture was Canonicall or had they not If they had not it seemes there is no such great harme or danger in not having such a certainty whether some books be Canonicall or no as you require If they had why may not Protestants notwithstanding their differences have sufficient certainty hereof as well as the Ancient Fathers and Churches notwithstanding theirs 35 You proceed And whereas the Protestants of England in the 6. Art have these words In the name of the Holy Scripture we doe vnderstand those Bookes of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church you demaund what they meane by them Whether that by the Churches consent they are assured what Scriptures be Canonicall I Answer for them Yes they are so And whereas you inferre from hence This is to make the Church Iudge I haue told you already That of this Controversie we make the Church the Iudge but not the present Church much lesse the present Roman Church but the consent and testimony of the
Therefore there was then an infallible Iudge Iust as if I should say Yorke is not my way from Oxford to London therefore Bristol is Or a dogge is not a horse therefore he is a man As if God had no other waies of revealing himselfe to men but only by Scripture and an infallible Church S. Chrysostome and Isidorus Pelusiota conceaved he might use other meanes And S. Paul telleth us that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might be known by his workes and that they had the Law written in their hearts Either of these waies might make some faithfull men without either necessity of Scripture or Church 125 But D. Potter saies you say In the Iewish Church there was a living Iudge indowed with an absolute infallible direction in cases of moment as all points belonging to divine Faith are And where was that infallible direction in the Iewish Church when they should have received Christ for their Messias and refused him Or perhaps this was not a case of moment D. Potter indeed might say very well not that the high Priest was infallible â—or certainly he was not but that his determination was to be of necessity obeyed though for the justice of it there was no necessity that it should be believed Besides it is one thing to say that the living judge in the Iewish Church had an infallible direction another that he was necessitated to follow this direction This is the priviledge which you challenge But it is that not this which the Doctor attributes to the Iewes As a man may truely say the wise men had an infallible direction to Christ without saying or thinking that they were constrained to follow it and could not doâ— otherwise 126 But either the Church retaines still her infallibility or it was devested of it upon the receiving of Holy Scripture which is absurd An argument me thinkes like this Either you have hornes or you have lost them but you never lost them therefore you have them still If you say you never had hornes so say I for ought appeares by your reasons the Church never had infallibility 127 But some Scriptures were received in some places and not in others therefore if Scriptures were the Iudge of Controversies some Churches had one Iudge and some another And what great inconvenience is there in that that one part of England should have one Iudge and another another especially seeing the bookes of Scripture which were received by those that received fewest had as much of the doctrine of Christianity in them as they all had which were received by any all the necessary parts of the Gospell being contained in every one of the four Gospells as I have prov'd So that they which had all the bookes of the New Testament had nothing superfluous For it was not superfluous but profitable that the same thing should be said divers times and be testified by divers witnesses And they that had but one of the four Gospells wanted nothing necessary and therefore it is vainly infer'd by you that with months and yeares as new Canonicall Scriptures grew to be published the Church altered her rule of Faith and judge of Controversies 128 Heresies you say would arise after the Apostles time and after the writing of Scriptures These cannot be discovered condemned avoyded unlesse the Church be infallible Therefore there must be a Church infallible But I pray tell me Why cannot Heresies be sufficiently discovered condemned avoided by them which believe Scripture to be the rule of Faith If Scripture be sufficient to Informe us what is the faith it must of necessity be also sufficient to teach us what is Heresy seeing Heresy is nothing but a manifest deviation from and an opposition to the faith That which is streight will plainly teach us what is crooked and one contrary cannot but manifest the other If any one should deny that there is a God That this God is omnipotent omniscient good just true mercifull a rewarder of them that seek him a punisher of them that obstinatly offend him that Iesus Christ is the Sonne of God and the Saviour of the World that it is he by obedience to whom men must look to be saved If any man should deny either his Birth or Passion or Resurrection or Assention or sitting at the right hand of God his having all power given him in Heaven and Earth That it is he whom God hath appointed to be judge of the quick and the dead that all men shall rise again at the last day That they which believe and repent shall be sav'd That they which doe not believe or repent shall be damned If a man should hold that either the keeping of the Mosaicall Law is necessary to Salvation or that good works are not necessary to Salvation In a word if any man should obstinatly contradict the truth of any thing plainly delivered in Scripture who does not see that every one which believes the Scripture hath a sufficient meanes to discover and condemne and avoid that Heresy without any need of an infallible guide If you say that the obscure places of Scripture contain matters of Faith I answere that it is a matter of faith to believe that the sense of them whatsoever it is which was intended by God is true for he that does not doe so calls Gods Truth into question But to believe this or that to be the true sense of them or to believe the true sense of them and to avoid the false is not necessary either to Faith or Salvation For if God would have had his meaning in these places certainly known how could it stand with his wisdome to be so wanting to his own will and end as to speak obscurely or how can it consist with his justice to require of men to know certainly the meaning of those words which he himselfe hath not revealed Suppose there were an absolute Monarch that in his own absence from one of his Kingdomes had written Lawes for the government of it some very plainly and some very ambiguously and obscurely and his Subjects should keep those that were plainly written with all exactnesse and for those that were obscure use their best diligence to find his meaning in them and obey them according to the sense of them which they conceived should this King either with justice or wisdome be offended with these Subjects if by reason of the obscurity of them they mistook the sense of them and faile of performance by reason of their errour 128 But It is more usefull fit you say for the deciding of Controversies to haue besides an infallible rule to goe by a living infallible Iudge to determine them from hence you conclude that certainly there is such a Iudge But why then may not another say that it is yet more usefull for many excellent purposes that all the Patriarchs should bee infallible then that the Pope only should Another that it would bee yet more usefull that all the
know it to be so because the Church saies so which is Infallible If I aske what meane You by your Church You can tell me nothing but the company of Christians which adhere to the Pope I demaund then lastly Why should I beleive this company to be the infallible Propounder of Divine Revelation And then you tell me that there are many Motives to induce a man to this beleife But are these Motives lastly infallible No say you but very credible Well let them passe for such because now we have not leasure to examine them Yet me thinks seeing the Motives to believe the Churches infallibility are only very credible it should also be but as credible that your Church is Infallible and as credible and no more perhaps somewhat lesse that her proposals particularly Transubstantiation are Divine Revelations And me thinks You should require only a Morall and modest assent to them and not a Divine as you call it and infallible Faith But then of these Motives to the Churches Infallibility I hope you will give us leave to consider and judge whether they be indeed Motives and sufficient or whether they be not Motives at all or not sufficient or whether these Motives or inducements to your Church be not impeached and opposed with Compulsives and enforcements from it or lastly whether these Motives which You use be not indeed only Motives to Christianity and not to Popery giue me leave for distinction sake to call your Religion so If we may not judge of these things how can my judgment be moved with that which comes not within its cognizance If I may then at least I am to be a Iudge of all these Controversies 1. Whether every one of these Motives be indeed a Motive to any Church 2. If to some whether to Yours 3. If to Yours whether sufficient or insufficient 4. Whether other Societies haue not as many and as great Motives to draw me to them 5. Whether I haue not greater reason to beleive you doe erre then that you cannot And now Sir I pray let me trouble You with a few more Questions Am I a sufficient Iudge of these Controversies or no If of these why shall I stay here why not of others Why not of all Nay doth not the true examining of these few containe and lay upon me the examination of all What other Motives to your Church have you but your Notes of it Bellarmine gives some 14. or 15. And one of these fifteene containes in it the examination of all controversies and not only so but of all uncontroverted Doctrines For how shall I or can I know the Church of Romes conformity with the Ancient Church unlesse I know first what the Ancient Church hid hold and then what the Church of Rome doth hold and lastly whether they be conformable or if in my judgment they seeme not conformable I am then to think the Church of Rome not to be the Church for want of the Note which she pretends is proper and perpetuall to it So that for ought I can see Iudges we are and must be of all sides every one for himselfe and God for us all 155 Ad § 26. I answere This assertion that Scripture alone is Iudge of all Controversies in Faith if it be taken properly is neither a Fundamentall nor Vnfundamentall point of Faith nor no point of Faith at all but a plaine falshood It is not a Iudge of Controversies but a Rule to Iudge them by and that not an absolutly perfect Rule but as perfect as a written Rule can be which must alwayes need something else which is either evidently true or evidently credible to give attestation to it and that in this case is Vniversall Tradition So that Vniversall Tradition is the Rule to judge all Controversies by But then because nothing besides Scripture comes to us with as full a streame of Tradition as Scripture Scripture alone and no unwritten Doctrine nor no Infallibility of any Church having attestation from Tradition truely Vniversall for this reason we conceive as the Apostles persons while they were liuing were the only Iudges of controversies so their Writings now they are dead are the only Rule for us to judge them by There being nothing unwritten which can goe in upon halfe so faire cards for the title of Apostolike Tradition as these things which by the confession of both Sides are not so I mean the doctrine of the Millenaries and of the necessity of the Eucharist for Infants 156 Yet when we say the Scripture is the only Rule to judge all Controversies by me thinks you should easily conceiue that wee would be understood of all those that are possible to be judg'd by Scripture and of those that arise among such as believe the Scripture For if I had a controversie with an Atheist whether there were a God or no I would not say that the Scripture were a Rule to judge this by seeing that doubting whether there be a God or no he must needs doubt whether the Scripture be the word of God or if hee does not hee grants the Question and is not the man we speak of So likewise if I had a controversie about the Truth of Christ with a lew it would be vainly done of me should I presse him which the Authority of the new Testament which he believes not untill out of some principles common to us both I had persuaded him that it is the Word of God The New Testament therefore while he remaines a Iew would not be a fit Rule to decide this Controversie In as much as that which is doubted of it selfe is not fit to determine other doubts So likewise 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 believe a book of S. Austines to containe nothing but the Truth of God yet not to haue been inspired by God himselfe against such men therefore there were no disputing out of the Bible because nothing in question can be a proof to it selfe When therefore we say the Scripture is a sufficient meanes to determine all controversies we say not this either to Atheists Iewes Turks or such Christians if there be any such as believe not Scripture to be the word of God But among such men only as are already agreed upon this That the Scripture is the Word of God we say all controversies that arise about Faith are either not at all decidable consequently not necessary to be believed one way or other or they may be determined by Scripture In a Word That all things necessary to be believed are evidently contain'd in Scripture and what is not there evidently contained cannot be necessary to be believed And our reason hereof is convincing because nothing can challenge our beliefe but what hath descended to us from Christ by Originall and Vniversall
that there is no falshood at all but only want of divine testification in which case D. Potter must either grant that it is a fundamentall error to apply divine revelation to any point not revealed or else must yeeld that the Church may erre in her Proposition or Custody of the Canon of Scripture And so we cannot be sure whether she have not been deceived already in Bookes recommended by her and accepted by Christians And thus we shall have no certainty of Scripture if the Church want certainty in all her definitions And it is worthy to be observed that some Bookes of Scripture which were not alwaies known to be Canonicall have been afterward received for such but never any one book or syllable defined by the Church to be Canonicall was afterward questioned or rejected for Apocryphall A signe that Gods Church is infallibly assisted by the holy Ghost never to propose as divine truth any thing not revealed by God and that Oâ—ission to define points not sufficiently discussed is laudable but Commission in propounding things not revealed inexcusable into which precipitation our Saviour Christ never hath nor never will permit his Church to fall 13 Nay to limit the generall promises of our Saviour Christ made to his Church to points only fundamentall namely that the gates of hell shall not prevail against her and that the holy Ghost shall lead her into all truth c. is to destroy all faith For we may by that doctrine and manner of interpreting the Scripture limit the Infallibility of the Apostles words preaching only to Points fundamentall and whatsoever generall Texts of Scripture shall be alleadged for their infallibility they may by D. Potter example be explicated and restrained to points fundamentall By the same reason it may be farther affirmed that the Apostles and other writers of Canonicall Scripture were endued with infallibility only in setting down points fundamentall For if it be urged that all Scripture is divinely inspired that it is the word of God c. D. Potter hath afforded you a ready answer to say that Scripture is inspired c. only in those parts or parcels wherein it delivereth fundamentall points In this manner D. Fotherby saith The Apostle twice in one Chapter professed that this he speaketh and not the Lord He is very well content that where he lacks the warrant of the expresse word of God that part of his writings should be esteemed as the word of man D. Potter also speaks very dangerously towards this purpose Sect. 5. where he endeavoureth to prove that the infallibility of the Church is limited to points fundamentall because as Nature so God is neither defective in necessaries nor lavish in supersâ—uities Which reason doth likewise prove that the infallibility of Scripture and of the Apostles must be restrained to points necessary to salvation that so God be not accused as defective in necessaries or lavish in supersâ—uities In the same place he hath a discourse much tending to this purpose where speaking of these words The Spirit shall lead you into all truth and shall abide with you for ever he saith Though that promise was directly and primarily made to the Apostles who had the Spirits guidance in a more high and absolute manner then any since them yet it was made to themfor the behoof of the Church and is verified in the Church Vniversall But all truth is not simply all but all of some kind To be led into all truths is to know and believe them And who is so simple as to be ignorant that there are many millions of truths in Nature History Divinity whereof the Church is simply ignorant How many truths lye unrevealea in the infinite treasury of Gods wisdome wherewith the Church is not acquainted c. so then the truth it selfe enforceth us to understand by all truths not simply all not all which God can possibly reveal but all pertaining to the substance of faith all truth absolutely necessary to salvation Mark what he saith That promise The spirit shall lead you into all truth was made directly to the Apostles and is verified in the universall Church but by all truth is not understood simply all but all apperraining to the substance of faith and absolutely necessary to salvation Doth it not hence follow that the promise made to the Apostles of being led into all truth is to be understood only of all truth absolutely necessary to salvation and consequently their preaching and writing were not infallible in points not fundamentall or if the Apostles were infallible in all things which they proposed as divine truth the like must be affirmed of the Church because D. Potter teacheth the said promise to be verified in the Church And as he limits the aforesaid words to points fundamentall so may he restrain what other text soever that can be brought for the universall infallibility of the Apostles or Scriptures So he may and so he must least otherwise he receive this answer of his own from himselfe How many truths lye unrevealed in the infinite treasurie of Gods wisdome wherewith the Church is not acquainted And therefore to verify such generall sayings they must be understood of truths absolutely necessary to Salvation Are not these fearfull consequences And yet D. Potter will never be able to avoid them till he come to acknowledge the infallibility of the Church in all points by her proposed as divine truths and thus it is universally true that she is lead into all truth in regard that our Saviour never permits her to define or teach any falshood 14 All that with any colour may be replied to this argument is That if once we call any one Book or parcell of Scripture in question although for the matter it contain no fundamentall error yet it is of great importance and fundamentall by reason of the consequence because if once we doubt of one Book received for Canonicall the whole canon is made doubtfull and uncertain and therefore the infallibility of Scripture must be universall and not confined within compasse of points fundamentall 15 I answere For the thing it selfe it is very true that if I doubt of any one parcell of Scripture received for such I may doubt of all and thence by the same parity I inferre that if we did doubt of the Churches infallibility in some points we could not believe her in any one and consequently not in propounding Canonicall Bookes of any other points fundamentall or not fundamentall which thing being most absurd and withall most impious we must take away the ground thereof and believe that she cannot erre in any point great or small and so this reply doth much more strengthen what we intend to prove Yet I adde that Protestants cannot make use of this reply with any good coherence to this their distinction and some other doctrines which they defend Por if D. Potter can tell what points in particular be fundamentall as in
his 7. Sect. he pretendeth then he may be sure that whensoever he meetes with such points in Scripture in them it is infallibly true although it might erre in others and not only true but cleere because Protestants teach that in matters necessary to Salvation the Scripture is so cleere that all such necessary truths are either manifestly contained therein or may be cleerely deduced from it Which Doctrines being put together to wit That Scriptures cannot erre in points fundamentall that they cleerely containe all such points and that they can tell what points in particular be such I mean fundamentall it is manifest that it is sufficient for Salvation that Scripture be infallible only in points fundamentall For supposing these doctrines of theirs to be true they may be sure to find in Scripture all points necessary to Salvation although it were fallible in other points of lesse moment Neyther will they be able to avoid this impiety against holy Scripture till they renounce their other doctrines and in particular till they believe that Christs promise to his Church are not limited to points fundamentall 16 Besides from the fallibility of Christs Catholique Church in some points it followeth that no true Protestant earned or unlearned doth or can with assurance believe the universall Church in any one point of doctrine Not in points of lesser moment which they call not fundamentall because they believe that in such points she may erre Not in fundamentalls because they must know what points be fundamentall before they goe to learn of her least otherwise they be rather deluded then instructed in regard that her certain and infallible direction extends only to points fundamentall Now if before they addresse themselves to the Church they must know what points are fundamentall they learn not of her but will be as fit to teach as to be taught by her How then are all Christians so often so seriously upon so dreadfull menaces by Fathers Scriptures and our blessed Saviour himselfe counselled and commanded to seeke to hear to obey the Church S. Austine was of a very different mind from Protestants If saith he the Church through the whole world practise any of these things to dispute whether that ought to be so done is a most insolent madnesse And in another place he saith That which the whole Church holds and is not ordained by Councels but hath alwaies been kept is most rightly believed to be delivered by Apostolicall authority The same holy Father teacheth that the custome of baptizing children cannot be proved by Scripture alone and yet that it is to be believed as derived from the Apostles The custome of our Mother the Church saith he in baptizing infants iâ— in no wise to be contemned nor to be accounted superfluous nor is it at all to be believed unlesse it were an Apostolicall Tradition And elsewhere Christ is of profit to Children baptized Is he therefore of profit to persons not believing But God forbid that I should say infants doe not believe I have already said he believes in another who finned in another It is said be believes and it is of force and he is reckoned among the faithfull that are baptized This the authority of our Mother the Church hath against this strength against this invincible wall whosoever rusheth shall be crushed in pieces To this argument the Protestants in the Conference at Ratishon gaue this round answer Nos ab Augustino hac in parte libere dissentimas In this we plainly disagree from Augustine Now if this doctrine of baptizing Infants be not fundamentall in D. Potters sense then according to S. Augustine the infallibility of the Church extends to points not fundamentall But if on the other side it be a fundamentall point then according to the same holy Doctour we must rely on the authority of the Church for some fundamentall point not contained in Scripture but delivered by Tradition The like argument I frame out of the same Father about the not rebaptizing of those who were baptized by Heretiques whereof he excellently to our present purpose speaketh in this manner Wee follow indeed in this matter even the most certaine authority of Canonicall all Scriptures But how Consider his words Although verily there be brought no example for this point out of the Canonicall Scriptures yet even in this point the truth of the same Scriptures is held by us while we doe that which the authority of Scriptures doth recommend that so because the holy Scripture cannot deceaue us whosoever is afraid to be deceaved by the obscurity of this question must haue recourse to the same Church concerning it which without any ambiguity the holy Scripture doth demonstrate to us Among many other points in the aforesaid words we are to obserue that according to this holy Father when we prove some points not particularly contained in Scripture by the authority of the Church even in that case we ought not to be said to belieue such points without Scripture because Scripture it selfe recommends the Church and therefore relying on her we relye on Scripture without danger of being deceaved by the obscurity of any question defined by the Church And elsewhere he faithi Seeing this is written in no Scripture we must belieue the testimony of the Church which Christ declareth to speak the truth But it seemes D. Potter is of opinion that this doctrine about not rebaptizing such as were baptized by Heretiques is no necessary point of faith nor the contrary an heresie wherein he contradicteth S. Augustine from whom we haue now heard that what the Church teacheth is truly said to be taught by Scripture and consequently to deny this particular point delivered by the Church is to oppose Scripture it selfe Yet if he will needs hold that this point is not fundamentall we must conclude out of S. Augustine as we did concerning the baptizing of Children that the infallibility of the Church reacheth to points not fundamentall The same Father in another place concerning this very question of the validity of Baptisme conferred by Heretiques saith The Apostles indeed haue prescribed nothing of this but this Custome ought to be believed to be originally taken from their tradition as there are many things that the universall Church observeth which are therefore with good reason believed to haue been commanded by the Apostles although they be not written No lesse cleer is S. Chrysoslome for the infallibility of the Traditions of the Church For treating these words 2. Thess. 2. Stand hold the Traditions which you haue learned whether by speech or by Epistle saith Hence it is manifest that they delivered not all things by letter but many things also without writing and these also are worthy of beliefe Let us therefore account the tradition of the Church to be worthy of beliefe It is a Tradition Seek no more Which words are so plainly against Protestants that Whitaker is as plaine with S. Chrysostome
Church upon pretence of her errors haue failed even in fundamentall points and suffered shipwrack of their Salvation ought to deter all Christians from opposing her in any one doctrine or practises as to omit other both ancient and modern heresies we see that divers chiefe Protestants pretending to reform the corruptions of the Church are come to affirm that for many Ages she erred to death and wholy perished which D. Potter cannot deny to be a fundamentall Errour against that Article of our Creed I believe the Catholique Church as he aâ—â—irmeth it of the Donatists because they confined the universall Church within Africa or some other smal tract of soile Least therefore I may fall into some fundamentall errour it is most safe for me to belieue all the Decrees of that Church which cannot errâ— fundamentally especially if we adde That according to the Doctrine of Catholique Divines one errour in faith whether it be for the matter it selfe great or small dâ—stroies faith as is shewed in Charity Mistaken and consequently to accuse the Church of any one Errour is to affirm that she lost all faith and erred damnably which very saying is damnable because it leaues Christ no visible Church on earth 21 To all these arguments I adde this demonstration D. Potter teacheth that there neither â—as nor can be any iust cause to depart from the Church of Christ no more then from Christ himselfe But if the Church of Christ can erre in some points of faith men not only may but must forsake her in those unlesse D. Potter will haue them to believe one thing and professe another and if such errours and corruptions should fall out to be about the Churches Liturgy publique Service administration of Sacraments and the like they who perceive such errours must of necessity leaue her externall Communion And therefore if once we grant the Church may erre iâ— followeth that men may and ought to forsake her which is against D. Potters own words or else they are inexcusable who left the Communion of the Roman Church under pretence of Errours which they grant not to be fundumentall And if D. Potter think good to answer this argument he must remember his own doctrine to be that even the Catholique Church may erre in points not fundamentall 22 Another argument for the universall Infallibility of the Church I take out of D. Potters own words If saith he we did not dissent in some opinions from the present Roman Church we could not agree with the Church truly Catholique These words cannot be true unlesse he presuppose that the Church truly Catholique cannot erre in points not fundamentall For if she may erre in such points the Roman Church which he affirmeth to erre only in points not fundamentall may agree with the Church truly Catholique if she likewise may erre in points not fundamentall Therefore either he must acknowledge a plain contradiction in his own words or else must grant that the Church truly Catholique cannot erre in points not fundamentall which is what we intended to proue 23 If Words cannot perswade you that in all Controversies you must rely upon the infallibility of the Church at least yeeld your assent to Deeds Hitherto I haue produced Arguments drawn as it were ex naturâ rei from the Wisdome and Goodnesse of God who cannot faile to haue left some infallible meanes to determine Controversies which as we haue proved can be no other except a Visible Church infallible in all her Definitions But because both Catholiques and Protestants receive holy Scripture we may thence also proue the infallibility of the Church in all matters which concern Faith and Religion Our Saviour speaketh clearly The gates of Hell shall not prevail against her And I will aske my Father and he will giue you another Paraclete that he may abide with you for ever the Spirit of truth And But when he the Spirit of truth commeth he shall teach you all truth The Apostle saith that the Church is the Pillar and ground of Truth And He gaue some Apostles and some Prophets and other some Evangelists and other some Pastors and Doctors to the consummation of the Saints unto the work of the Ministery unto the edifying of the body of Christ untill we meet all into the unity of faith and knowleâ—ge of the Sonne of God into a perfect man into the measure of the age of the â—ulnesse of Christ that now we be not Children wavering and carried about with every winde of doctrine in the wickednesse of men in craftinesse to the circumvention of Errour All which words seem cleerly enough to proue that the Church is universally infallible without which unity of faith could not be conserved against every winde of Doctrine And yet Doctor Potter limits these promises and priviledges to fundamentall points in which he grants the Church cannot erre I urge the words of Scripture which are universall and doe not mention any such restraint I alleadge that most reasonable and receaved Rule that Scripture is to be understood literally as it soundeth unlesse some manifest absurdity force us to the contrary But all will not serue to accord our different interpretations In the mean time divers of Doctor Potters Brethren step in and reject his limitation as over large and somewhat tasting of Papistry And therefore they restrain the mentioned Texts either to the Infallibility which the Apostles and other sacred Writers had in penning of Scripture or else to the invisible Church of the Elect and to them not absolutely but with a double restriction that they shall not fall damnably and finally and other men haue as much right as these to interpose their opinion and interpretation Behold we are three at debate about the selfe same words of Scripture We conferre divers places and Text We consult the Originalls We examine Translations We endeavour to pray heartily We professe to speak sincerely To seek nothing but truth and salvation of our own soules and that of our Neighbours and finally we use all those meanes which by Protestants themselues are prescribed for finding out the true meaning of Scripture Neverthelesse we neither doe or haue any possible meanes to agree as long as we are left to our selues and when we should chance to be agreed the doubt would still remain whether the thing it selfe be a fundamentall point or no And yet it were great impiety to imagine that God the Lover of soules hath left no certaine infallible meanes to decide both this and all other differences arising about the interpretation of Scripture or upon any other occasion Our remedy therefore in these contentions must be to consult and heare God's Visible Church with submissiue acknowledgment of her Power and Infallibility in whatsoever she proposeth as a revealed truth according to that divine advice of S. Augustine in these words If at length thou seem to be sufficiently tossed and hast a desire to put an end to
the deniall of this Fundamentall truth that all which God saies is true Notwithstanding in themselues there is a main difference between them Points fundamentall being those onely which are revealed by God and commanded to bee preacht to all and believed by all Points circumstantiall being such as though God hath revealed them yet the Pastors of the Church are not bound under paine of damnation particularly to teach them unto all men every where and the people may be securely ignorant of them 21 You say Not erring in points Fundamentall is not sufficient for the preservation of the Church because any Errour maintained by it against Gods revelation is destructive I answer If you mean against Gods Revelation known by the Church to be so it is true but impossible that the Church should doe so for ipso Facto in doing it it were a Church no longer But if you mean against some Revelation which the Church by errour thinks to bee no Revelation it is false The Church may ignorantly disbelieue such a Revelation and yet continue a Church which thus I proue That the Gospell was to be preached to all Nations was a Truth revealed before our Saviours Ascention in these words Goe and teach all Nations Mat. 29. 19. Yet through prejudice or inadvertence or some other cause the Church disbelieved it as it is apparent out of the 11. and 12. Chap. of the Acts untill the conversion of Cornelius and yet was still a Church Therefore to disbelieue some divine Revelation not knowing it to be so is not destructive of salvation or of the being of the Church Again It is a plaine Revelation of God that the Sacrament of the Eucharist should be administred in both kindes and that the publique Hymnes and Prayers of the Church should be in such a language as is most for edification yet these Revelations the Church of Rome not seeing by reason of the veile before their eyes their Churches supposed infallibility I hope the deniall of them shall not be laid to their charge no otherwise then as building hay and stubble on the Foundations not overthrowing the Foundation it selfe 22 Ad § 2. In the beginning of this Paragraph wee haue this Argument against this Distinction It is enough by D. Potters confession to belieue some things negatiuely i. e. not to deny them Therefore all deniall of any divine truth excludes Salvation As if you should say One Horse is enough for a man to goe a journey Therefore without a horse no man can goe a journey As if some Divine Truthes viâ— Those which are plainly revealed might not be such as of necessity were not to be denied and others for want of sufficient declaration deniable without danger Indeed if D. Potter had said there had been no divine Truth declared sufficiently or not declared but must upon pain of damnation be believed or at least not denied then might you justly haue concluded as you doe but now that some may not be denied and that some may be denied without damnation why they may not both stand together I doe not yet understand 23 In the Remainder you in ferre out of D. Potters words That all errours are alike damnable if the manner of propounding the contrary Truths be not different which for ought I know all Protestants and all that haue sense must grant Yet I deny your illation from hence That the distinction of points into fundamentall and unfundamentall is vaine and uneffectuall for the purpose of Protestants For though being alike propos'd as divine truths they are by accident alike necessary yet the reall difference still remaines between them that they are not alike necessary to be proposed 24 Ad § 5. The next Paragraph if it be brought out of the clouds will I belieue haue in it these Propositions 1. Things are distinguished by their different natures 2. The Nature of Faith is taken not from the matter believed for then they that believed different matters should haue different Faiths but from the Motive to it 3. This Motiue is Gods Revelation 4. This Revelation is alike for all obiects 5. Protestants disagree in things equally revealed by God Therefore they forsake the formall motiue of faith and therefore haue no faith nor unity therein Which is truly a very proper and convenient argument to close up â— weak discourse wherein both the Propositions are false for matter confused and disordered for the forme and the conclusion utterly inconsequent First for the second Proposition who knowes not that the Essence of all Habits therefore of Faith among the rest is taken from their Act and their Object If the Habit be generall from the Act and Object in generall if the Habit be speciall from the Act and Object in speciall Then for the motiue to a thing that it cannot be of the Essence of the thing to which it moues who can doubt that knows that a motiue is an efficient cause and that the efficient is alwaies extrinsecall to the effect For the fourth that Gods Revelation is alike for all objects It is ambiguous and if the sense of it be that his Revelation is an equall Motive to induce us to belieue all objects revealed by him it is true but impertinent If the sense of it be that all objects revealed by God are alike that is alike plainly and undoubtedly revealed by him it is pertinent but most untrue Witnesse the great diversity of Texts of Scripture whereof some are so plain and evident that no man of ordinary sense can mistake the sense of them Some are so obscure and ambiguous that to say this or this is the certain sense of them were high presumption For the 5. Protestants disagree in things equally revealed by God! In themselues perhaps but not equally to them whose understandings by reason of their different Educations are fashioned and shaped for the entertainment of various opinions and consequently some of them more enclined to belieue such a sense of Scripture others to belieue another which to say that God will not take into his consideration in judging mens opinions is to disparage his goodnesse But to what purpose is it that these things are equally revealed to both as the light is equally revealed to all blind men if they be not fully revealed to either The sense of this Scripture Why are they then baptiz'd for the dead and this He shall bee saved yet so as by fire and a thousand others is equally revealed to you and to another interpreter that is certainly to neither Hee now conceiues one sense of them and you another and would it not be an excellent inference if I should conclude now as you doe That you forsake the formall motiue of faith which is Gods revelation and consequently loose all faith and unity therein So likewise the Iesuites and Dominicans the Franciscans and Dominicans disagree about things equaâ—ly revealed by Almighty God and seeing they doe so I beseech you let me understand
shall we have recourse for the discovering and correcting their error Again there is not so much strength required in the Edifice as in the Foundation and if but wisemen have the ordering of the building they will make it much a surer thing that the foundation shall not fail the building then that the building shall not fall from the foundation And though the building be to be of Brick or Stone and perhaps of wood yet if it may be possibly they will have a rock for their foundation whose stability is a much more indubitable thing then the adherence of the structure to it Now the Apostles Prophets and Canonicall Writers are the foundation of the Church according to that of S. Paul built upon the foundation of Apostles and Prophets therefore their stability in reason ought to be greater then the Churches which is built upon them Again a dependent Infallibility especially if the dependance be voluntary cannot be so certain as that on which it depends But the Infallibility of the Church depends upon the Infallibility of the Apostles as the streightnesse of the thing regulated upon the streightnesse of the Rule and besides this dependance is voluntary for it is in the power of the Church to deviate from this Rule being nothing else but an aggregation of men of which every one has free will and is subject to passions and errour Therefore the Churches infallibility is not so certain as that of the Apostles 31 Lastly Quid verba audiam cum fact a videam 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 therefore it was intirely true and in no part either false or uncertain I say in no part of that which they delivered constantly as a certain divine Truth and which had the Atteâ—tation 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 time in an errour repugnant to a revealed Truth it is as I have already noted unanswerably evident from the story of the Acts of the Apostles For notwithstanding our Saviours expresse warrant injunction to goe and Preach to all Nations yet untill S. Peter was better informed by a vision from Heaven and by the conversion of Cornelius both he and the rest of the Church held it unlawfull for them to goe or preach the Gospell to any but the Iewes 32 And for those things which they professe 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 doe so and not contradict the Apostles and God himselfe Therefore when S. Paul saies in the 1. Epist. to the Cor. 7. 12. To the rest speak I not the Lord And again concerning Virgins I have no commandement of the Lord but I deliver my Iudgement If we will pretend that the Lord did certainly speak what S. Paul spake and that his judgement was Gods commandement 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 own judgement touching some things which God had not particularly revealed unto him And if D. Potter did speak to this purpose that the Apostles were Infallible only in these things which they spake of certain knowledge I cannot see what danger there were in saying so Yet the truth is you wrong D. Potter It is not he but D. Stapleton in him that speakes the words you cavill at D. Stapleton saith he p. 140. is full and punctuall to this purpose then sets down the effect of his discourse l. 8. Princ. Doct. 4. c. 15. and in that the words you cavill at and then p. 150. he shuts up this paragraph with these words thus D. Stapleton So that if either the Doctrine or the reason be not good D. Stapleton not D. Potter is to answer for it 33 Neither doe D. Potter's ensuing words limit the Apostles infalbilitie to truths absolutely necessary to salvation if you read them with any candor for it is evident he grants the Church infallible in Truths absolutely necessary and as evident that he ascribes to the Apostles the spirits guidance and consequently infallibility in a more high and absolute manner then any since them From whence thus I argue Hee that grants the Church infallible in Fundamentals and ascribes to the Apostles the infallible guidance of the Spirit in a more high and absolute manner then to any since them limits not the Apostles infallibility to Fundamentals But D. Potter grants to the Church such a limited infallibility and ascribes to the Apostles The Spirits infallible guidance in a more high and absolute manner therefore hee limits not the Apostles infallibility to Fundamentals I once knew a man out of curtesie help a lame dog over a stile and he for requitall bit him by the fingers Iust so you serue D. Potter He out of curtesie grants you that those words The Spirit shall lead you into all Truth and shall abide with you ever though in their high and most absolute sense they agree only to the Apostles yet in a conditionall limited moderate secundary sense they may be understood of the Church But saies that if they be understood of the Church All must not be simply all No nor so large an All as the Apostles All but all necessary to salvation And you to requite his curtesie in granting you thus much cavill at him as if hee had prescribed these bounds to the Apostles also as well as the present Church Whereas he hath explained himselfe to the contrary both in the clause fore-mentioned The Apostles who had the spirits guidance in a more high and absolute manner then any since them and in these words ensuing whereof the Church is simply ignorant and againe wâ—erewith the Church is not acquainted But most clearly in those which being most incompatible to the Apostles you with an c I cannot but feare craftily haue conceal'd How many obscure Texts of Scripture which she understands not How many Schoole Questions which she hath not happily cannot determine And for matters of fact it is apparent that the Church may erre and then concludes That we must understand by All truths not simply All But if you conceiue the words as spoken of the Church All Truth absolutely necessary to salvation And yet beyond all this the negative part of his answer agrees very well to the Apostles themselues for
that All which they were led into was not simply All otherwise S. Paul erred in saying we know in part but such an All as was requisite to make them the Churches Foundations Now such they could not be without freedome from errour in all those things which they delivered constantly as certaine revealed Truths For if we once suppose they may haue erred in some things of this nature it will be utterly undiscernable what they haue erred in what they haue not Whereas though wee suppose the Church hath err'd in somethings yet we haue meanes to know what she hath err'd in and what she hath not I mean by comparing the Doctrine of the present Church with the doctrine of the Primitiue Church delivered in Scripture But then last of all suppose the Doctor had said which I know he never intended that this promise in this place made to the Apostles was to bee understood only of a Truth absolutely necessary to salvation Is it consequent that he makes their Preaching and Writing not Infallible in points not fundamentall Doe you not blush for shame at this Sophistry The Dr saies no more was promised in this place Therefore he saies no more was promised Are there not other places besides this And may not that be promised in other places which is not promised in this 34 But if the Apostles were Infallible in all things propos'd by them as Divine Truths the like must be affirm'd of the Church because Doctor Potter teacheth the said promise to be verified in the Church True hee does so but not in so absolute a manner Now what is oppos'd to Absolute but limited or restrained To the Apostles then it was made to them only yet the words are true of the Church And this very promise might haue been made to it though here it is not They agree to the Apostles in a higher to the Church in a lower sense to the Apostles in a more absolute to the Church in a more limited sense To the Apostles absolutely for the Churches direction to the Church Conditionally by adherence to that direction and so farre as she doth adhere to it In a word the Apostles were led into all Truths by the Spirit efficaciter The Church is led also into all truth by the Apostles writings sufficienter So that the Apostles and the Church may be fitly compared to the Starre and the Wisemen The Starre was directed by the finger of God and could not but goe right to the place where Christ was But the Wise men were led by the Starre to Christ led by it I say not efficaciter or irresistibiliter but sufficienter so that if they would they might follow it if they would not they might choose So was it between the Apostles writing Scriptures the Church They in their writing were Infallibly assisted to propose nothing as a divine Truth but what was so The Church is also led into all Truth but it is by the intervening of the Apostles writings But it is as the Wisemen were led by the Starre or as a Traveller is directed by a Mercuriall statue or as a Pilot by his Card and Compasse led sufficiently but not irresistibly led so that she may follow not so that she must For seeing the Church is a society of men whereof every one according to the Doctrine of the Romish Church hath freewill in believing it follows that the whole aggregate has freewill in believing And if any man say that at least it is morally impossible that of so many wâ—ereof all may belieue aright not any should doe so I answer It is true if they did all giue themselues any liberty of judgement But if all as the case is here captivate their understandings to one of them all are as likely to erre as that one And he more likely to erre then any other because hee may erre and thinks he cannot because he conceiues the Spirit absolutly promis'd to the succession of Bishops of which many haue been notoriously and confessedly wicked men Men of the World whereas this Spirit is the Spirit of Truth whom the world cannot receiue because he seeth him not neither knoweth him Besides let us suppose that neither in this nor in any other place God had promised any more unto them but to lead them into all Truth necessary for their own other mens salvation Does it therefore follow that they were de facto led no farther God indeed is oblig'd by his Veracity to doe all that hee has promised but is there any thing that binds him to doe no more May not he be better then his word but you will quarrell at him May not his Bounty exceed his Promise And may not we haue certainty enough that oftimes it does so God did not promise to Solomon in his vision at Gibeon any more then what he askt which was wisdome to govern his people and that he gaue him But yet I hope you will not deny that we haue certainty enough that he gaue him something which neither God had promised nor he had asked If you doe you contradict God himselfe For Behold saith God because thou hast asked this thing I haue done according to thy word Loe I haue given thee a Wise and an Vnderstanding heart so that there was none like thee before thee neither after thee shall any arise like unto thee And I haue also given thee that which thou hast not asked both riches and honour so that there shall not be any among the Kings like unto thee in all thy dayes God for ought appeares never oblig'd himselfe by promise to shew S. Paul those Vnspeakable mysteries which in the third Heaven he shewed unto him and yet I hope we haue certainty enough that he did so God promises to those that seek his Kingdome and the righteousnesse thereof that all things necessary shall be added vnto them and in rigour by his promise he is obliged to doe no more and if hee giue them necessaries he hath discharged his obligation Shall we therefore be so injurious to his bounty towards us as to say it is determined by the narrow bounds of meere necessity So though God had obliged himselfe by promise to giue his Apostles infallibility onely in things necessary to salvation neverthelesse it is utterly inconsequent that he gaue them no more then by the rigour of his promise he was engaged to doe or that we can haue no assurance of any farther assistance that he gaue them especially when he himselfe both by his word and by his works hath assured us that he did assist them farther You see by this time that your chaine of feareful consequences as you call them is turned to a rope of sand and may easily bee avoided without any flying to your imaginary infallibility of the Church in all her proposalls 35 Ad § 14. 15. Doubting of a Book receaved for Canonicall may signifie either doubting whether it be Canonicall or supposing
it to be Canonicall whether it be True If the former sense were yours I must then againe distinguish of the terme received For it may signify either received by some particular Church or by the present Church Vniversall or the Church of all Ages If you meant the word in either of the former senses that which you say is not tâ—â—e A man may justly and reasonably doubt of some Texts or some Book received by some particular Church or by the Vniversall Church of this present time whether it be Canonicall or no and yet haue just reason to belieue no reason to doubt but that other Books are Canonicall As Eusebius perhaps had reason to doubt of the Epistle of S. Iames the Church of Rome in Hierom's time of the Epistle to the Hebr. And yet they did not doubt of all the Books of the Canon nor had reason to doe so If by Received you meant Received by the Church of all Ages I grant he that doubts of any one such Book has as much reason to doubt of all But yet here again I tell you that it is possible a man may doubt of one such book and yet not of all because it is possible men may doe not according to reason If you meant your words in the latter sense then I confesse he that belieues such a Book to be Canonicall i. e. the word of God and yet to make an impossible supposition believes it not to be true if he will doe according to reason must doubt of all the rest and belieue none For there being no greater reason to believe any thing true then because God hath said it nor no other reason to belieue the Scripture to be true but only because it is Gods word hee that doubts of the Truth of any thing said by God hath as much reason to belieue nothing that he saies and therefore if he will doe according to reason neither must nor can believe any thing he saies And upon this ground you conclude rightly that the infallibility of true Scripture must be Vniversall and not confin'd to points fundamentall 36 And this Reason why we should not refuse to beleiue any part of Scripture upon pretence that the matter of it is not Fundamentall you confesse to be convincing But the same reason you say is as convincing for the Vniversall infallibility of the Church For say you unlesse shee be Infallible in all things we cannot belieue her in any one But by this reason your Proselytes knowing you are not Infallible in all things must not nor cannot belieue you in any thing Nay you your selfe must not belieue your selfe in any thing because you know that you are not Infallible in all things Indeed if you had said wee could not rationally belieue her for her own sake and upon her own word and authority in any thing I should willingly grant the consequence For an authority subject to errour can be no firm or stable foundation of my beliefe in any thing and if it were in any thing then this authority being one the same in all proposalls I should haue the same reason to belieue all that I haue to belieue one and therefore must either doe unreasonably in believing any one thing upon the sole warrant of this authority or unreasonably in not believing all things equally warranted by it Let this therefore be granted and what will come of it Why then you say we cannot belieue her in propounding Canonicall Books If you mean still as you must doe unlesse you play the Sophister not upon her own Authority I grant it For we belieue Canonicall Books not upon the Authority of the present Church but upon Vniversall Tradition If you mean Not at all and that with reason we cannot believe these Books to be Canonicall which the Church proposes I deny it There is no more consequence iâ—â—he Argument then in this The Divell is not infallible therefore if he saies there is one God I cannot believe him No Geometritian is Infallible in all things therefore not in these things which the domonstrates M. Knot is not Infallible in all things therefore he may not believe that he wrote a Book entituled Charity Maintained 37 But though the reply be good Protestants cannot make use of it with any good coherence to this distinction and some other Doctrine of theirs because they pretend to be able to tell what points are Fundamentall and what not and therefore though they should believe Scripture erroneous in others yet they might be sure it err'd not in these To this I answer That if without dependance on Scripture they did know what were Fundamentall and what not they might possibly believe the Scripture true in Fundamentalls and erroneous in other things But seeing they ground their beliefe that such and such things only are Fundamentalls only upon Scripture and goe about to prove their assertion true only by Scripture then must they suppose the Scripture true absolutely and in all things or else the Scripture could not be a sufficient warrant to them to believe this thing that these only points are Fundamentall For who would not laugh at them if they should argue thus The Scripture is true in something the Scripture saies that these points only are Fundamentall therefore this is true that these only are so For every Fresh-man in Logick knowes that from meer particulars nothing can be certainly concluded But on the other side this reason is firme and demonstrative The Scripture is true in all things But the Scripture saies that these only points are the Fundamentalls of Christian Religion therefore it is true that these only are so So that the knowledge of Fundamentalls being it selfe drawen from Scripture is so farre from warranting us to believe the Scripture is or may be in part True and in part False that it selfe can have no foundation but the Vniversall truth of Scripture For to be a Fundamentall truth presupposes to be a truth now I cannot know any Doctrine to be a divine and supernaturall Truth on a true part of Christianity but only because the Scripture saies so which is all true Therefore much more can I not know it to be a Fundamentall truth 33 Ad § 16. To this Parag. I answer Though the Church being not Infallible I cannot believe her in every thing she saies yet I can and must believe her in every thing she proves either by Scripture Reason or universall Tradition be it Fundamentall or be it not Fundamentall This you say we cannot in points not Fundamentall because in such we believe she may erre But this I know we can because though she may erre in some things yet she does not erre in what she proves though it be not Fundamentall Again you say we cannot doe it in Fundamentalls because we must know what points be Fundamentall before we goe to learn of her Not so but I must learn of the Church or of some part of the Church or I
of S. Austin of them diversorum locorum diversis moribus innumerabiliter variantur and apparent because the stream of them was grown so violent that he durst not opopose it liberiùs improbare non audeâ— I dare not freely speak against them So that to say the Catholique Church tolerated all this and for fear of offence durst not abrogate or condemne it is to say if we judge rightly of it that the Church with silence and connivence generally tolerated Christians to worship God in vain Now how this tolerating of Vniversall superstition in the Church can consist with the assistance and direction of Gods omnipotent spirit to guard it from superstition with the accomplishment of that pretended prophecy of the Church I have set watchmen upon thy walls O Ierusalem which shall never hold their peace day nor night besides how these superstitions being thus noutished cherished and strengthened by the practise of the most and urged with great violence upon others as the commandements of God and but fearfully opposed or contradicted by any might in time take such deepe roote and spread their branches so farre as to passe for universall Customes of the Church he that does not see sees nothing Especially considering the catching and contagious nature of this sinne and how fast ill weeds spread and how true and experimented that rule is of the Historian Exempla non consistunt ubi incipiunt sed quamlibâ—t in tenuem recepta tramitem latissimè evagandi sibi faciunt potestatem Nay that some such superstition had not already even in S. Austins time prevailed so farre as to be Consâ—etudine universae Ecclesiae roboratum who can doubt that considers that the practise of Communicating Infants had even then got the credit and authority not only of an uniuersall Custome but also of an Apostolique Tradition 48 But you will say notwithstanding all this S. Austin here warrants us that the Church can never either approue or dissemble or practise any thing against faith or goodlife and so long you may rest securely upon it Yea but the same S. Austine tels us in the same place that the Church may tolerate humane presumptions and vain superstitions and those urg'd more severely then the Commandements of God And whether superstition be a sinne or no I appeal to our Saviours words before cited and to the consent of your Schoolmen Besides if we consider it rightly we shall finde that the Church is not truly said only to tolerate these things but rather that a part and farre the lesser tolerated and dissembled them in silence and a part a farre greater publiquely vowed and practis'd them and urg'd them upon others with great violence and that continued still a part of the Church Now why the whole Church might not continue the Church and yet doe so as well as a part of the Church might continue a part of it and yet doe so I desire you to inform me 49 But now after all this adoe what if S. Austine saies not this which is pretended of the Church viz. That she neither approues nor dissembles nor practises any thing against Faith or good life but onely of good men in the Church Certainly though some Copies read as you would haue it yet you should not haue dissembled that others read the place otherwise viz. Ecclesia multa tolerat tamen quae sunt contra Fidem bonam vitam nec bonus approbat c. The Church tolerates many things and yet what is against faith or good life a good man will neither approue nor dissemble nor practise 50 Ad § 17. That Abraham begat Isaac is a point very far from being Fundamentall and yet I hope you will grant that Protestants believing Scripture to be the word of God may bee certain enough of the truth and certainty of it For what if they say that the Catholique Church and much more themselues may possibly erre in some unfundamentall points is it therefore consequent they can be certaine of none such What if a wiser man then I may mistake the sense of some obscure place of Aristotle may I not therefore without any arrogance or inconsequence conceiue my selfe certain that I understand him in some plain places which carry their sense before them And then for points Fundamentall to what purpose doe you say That we must first know what they be before we can be assured that wee cannot erre in understanding the Scripture when we pretend not at all to any assurance that we cannot erre but only to a sufficient certainty that we doe not erre but rightly understand those things that are plain whether Fundamentall or not Fundamentall That 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 These wee conceive both true because the Scripture saies so and Truths Fundamentall because they are necessary parts of the Gospell whereof our Saviour saies Qui non crediderit damnabitur All which we either learne from Scripture immediately or learne of those that learne it of Scripture so that neither Learned nor Vnlearned pretend to know these things independently of Scripture And therefore in imputing this to us you cannot excuse your selfe from having done us a palpable injury 51 Ad § 18. And I urge you as mainly as you urge D. Potter other Protestants that you tell us that all the Traditions and all the Definitions of the Church are FundameÌ„tal points we cannot wrest from you a list in particular of all such Traditions and Definitions without which no man can tell whether or no he erre in points fundamentall and be capable of salvation For I hope erring in our fundamentals is no more exclusiue of salvation theÌ„ erring in yours And which is most lamentable insteed of giving us such a Catalogue you also fall to wrangle among your selues about the making of it Some of you as I haue said aboue holding somethings to be matters of Faith which others deny to be so 52 Ad § 19. I answ That these differences between Protestants concerning Errours damnable and not damnable Truths fundamentall and not fundamentall may be easily reconcil'd For either the Errour they speak of may be purely and simply involuntary or it may be in respect of the cause of it voluntary If the cause of it be some voluntary and avoidable fault the Errour is it selfe sinfull and consequently in its own nature damnable As if by negligence in seeking the Truth by unwillingnesse to finde it by pride by obstinacy by desiring that Religion should be true which sutes best with my ends by feare of mens ill opinion or any other worldly feare or any other worldly hope I betray my selfe to any error contrary to any divine revealed Truth that Errour may be justly stiled a sinne and consequently of it selfe to
6. in these words according to most of your own expositions Vnlesse you eat the Flesh of the sonne of Man and drink his Blood you have no life in you If our Saviour speake there of the Sacrament as to them he does because they conceive he does so Though they may pretend that receiving in one kind they receive the blood together with the body yet they can with no face pretend that they drink it And so obey not our Saviours injunction according to the letter which yet they professe is litterally alwaies to be obeyed unlesse some impiety or some absurdity force us to the contrary and they are not yet arrived to that impudence to pretend that either there is impiety or absurdity in receiving the Communion in both kinds This therefore they if not others are plainly taught by our Saviour in this place But by S. Paul all without exception when he saies Let a man examine himself and so let him eat of this bread and drinke of this Chalice This a Man that is to examine himselfe is every man that can doe it as is confessed on all hands And therefore it is all one as if he had said let every man examine himselfe and so let him eat of this bread and drink of this cup. They which acknowledge Saint Pauls Epistles and S. Iohns Gospell to be the Word of God one would thinke should not deny but that they are taught these two Doctrines plain enough Yet we see they neither doe nor will learn them I conclude therefore that the spirit may very well teach the Church and yet the Church fall into and continue in Error by not regarding what she is taught by the Spirit 72 But all this I have spoken upon a supposition only and shewed unto you that though these promises had been made unto the present Church of every age I might have said though they had been to the Church of Rome by name yet no certainty of her Vniversall infallibility could be built upon them But the plain truth is that these Promises are vainly arrogated by you and were never made to you but to the Apostles only I pray deale ingenuously and tell me who were they of whom our Saviour saies These things have I spoken unto you being present with you c. 14. 25. But the comforter shall teach you all things and bring all things to your remembrance whatsoever I have told you v. 26 Who are they to whom he saies I goe away and come again unto you and I have told you before it come to passe v. 28. 29. You have been with me from the beginning c. 15. v. 27 And again these things I have told you that when the time shall come you may remember that I told you of them and these things I said not to you at the begining because I was with you c. 16. 4. And because I said these things unto you sorrow hath filled your hearts v. 6 Lastly who are they of whom he saith v. 12. I have yet many things to say unto you but yee cannot beare them now Doe not all these circumstances appropriate this whole discourse of our Saviour to his Disciples that were then with him and consequently restrain the Promises of the spirit of truth which was to lead them into all truth to their Persons only And seeing it is so is it not an impertinent arrogance and presumption for you to lay claim unto them in the behalfe of your Church Had Christ been present with your Church Did the Comforter bring these things to the Remembrance of your Church which Christ had before taught and she had forgotten Was Christ then departing from your Church And did he tell of his departure before it came to passe Was your Church with him from the begining Was your Church filled with sorrow upon the mentioning of Christs departure Or lastly did he or could he have said to your Church which then was not extant I have yet many things to say unto you but ye cannot beare them now as he speaks in the 13. v. immediatly before the words by you quoted And then goes on Howbeit when the spirit of truth is come he will guide you into all Truth Is it not the same You he speaks to in the 13. v. and that he speaks to in the 14 And is it not apparent to any one that has but halfe an eye that in the 13. he speaks only to them that then were with him Besides in the very text by you alleaged there are things promised which your Church cannot with any modesty pretend to For there it is said the spirit of Truth not only will guide you into all Truth but also will shew you things to come Now your Church for ought I could ever understand does not so much as pretend to the spirit of Prophecie and knowledge of future events And therefore hath as little cause to pretend to the former promise of being led by the spirit into all truth And this is the Reason why both You in this place and generally your Writers of Controversies when they entreat of this Argument cite this Text perpetually by halfes there being in the latter part of it a cleere and convincing Demonstration that you have nothing to doe with the former Vnlesse you will say which is most ridiculous that when our Saviour said He will teach you c. and he will shew you c. He meant one You in the former clause and another You in the latter 73 Ob. But this is to confine Gods spirit to the Apostles only or to the Disciples that then were present with him which is directly contrary to many places of Scripture Ans. I confesse that to confine the Spirit of God to those that were then present with Christ is against Scripture But I hope it is easy to conceive a difference between confining the Spirit of God to them and confining the promises made in this place to them God may doe many things which he does not promise at all much more which he does not promise in such or such a place 74 Ob. But it is promised in the 14. Chap. that this spirit shall abide with them for ever Now they in their persons were not to abide for ever and therefore the Spirit could not abide with them in their Persons for ever seeing the coexistence of two things supposes of necessity the existence of either Therefore the promise was not made to them only in their Persons but by them to the Church which was to abide for ever Ans. Your Conclusion is not to them only but your Reason concludes either nothing at all or that this Promise of abiding with them for ever was not made to their Persons at all or if it were that it was not performed Or if you will not say as I hope you will not that it was not performed nor that it was not made to their Persons at all then must you grant that the word for ever
Paul and applied by him to our Saviour He hath put all things under his feet mentions no exception yet S. Paul tels us not only that it is true or certain but it is manifest that He is excepted which did put all things under him 84 But your interpretation is better then D. Potters because it is literall I answer His is Literall as well as yours and you are mistaken if you think a restrained sense may not be a literall sense for to Restrained Literall is not opposed but unlimited or absolute and to Literall is not oppos'd Restrained but Figuratiue 85 Whereas you say D. Potters Brethren reiecting his limitation restrain the mentioned Texts to the Apostles implying hereby a contrariety between them and him I answer So does D. Potter restrain all of them which he speaks of in the pages by you quoted to the Apostles in the direct and primary sense of the words Though he tels you there the words in a more restrained sense are true being understood of the Church Vniversall 86 As for your pretence That to finde the meaning of those places you conferre divers Texts you consult Originals you examin Translations and use all the meanes by Protestants appointed I haue told you before that all this is vain and hypocriticall if as your manner your doctrine is you giue not your selfe liberty of judgement in the use of these meanes if you make not your selves Iudges of but only Advocats for the doctrine of your Church refusing to see what these meanes shew you if it any way make against the doctrine of your Church though it be as cleare as the light at noone Remoue prejudice Even the ballance and hold it even make it indifferent to you which way you goe to heaven so you goe the true which Religion be true so you be of it then use the meanes and pray for Gods assistance and as sure as God is true you shall be lead into all necessary Truth 87 Whereas you say you neither doe nor haue any possible meanes to agree as long as you are left to your selues The first is very true That while you differ you doe not agree But for the second That you haue no possible means of agreement as long as you are left to your selues i. e. to your own reasons and judgement this sure is very false neither doe you offer any proofe of it unlesse you intended this that you doe not agree for a proof that you cannot which sure is no good consequence not halfe so good as this which I oppose against it D. Potter and I by the use of these meanes by you mentioned doe agree concerning the sense of these places therefore there is a possible meanes of agreement and therefore you also if you would use the same meanes with the same minds might agree so farre as it is necessary and it is not necessary that you should agree further Or if there bee no possible meanes to agree about the sense of these Texts whilst wee are left to our selves then sure it is impossible that we should agree in your sense of them which was That the Church is universally infallible For if it were possible for us to agree in this sense of them then it were possible for us to agree And why then said you of the selfe same Texts but in the page next before These words seem cleerly enough to proue that the Church is Vniversally infallible A strange forgetfulnesse that the same man almost in the same breath should say of the same words They seem cleerly enough to proue such a conclusion true yet that three indifferent men all presum'd to be lovers of Truth and industrious searchers of it should haue no possible meanes while they follow their own reason to agree in the Truth of this Conclusion 88 Whereas you say that it were great impiety to imagine that God the lover of Soules hath left no certaine infallible meanes to decide both this and all other differences arising about the interpretation of Scripture or upon any other occasion I desire you to take heed you commit not an impiety in making more impieties then Gods Commandements make Certainly God is no way oblig'd either by his promise or his Loue to giue us all things that we may imagine would be convenient for us as formerly I haue proved at large It is sufficient that he denies us nothing necessary to Salvation Deus non deficit in necessariis nec redundat in superfluis So D. Stapleton But that the ending of all Controversies or having a certain meanes of ending them is necessary to Salvation that you haue often said and suppos'd but never proved though it be the main pillar of your whole discourse So little care you take how slight your Foundations are so your building make a faire shew And as little care how you commit those faults your selfe which you condemne in others For you here charge them with great impiety who imagine that God the lover of Soules hath left no infallible meanes to determine all differences arising about the interpretation of Scripture or upon any other occasion And yet afterwards being demanded by D. Potter why the Questions between the Iesuits Dominicans remain undetermined You returne him this crosse interrogatory Who hath assured you that the point wherein these learned men differ is a revealed Truth or capable of definition or is not rather by plain Scripture indeterminable or by any Rule of faith So then when you say it were great impiety to imagine that God hath not left infallible meanes to decide all differences I may answer It seemes you doe not believe your selfe For in this controversie which is of as high consequence as any can be you seem to be doubtfull whether there be any meanes to determin it On the other side when you aske D. Potter who assured him that there it any meanes to determine this Controversie I answer for him that you have in calling it a great impiety to imagine that there is not some infallible meanes to decide this and all other differences arising about the Interpretation of Scripture or upon any other occasion For what trick you can devise to shew that this difference between the Dominicans and Iesuits which includes a difference about the sense of many Texts of Scripture many other matters of moment was not included under this and all other differences I cannot imagine Yet if you can finde out any thus much at least we shall gain by it that generall speeches are not alwaies to be understood generally but sometimes with exceptions and limitations 89 But if there be any infallible meanes to decide all differences I beseech you name them You say it is to consult and heare Gods Visible Church with submissive acknowledgment of her Infallibility But suppose the difference be as here it is whether your Church be infalliâ—le what shall decide that If you would say as you should dot Scripture and
instruction acquaint the universall Church with my particular scruples You say the Prelates of Gods Church meeting in a lawfull generall Councel may erre damnably It remaines then that for my necessary instruction I must repaire to every particular member of the universall Church spread over the face of the earth and yet you teach that the promises which our Lord hath made unto his Church for his assistance are intended not to any particular persons or Churches but only to the Church Catholique with which as I said it is impossible for me to confer Alas O most uncomfortable Ghostly Father you driue me to desperation How shall I confer with every Christian soule man and woman by sea and by land close prisoner or at liberty c. Yet upon supposall of this miraculous Pilgrimage for Faith before I haue the faith of Miracles how shall I proceed at our meeting Or how shall I know the man on whom I may securely rely Procure will you say to knew whether he belieue all fundamentall points of faith For if he doe his faith for point of beliefe is sufficient for salvation though he erre in a hundred things of lesse moment But how shall I know whether hee hold all fundamentall points or no For till you tell me this I cannot know whether or no his beliefe be sound in all fundamentall points Can you say the Creed Yes And so can many damnable Heretiques But why doe you aske me this question Because the Creed containes all fundamentall points of faith Are you sure of that not sure I hold it very probable Shall I hazard my soule on probabilities or even wagers This yeelds a new cause of despaire But what doth the Creed contain all points necessary to be believed whether they rest in the understanding or else doe further extend to practise No. It was composed to deliver Credenda not Agenda to us Faith not Practise How then shall I know what points of beliefe which direct my practise be necessary to salvation Sâ—ll you chalk our new paths for Desperation Well are all Articles of the Creed for their nature and matter fundamentall I cannot say so How then shall I know which in particular be and which be not fundamentall Read my Answer to a late Popish Pamphlet intituled Charity Mistaken c. there you shall finde that fundamentall doctrines are such Catholique Verities as principally and essentially pertain to the Faith such as properly constitute a Church and are necessary in ordinary course to be distinctly believed by every Christian that will be saved They are those grand and capitall doctrines which make up our Faith in Christ that is that common faith which is alike precious in all being one and the same in the highest Apostle and the meanest believer which the Apostle else-where cals the first principles of the oracles of God the forme of sound words But how shall I apply these generall definitions or descriptions or to say the truth these only varied words and phrases for I understand the word fundamentall as well as the words principall essentiall grand and capitall doctrines c. to the particular Articles of the Creed in such sort as that I may be able precisely exactly particularly to distinguish fundamentall Articles from points of lesse moment You labour to tell us what fundamentall points be but not which they be and yet unlesse you doe this your Doctrine serues only either to make men despaire or else to haue recourse to those whom you call Papists and which giue one certain Rule that all points defined by Christs visible Church belong to the foundation of Faith in such sense as that to deny any one cannot stand with salvation And seeing your selfe acknowledges that these men doe not erre in points fundamentall I cannot but hold it most safe for me to joyn with them for the securing of my soule and the avoiding of desperation into which this your doctrine must cast all them who understand and belieue it For the whole discourse and inferences which here I haue made are either your own direct Assertions or evident consequences cleerly deduced from them 20 But now let us answer some few Objections of D. Potters against that which wee haue said before to avoid our argument That the Scripture is not so much as mentioned in the Creed he saith The Creed is an abstract of such necessary Doctrines as are delivered in Scripture or collected out of it and therefore needs not expresse the authority of that which it supposes 21 This answer makes for us For by giving a reason why it was needlesse that Scripture should be expressed in the Creed you grant as much as we desire namely that the Apostles judged it needlesse to expresse all necessary points of faith in their Creed Neither doth the Creed suppose or depend on Scripture in such sort as that we can by any probable consequence infer from the Articles of the Creed that there is any Canonicall Scripture at all and much lesse that such Books in particular be Canonicall Yea the Creed might haue been the same although holy Scripture had never been written and which is more the Creed even in priority of time was before all the Scripture of the new Testament except the Gospell of S. Mathew And so according to this reason of his the Scripture should not mention Articles contained in the Creed And I note in a word how little connexion D. Potters arguments haue while he tells us that the Creed is an Abstraâ—â— of such necessary doctrines as are delivered in Scripture or collected out of it therefore needs not expresse the authority of that which it supposes it doth not follow The Articles of the Creed are delivered in Scripture therefore the Creed supposeth Scripture For two distinct writings may well deliver the same truths and yet one of them not suppose the other unlesse D. Potter be of opinion that two Doctors cannot at one time speak the same truth 22 And notwithstanding that D. Potter hath now told us it was needlesse that the Creed should expresse Scripture whose Authority it supposes he comes at length to say that the Nicene Fathers in their Creed confessing that the holy Ghost spake by the Prophets doth thereby sufficiently avow the divine Authority of all Canonicall Scripture But I would ask him whether the Nicene Creed be not also an Abstract of Doctrines delivered in Scripture as he said of the Apostles Creed and thence did infer that it was needlesse to expresse Scripture whose authority it supposes Besides we doe not only belieue in generall that Canonicall Scripture is of divine authority but we are also bound under pain of damnation to belieue that such and such particular Booksâ— not mentioned in the Nicene Creed are Canonicall And lastly D. Potter in this Answer grants as much as we desire which is that all points of faith are not contained in the Apostles Creed even as it
Creed For this he affirmes only of such speculatiue divine veriries which God hath commanded particularly to be preached to all and believed by all Now let the doctrines objected by you be well considered and let all those that are reducible to the three former heads be discarded and then of all these Instances against D. Potters Assertion there will not remain so much as one 33 First the Questions touching the conditions to bee performed by us to obtaine remission of sinnes the Sacraments the Commandements and the possibility of keeping them the necessity of imploring the Assistance of Gods Grace and Spirit for the keeping of them how farre obedience is due to the Church Prayer for the Dead The cessation of the old Law are all about Agenda and so cut off upon the first consideration 34 Secondly the Question touching Fundamentalls is profitable but not fundamentall He that belieues all Fundamentals cannot bee damned for any errour in faith though he belieue more or lesse to bee fundamental then is so That also of the procession of the holy Ghost from the Father and the Sonne of Purgatory of the Churches Visibility of the Books of the new Testament which were doubted of by a considerable part of the Primitiue Church untill I see better reason for the contrary then the bare authority of men I shall esteem of the same condition 35 Thirdly These Doctrines that Adam and the Angels sinned that there are Angels good and bad that those bookes of Scripture which were never doubted of by any considerable part of the Church are the word of God that S. Peter had no such primacy as you pretend that the Scripture is a perfect rule of faith consequently that no necessary doctrine is unwritten that there is no one Society or succession of Christians absolutely infallible These to my understanding are truths plainly revealed by God and necessary to be believed by them who know they are so But not so necessary that every man woman is bound under pain of damnation particularly to know thē to be divine Revelations and explicitely to believe them And for this reason these with innumerable other points are to be referred to the third sort of doctrines aboue mentioned which were never pretended to haue place in the Creed There remaines one only point of all that Army you mustred together reducible to none of these heads that is that God is and is a Remunerator which you say is questioned by the deniall of merit But if there were such a necessary indissoluble coherence between this point and the doctrine of merit mee thinks with as much reason and more charity you might conclude That we hold merit because we hold this point Then that we deny this point because we deny merit Besides when Protestants deny the doctrine of Merits you know right well for so they haue declared themselues a thousand times that they mean nothing else but with David that their well doing extendeth not is not truly beneficiall to God with our Saviour when they haue done all which they are commanded they haue done their duty only and no curtesie And lastly with S. Paul that all which they can suffer for God and yet suffering is more then doing is not worthy to bee compared to the glory that shall be revealed So that you must either misunderstand their meaning in denying Merit or you must discharge their doctrine of this odious consequence or you must charge it upon David and Paul and Christ himselfe Nay you must either grant their deniall of true Merit just reasonable or you must say that our good actions are really profitable to God that they are not debts already due to him but voluntary and undeserved Favours and that they are equall unto and well worthy of eternall glory which is prepar'd for them As for the inconvenience which you so much feare That the deniall of Merit makes God a Giver only not a Rewarder I tell you good Sir you feare where no feare is and that it is both most true on the one side that you in holding good Works meritorious of eternall glory make God a rewarder only not a giver contrary to plain Scripture affirming that The gift of God is eternall life And that it is most false on the other side that the doctrine of Protestants makes God a giver only and not a rewarder In as much as their doctrine is That God giues not Heaven but to those which doe something for it and so his gift is also a Reward but withall that whatsoever they doe is due unto God before hand and worth nothing to God and worth nothing in respect of Heaven and so mans work is no Merit and Gods reward is still a Gift 36 Put the case the Pope for a reward of your service done him in writing this Book had given you the honour and meanes of a Cardinall would you not not only in humility but in sincerity haue professed that you had not merited such a Reward And yet the Pope is neither your Creatour nor Redeemer nor Preserver nor perhaps your very great Benefactour sure I am not so great as God Almighty and therefore hath no such right and title to your service as God hath in respect of precedent obligations Besides the work you haue done him hath been really advantagious to him and lastly not altogether unproportionable to the fore-mentioned Reward And therefore if by the same work you will pretend that either you haue or hope to haue deserved immortall happinesse I beseech you consider well whether this be not to set a higher value upon a Cardinal's cap then a Crowne of immortall glory and with that Cardinall to prefer a part in Paris before a part in Paradise 37 In the next Paragraph you beat the ayre again and fight manfully with your own shadow The point you should haue spoken to was this That there are some points of simple beliefe necessary to bee explicitely believed which yet are not contained in the Creed Insteed hereof you trouble your selfe in vain to demonstrate That many important points of faith are not contained in it which yet D. Potter had freely granted and you your selfe take particular notice of his granting of it All this paines therefore you have imployed to no purpose saving that to some negligent Reader you may seem to have spoken to the very point because that which you speak to at the first hearing sounds somewhat neere it But such a one I must intreat to remember there be many more points of faith then there be Articles of Simple belief necessary to be explicitly believed And that though all of the former sort are not contained in the Creed yet all of the latter sort may be As for your distinction between Heresies that have been and Heresies that are and Heresies that may be I have already proved it vaine and that whatsoever may be an Heresie that is so and whatsoever is so
that alwaies hath been so ever since the publication of the Gospell of Christ. The doctrine of your Church may like a snow-ball increase with rowling and again if you please melt away and decrease But as Christ Iesus so his Gospell is yesterday and to day and the same for ever 38 Our Saviour sending his Apostles to preach gave them no other commission then this Goe teach all nations Baptizing them in the name of the Father the Sonne and the Holy-Ghost teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you These were the bounds of their commission If your Church have any larger or if she have a commission at large to teach what she pleases and call it the Gospell of Christ let her produce her Letters-patents from heaven for it But if this be all you have then must you give me leave to esteeme it both great sacriledge in you to forbid any thing be it never so small or ceremonious which Christ hath commanded as the receiving of the Communion in both kindes and as high a degree of presumption to enjoyne men to believe that there are or can be any other fundamentall Articles of the Gospell of Christ then what Christ himselfe commanded his Apostles to teach all men or any damnable Heresies but such as are plainly repugnant to these prime Verities 39 Ad § 16. 17. The saying of the most learned Prelate and excellent man the Arch-Bishop of Armach is only related by D. Potter p. 155. and not applauded though the truth is both the Man deserves as much applause as any man and his saying as much as any saying it being as great and as good a truth and as necessary for these miserable times as possibly can be uttered For this is most certain and I believe you will easily grant it that to reduce Christians to unity of Communion there are but two waies that may be conceived probable The one by taking away diversity of opinions touching matters of Religion The other by shewing that the diversity of opinions which is among the severall Sects of Christians ought to be no hinderance to their Vnity in Communion 40 Now the former of these is not to be hoped for without a miracle unlesse that could be done which is impossible to be performed though it be often pretended that is unlesse it could be made evident to all men that God hath appointed some visible Iudge of Controversies to whose judgement all men are to submit themselves What then remaines but that the other way must be taken and Christians must be taught to ser a higher value upon these high points of faith and obedience wherein they agree then upon these matters of lesse moment wherein they differ and understand that agreement in those ought to be more effectuall to joyne them in one Communion then their difference in other things of lesse moment to divide them When I say in one Communion I mean in a common Profession of those articles of faith wherein all consent A joynt worship of God after such a way as all esteem lawfull and a mutuall performance of all those works of charity which Christians own one to another And to such a Communion what better inducement could be thought of then to demonstrate that what was universally believed of all Christians if it were joyned with a love of truth and with holy obedience was sufficient to bring men to heaven For why should men be more rigid then God Why should any errour exclude any man from the Churches Communion which will not deprive him of eternall salvation Now that Christians doe generally agree in all those points of doctrine which are necessary to Salvation it is apparent because they agree with one accord in believing all those Bookes of the Old and New Testament which in the Church were never doubted of to be the undoubted word of God And it is so certain that in all these Bookes all necessary doctrines are evidently contained that of all the four Evangelists this is very probable but of S. Luke most apparent that in every one of their Bookes they have comprehended the whole substance of the Gospell of Christ. For what reason can be imagined that any of them should leave out any thing which he knew to be necessary and yet as apparently all of them have done put in many things which they knew to be only profitable and not necessary What wise and honest man that were now to write the Gospell of Christ would doe so great a work of God after such a negligent â—ashon Suppose Xaverius had been to write the Gospell of Christ for the Indians think you he would have left out any Fundamentall doctrine of it If not I must beseech you to conceive as well of S. Mathew and S. Marke and S. Luke and S. Iohn as you doe of Xaverius Besides if every one of them have not in them all necessary doctrines how have they complied with their own designe which was as the titles of their Bookes shew to write the Gospell of Christ and not a part of it Or how have thy not deceived us in giving them such titles By the whole Gospell of Christ I understand not the whole History of Christ but all that makes up the Covenant between God and man Now if this be wholly contained in the Gospell of S. Marke and S. Iohn I believe every considering man will bee inclinable to believe that then without doubt it is contained with the advantage of many other very profitable things in the larger Gospells of S. Matthew and S. Luke And that S. Markes Gospell wants no necessary Article of this Covenant I presume you will not deny if you believe Irenaeus when he saies Mathew to the Hebrewes in their tongue published the Scripture of the Gospell When Peter and Paul did preach the Gospell and found the Church or a Church at Rome or of Rome and after their departure Mark the scholler of Peter delivered to us in writing those things which had been preached by Peter and Luke the follwer of Paul compiled in a book the Gospell which was preached by him And afterwards Iohn residing in Asia in the Citty of Ephesus did himselfe also set forth a Gospell 41 In which words of Irenaeus it is remarkable that they are spoken by him against some Heretiques that pretended as you know who doe now adaies that some necessary Doctrines of the Gospell were unwritten and that out of the Scriptures truth he must mean sufficient truth cannot be found by those which know not Tradition Against whom to say that part of the Gospell which was preached by Peter was written by S. Marke and some other necessary parts of it omitted had been to speak impertinently and rather to confirme then confute their errour It is plain therefore that he must mean as I pretend that all the necessary doctrine of the Gospell which was preached by S. Peter was written by S. Marke Now you will
hath so kindly offered to lead you by the hand to the observation of them in these words To consider of your Coinopista or communitèr Credenda Articles as you call them universally believed of all these severall Professions of Cristianity which have 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 that your friend whom you so much magnify hath plainly confessed that notwithstanding the Bishops words the denyall of the doctrine of the Trinity may exclude Salvation and therefore in approving and applauding his Answer to the Bishops Sermon you have unawares allowed this Answer of mine to your own greatest objection 46 Now for the foule contradiction which you say the Doctor might easily haue espied in the Bishops saying he desires your pardon for his oversight for Paulus Veridicus his sake who though he set him selfe to finde faults with the Bishops Sermon yet it seemes this hee could not finde or else questionlesse wee should haue heard of it from him And therefore if D. Potter being the Bishops friend haue not been more sharp-sighted then his enemies this he hopes to indifferent judges will seem no unpardonable offence Yet this I say not as if there were any contradiction at all much lesse any foul contradiction in the Bishops words but as Antipherons picture which he thought he saw in the ayre before him was not in the ayre but in his disturb'd phansie◠so all the contradiction which here you descant upon is not indeed in the Bishops saying but in your imagination For wherein I pray lies this foule contradiction In supposing say you a man may believe all Truths necessary to salvation and yet superinduce a damnable Heresie I answer It is not certain that his words doe suppose this neither if they doe does he contradict himselfe I say it is not certain that his words import any such matter For ordinarily men use to speake and write so as here he does when they intend not to limit or restrain but only to repeat and presse illustrate what they haue said before And I wonder why with your Eagles eyes you did not espy another foule contradiction in his words as well as this and say that he supposes a man may walk according to the rule of holy obedience and yet vitiate his holy faith with a lewd and wicked conversation Certainly a lewd conversation is altogether as contradictious to holy obedience as a damnable heresie to necessary truth What then was the reason that you espied not this foule contradiction in his words as well as that Was it because according to the spirit and Genius of your Church your zeal is greater to that which you conceive true doctrine then holy obedience and think simple errour a more capitall crime then sins committed against knowledge and conscience Or was it because your Reason told you that herein he meant onely to repeat and not to limit what he said before And why then had you not so much candour to conceave that he might haue the same meaning in the former part of the disiunction and intend no more but this Whosoever walks according to this rule of believing all necessary Truths and holy obedience neither poisoning his faith of those Truths which he holds with the mixture of any damnable Heresie nor vitiating it with a wicked life Peace shall be upon him In which words what man of any ingenuity will not presently perceive that the words within the parenthesis are only a repetition of and no exception from those that are without S. Athanasius in his Creed tells us The Catholique Faith is this that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Vnity neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the Substance and why now doe you not tell him that he contradicts himselfe and supposes that we may worship a Trinity of Persons and one God in substance and yet confound the Persons or divide the substance which yet is impossible because Three remaining Three cannot be confounded and One remaining One cannot be divided If a man should say unto you he that keeps all the Commandements of God committing no sinne either against the loue of God or the loue of his neighbour is a perfect man Or thus he that will liue in constant health had need be exact in his diet neither eating too much nor too little Or thus hee that will come to London must goe on straight forward in such a way and neither turn to the right hand or to the left I verily belieue you would not finde any contradiction in his words but confesse them as coherent and consonant as any in your Book And certainly if you would look upon this saying of the Bishop with any indifference you would easily perceive it to be of the very same kinde capable of the very same construction And therefore one of the grounds of your accusation is uncertain Neither can you assure us that the Bishop supposes any such matter as you pretend Neither if he did suppose this as perhaps he did were this to contradict himselfe For though there can be no damnable Heresie unlesse 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 time should believe contradictions For first whatsoever a man believes true that he may and must believe But there haue been some who have believed and taught that contradictions might be true against whom Aristotle disputes in the third of his Metaphysicks Therefore it is not impossible that a man may belieue Contradictions Secondly they which believe 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 false But there be now divers in the world who believe there is no certainty in reason and whether you be of their minde or no I desire to be inform'd Therefore there be divers in the world who believe contradictions may be true Thirdly They which doe captivate their understandings to the beliefe of those things which to their understanding seem irreconcileable contradictions may as well belieue reall contradictions For the difficulty of believing arises not from their being repugnant but from their seeming to be so But you doe captivate your understandings to the beliefe of those things which seem to your understandings irreconcileable contradictions Therefore it is as possible and easie for you to believe those that indeed are so Fourthly some men may be confuted in their errours and perswaded out of them but no mans errour can be confuted who together with his errour doth not believe and grant some true principle that contradicts his Errour for nothing can bee proved to him who grants nothing neither can there be as all men
because we stand only upon Fundamentall Articles which cannot make up the whole fabrick of the faith no more then the foundation of a house alone can be a house 52 But I hope Sir 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 mean all those which are necesry And you your selfe in the very leafe after this take notice that D. Potter does so Where to this Question How shall I know in particular which points be and which be not Fundamentall You scurrilously bring him in making this ridiculous answer Read my Answer to a late Pamphlet intituled Charity Mistaken c. There you shall find that Fundamentall doctrines are such Catholique Verities as principally and essentially pertain to the faith such as properly constitute a Church and are necessary in ordinary course to be distinctly believed by every Christian that will be saved All which wordes he us'd not to tell you what points be fundamentall as you dishonestly impose upon him but to explain what he meant by the word Fundamentall May it please you therefore now at last to take notice that by Fundamentall we mean 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 Vnlesse you will say that more is necessary then that which is necessary 53 This long discourse so full of un-ingenious dealing with your adversary perhaps would have done reasonably in a Faire or a Comedy I doubt not but you have made your selfe your courteous Readers good sport with it But if D. Potter or I had been by when you wrote it we should have stopt your carere at the first starting have put you in mind of these old Schoole Proverbs Exfalso supposito sequitur quodlibet and Vno absurdo dato seqâ—untur mille For whereas you suppose first that to a man desirous to save his soul and requiring whose direction he might rely upon the Doctors answer would be Vpon the truly Catholique Church I suppose upon better reason because I know his mind that he would advise him to call no man Master on Earth but according to Christs command to rely upon the direction of God himselfe If he should enquire where he should find this direction He would answer him In his word contained in Scripture If he should enquire what assurance he might have that the Scripture is the word of God He would answer him that the doctrine it selfe is very fit and worthy to be thought to come from God nec vox hominem sonat and that they which wrote and delivered it confirmed it to be the word of God by doing such works as could not be done but by power from God himselfe For assurance of the Truth hereof he would advise him to rely upon that which all wise men in all matters of belief rely upon and that is the Consent of Ancient Records and Vniversall Tradition And that he might not instruct him as partiall in this advise he might farther tell him that a gentleman that would be namelesse that has written a book against him called Charity maintained by Catholiques though in many things he differ from him yet agrees with him in this that Tradition is such a principle as may be rested in and which requires no other proof As indeed no wise man doubts but there was such a man as Iulius Caesar or Cicero that there are such Citties as Rome or Constantinople though he have no other assurance for the one or the other but only the speech of people This tradition therefore he would counsell him to rely upon and to believe that the book which we call Scripture was confirmed abundantly by the workes of God to be the word of God Believing it the word of God he must of necessity believe it true and if he believe it true he must believe it containes all necessary directions unto eternall happinesse because it affirmes it selfe to doe so Nay he might tell him that so farre is the whole book from wanting any necessary direction to his eternall Salvation that one only Author that hath writ but two little bookes of it S. Luke by name in the begining of his Gospell and in the begining of his Story shewes plainly that he alone hath written at least so much as is necessary And what they wrote they wrote by Gods direction for the direction of the world not only for the Learned but for all that would doe their true endeavour to know the will of God and to doe it therefore you cannot but conceive that writing to all and for all they wrote so as that in things necessary they might be understood by all Besides that here he should finde that God himselfe has engaged himselfe by promise that if he would loue him and keep his Commandements and pray earnestly for his spirit and bee willing to be directed by it he should undoubtedly receiue it even the Spirit of Truth which shall lead him into all truth that is certainly into all necessary Truths and suffer him to fall into no pernicious errour The summe of his whole direction to him briefly would be this Believe the Scripture to be the word of God use your true endeavour to finde the true sense of it and to liue according to it and then you may rest securely that you are in the true way to eternall happinesse This is the substance of that Answer which the Doctor would make to any man in this case and this is a way so plain that fooles unlesse they will cannot erre from it Because not knowing absolutely all truth nay not all profitable truth and not being free from errour but endeavoring to know the truth and obey it and endeavouring to be free from errour is by this way made the onely condition of salvation As for your supposition That he would advise such a man to rely upon the Catholique Church for the finding out the doctrine of Christ hee utterly disclaimes it and truly very justly There being no certaine way to know that any company is a true Church but only by their professing the true doctrine of Christ. And therefore as it is impossible I should know such a company of Philosophers are Peripateticks or Stoicks unlesse I first know what was the doctrine of the Peripateticks and Stoicks so is it impossible that I should certainly know any company to be the Church of Christ before I know what is the doctrine of Christ the Profession whereof constitutes the visible Church the Beliefe and Obedience the invisible And therefore whereas you would have him be directed by the Catholique Church to the doctrine of Christ the contrary rather is most certaine and necessary that by the foreknowledge of the doctrine of Christ he must be directed to a certaine assurance which is if he meane not to choose at
a venture but desire to have certaine direction to it This supposition therefore being the hinge whereon your whole discourse turnes is the Minerva of your owne Brayne and therefore were it but for this have we not great reason to accuse you of strange immodesty in saying as you doe That The whole discourse inferences which here you have made are either D. Potters own direct assertions or evident consequences cleerely deduced froÌ„ them Especially seeing your proceeding in it is so consonant to this ill beginning that it is in a manner wholly made up not of D. Potters assertions but your owne fictions obtruded on him 54 Ad § 19. To the next Question Cannot Generall Councels erre You pretend he answers § 19. They may erre damnably Let the Reader see the place and he shall finde damnably is your addition To the third demand Must I consult about my difficulties with every particular person of the Catholique Church You answer for him that which is most false that it seemes so by his 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 Which is very certaine for should it doe so it should be the Church no longer But what sense is there that you should collect out of these words that every member of the militant Church must be consulted with By like reason if he had said that all men in the world cannot erre If he had said that God in his own person or his Angels could not erre in these matters you might haue gathered from hence that he laid a necessity upon men in doubt to consult with Angels or with God in his own person or with all men in the world Is it not evident to all sober men that to make any man or men fit to be consulted with besides the understanding of the matter it is absolutely requisite that they may bee spoken with And is it not apparently impossible that any man should speak with all the members of the Militant Church Or if hee had spoken with them all know that he had done so Nay does not D. Potter say as much in plain termes Nay more doe not you take notice that hee does so in the very next words before these where you say he affirmes that the Catholique Church cannot be told of private injuries unlesse you will perswade us there is a difference between the Catholique Church and the whole Militant Church For whereas you make him deny this of the Catholique Church united and affirm it of the Militant Church dispersed into particulars The truth is he speaks neither of united nor dispersed but affirmes simply as appeares to your shame by your own quotations that the Catholique Church cannot bee told of private iniuries and then that the whole Militant Church cannot erre But then besides that the united Church cannot be consulted and the dispersed may what a wild imagination is it and what a strange injustice was it in you to father it upon him I beseech you Sir to consider seriously how far blinde zeal to your superstition hath transported you beyond all bounds of honesty and discretion made you carelesse of speaking either truth or sense so you speak against D. Potter 55 Again you make him say The Prelates of Gods Church meeting in a lawfull Councell may erre damnably and from this collect It remaines then for your necessary instruction you must repaire to every particular member of the Vniversall Church spread over the face of the earth And this is also Pergulapictoris veri nihil omnia ficta The Antecedent false not for the matter of it but that D. Potter saies it And the consequence as far from it as Gades from Gange and as coherent as a rope of sand A generall Councell may erre therefore you must travell all the world over and consult with every particular Christian As if there were nothing else to be consulted with nay as if according to the doctrine of Protestants for so you must say there were nothing to be consulted with but only a Generall Councell or all the world Haue you never heard that Protestants say That men for their direction must consult with Scripture Nay doth not D. Potter say it often in this very Book which you are confuting Nay more in this very page out of which you take this peece of your Cento A Generall Councell may erre damnably are there not these plain words In searches of Truth the Scripture With what conscience then or modesty can you impose upon him this unreasonable consequence yet pretend that your whole discourse is either his own direct assertion or evident consequences cleerely deduc'd from them You adde that yet he teaches as if he contradicted himselfe that the promises of God made to the Church for his assistance are not intended to particular persons but only to the Catholique Church which sure agrees very well with any thing said by D. Potter If it be repugnant to what you said for him falsely what is that to him 56 Neither yet is this to drive any man to desperation unlesse it be such a one as hath such a strong affection to this word Church that he will not goe to heaven unlesse he hath a Church to lead him thither For what though a Councell may erre and the whole Church cannot be consulted with yet this is not to send you on the Fooles Pilgrimage for faith and bid you goe and conferre with every Christian soul man and woman by Sea and by Land close prisoner or at liberty as you dilate the matter But to tell you very briefly that Vniversall Tradition directs you to the word of God and the word of God directs you to Heaven And therefore here is no cause of desperatioÌ„ no cause for you to be so vain and tragicall as here you would seeeme Yet upon supposall you say of this miraculous pilgrimage for faith before I have the faith of Miracles how shall I proceed at our meeting Or how shall I know the man on whom I may securely rely And hereunto you frame this answere for the Doctor Procure to know whether he believe all Fundamentall points of faith Whereas in all the Doctors book there is no such answer to any such question or any like it Neither doe you as your custome is note any page where it may be found which makes mee suspect that sure you have some priuate licence to use Heretiques as you call them at your pleasure and make them answer any thing to anything 57 Wherein I am yet more confirmed by the answer you put in his mouth to your next demand How shall I know whether he hold all Fundamentall points or no For whereas hereunto D. Potter hauing given one Answer fully satisfactory to it which is If he truly believe the undoubted bookes of Canonicall Scriptâ—re he cannot but believe all Fundamentalls and another which is but somethings
be what can it be but curiosity to desire to know it Neither may you think to mend your selfe herein one whit by having recourse to them whom we call Papists for they are as farre to seek as wee in this point which of the Articles of the Creed are for their nature and matter fundamentall and which are not Particularly you will scarce meet with any amongst their Doctors so adventurous as to tell you for a certain whether or no the conception of Christ by the Holy Ghost his being born of a Virgin his Buriall his descent into Hell and the Communion of Saints be points of their own nature and matter fundamentall Such I mean as without the distinct and explicite knowledge of them no man can be saved 63 But you will say at least they give this certain rule that all points defined by Christs visible Church belong to the foundation of faith in such sense as to deny any such cannot stand with Salvation So also Protestants give you this more certain rule That whosoever believes heartily those books of Scripture which all the Christian Churches in the world acknowledge to be Canonicall and submits himselfe indeed to this as to the rule of his belief must of necessity believe all things fundamentall and if he live according to his faith cannot fail of Salvation But besides what certainty have you that that rule of Papists is so certain By the visible Church it is plain they mean only their own and why their own only should be the Visible Church I doe not understand and as little why all points defined by this Church should belong to the foundation of faith These things you had need see well and substantially proved before you rely upon them otherwise you expose your selfe to danger of imbracing damnable errors instead of Fundamentall truth's But you will say D. Potter himselfe acknowledges that we doe not erre in Fundamentalls If he did so yet me thinkes you have no reason to rest upon his acknowledgement with any security whom you condemne of errour in many other matters Perhaps excesse of Charity to your persons may make him censure your errors more favourably then he should doe But the truth is and so I have often told you though the Doctor hope that your errors are not so unpardonably destructive but that some men who ignorantly hold them may be saved yet in themselves he professes and proclaimes them damnable and such as he feares will be certainly destructive to such as you are that is to all those who have eyes to see and will not see them 64 Ad § 20. 21. 22. 23. In the Remainder of this Chapter you promise to answer D. Potters Arguments against that which you said before But presently forgetting your selfe in stead of answering his Arguments you fall a confuting his Answers to your own The arguments objected by you which here you vindicate were two 1. The Scripture is not so much as mentioned in the Creed therefore the Creed containes not all things necessary to be believed 2. Baptisme is not contained in the Creed therefore not all things necessary To both which Arguments my Answer shortly is this that they prove something but it is that which no man here denies For D. Potter as you have also confessed never said not undertook to shew that the Apostles intended to comprize in the Creed all points absolutely which we are bound to believe or after sufficient proposall not to disbelieve which yet here and every where you are obtruding upon him But only that they purposed to comprize in it all such doctrines purely speculative all such matters of simple belief as are in ordinary course necessary to be distinctly and explicitly believed by all men Neither of these objections doe any way infringe or impeach the truth of this Assertion Not the first because according to your own doctrine all men are not bound to know explicitely what books of Scripture are Canonicall Nor the second because Baptisme is not a matter of Faith but practise not so much to be believed as to be given and received And against these Answers whether you have brought any considerable new matter let the indifferent Reader judge As for the other things which D. Potter rather glanceth at then builâ—s upon in answering these objections as the Creed's being collected out of Scripture and supposing the Authority of it which Gregory of Valentia in the place above cited seemes to me to confesse to have been the Iudgement of the Ancient Fathers and the Nicene Creed's intimating the authority of Canonicall Scripture and making mention of Baptisme These things were said ex abundanti and therefore I conceive it superfluous to examine your exceptions against them Prove that D. Potter did affirme that the Creed containes all things necessary to be believed of all sorts and then these objections will be pertinent and deserve an answer Or produce some point of simple belief necessary to be explicitly believed which is not contained either in termes or by consequence in the Creed and then I will either answer your Reasons or confesse I cannot But all this while you doe but trifle and are so farre from hitting the marke that you rove quite beside the But. 65 Ad § 23. 24. 25. Potterâ—emands â—emands How it can be necessary for any Christian to have more in his Creed then the Apostles had and the Church of their times You Answer That he trifles not distinguishing between the Apostles belief and that abridgement of some Articles of faith which we call the Apostles Creed I reply that it is you which trifle affectedly confounding what D. Potter hath plainly distinguished the Apostles belief of the whole Religion of Christ as it comprehends both what we are to doe and what we are to believe with their belief of that part of it which containes not duties of obedience but only the necessary Articles of siâ—ple â—aith Now though the Apostles Beleife be in the former sense a larger thing then that which we call the Apostles Creed yet in the latter sense of the word the Creed I say is a full comprehension of their belief which you your selfe have formerly confessed though somewhat fearfully and inconstantly and here again unwillingnesse to speak the truth makes you speak that which is hardly sense and call it an abridgement of some Articles of Faith For I demand these some Articles which you speak of which are they Those that are out of the Creed or those that are in it Those that are in it it comprehends at large and therefore it is not an abridgement of them Those that are out of it it comprehends not at all and therefore it is not an abridgement of them If you would call it now an abridgement of the Faith this would be sense and signify thus much That all the necessary Articles of the Christian faith are compriz'd in it For this is the proper duty of abridgements to leave out nothing
they cannot lawfully excercise 7. In the judgement of the holy Fathers Schisme is a most grievous offence S. Chrisostome compares these Schismaticall dividers of Christs mysticall body to those who sacrilegiously pietced his naturall body saying Nothing doth so much incense God as that the Church should be divided Although we should do innumerable good works if we divide the full Ecclesiastical Congregation we shall be punished no lesse then they who tore his naturall body For that was done to the gaine of the whole world although not with that intention but this hath no profit at all but there ariseth from it most great harme These things are spoken not only to those who beare office but also to those who are governed by them Behold how neither a morall good life which conceit deceiveth many nor authority of Magistrates nor any necessity of Obeying Superiours can excuse Schisme from being a most haynous offence Optatus Milevitanus cals Schisme Ingeâ—s stagitium a huge crime And speaking to the Donatists saith that Schisme is evill in the highest degree even you are not able to deny No lesse patheticall is S. Augustine upon this subject He reckons Schismatiques amongst Pagans Heretiques and Iewes saying Religion is to be sought neither in the conâ—usion of Pagans nor in the filth of Heretiques nor in the languishing of Schismatiques nor in the Age of the Iewes but amongst those alone who are called Christian Catholiques or Orthodox that is lovers of Vnity in the whole body and followers of truth Nay he esteemes them worse then Infidels and Idolaters saying Those whom the Donatists heale from the wound of Infidelity and Idolatry they hurt more grievously with the wound of Schisme Let there those men who are pleased untruely to call us Idolaters reflect upon themselves and consider that this holy Father judgeth Schismatiques as they are to be worse then Idolaters which they absurdly call us And this he proveth by the example of Core and Dathan Abiron and other rebellious Schismatiques of the old Testament who were convayed alive downe into Hell and punished more openly then Idolaters No doubt saith this holy Father but that was committed most wickedly which was punished most severaly In another place he yoaketh Schisme with Heresy saying upon the Eight Beatitude Many Heretiques under the name of Christians deceiving mens soules doe suffer many such things but therefore they are excluded from this reward because it is not only said Happy are they who suffer persecution but there is added for Iustice. But where there is not sound faith there cannot be justice Neither can Schismatiques promise to themselves any part of this reward because likewise where there is no Charity there cannot be justice And in another place yet more effectually he saith Being out of the Church and divided from the heape of Vnity and the bond of Charity thou shouldest be punished with eternall death though thou shouldest he burned alive for the name of Christ. And in another place he hath these words If he heare not the Church let him be to thee as an Heathen or Publican which is more grievous then if he were smitten with the sword consumed with flames or cast to wild beasts And else where Out of the Catholique Church saith he one may have Faith Sacraments Orders and in summe all things except Salvation With S. Augustine his Countreyman and second selfe in sympathy of spirit S. Fulgentius agreeth saying Believe this stedfastly without doubting that every Heretique or Schismatique baptized in the name of the Father the Sonne and the Holy Ghost if before the end of his life he be not reconciled to the Catholique Church what Almes soever he give yea though he should shed his bloud for the name of Christ he cannot obtaine Salvation Marke againe how no morall honesty of life no good deeds no Martyrdome can without repentance availe any schismatique for salvation Let us also adde that D. Potter saith Schisme is no lesse damnable then Heresy 8. But ô you Holy Learned Zealous Fathers and Doctours of Gods Church out of these premises of the grievousnesse of schisme and of the certain damnation which it bringeth if unrepented what conclusion draw you for the instruction of Christians S. Augustine maketh this wholesome inference There is no iust necessity to divide Vnity S. Irenaeus concludeth They cannot make any so important reformation as the evill of the Schisme is pernicious S. Denis of Alexandria saith Certainly all things should rather be indured then to consent to the division of the Church of God those Martyrs being no lesse glorious that expose themselves to hinder the dismembring of the Church then those that suffer rather then they will offer sacrifice to Idols Would to God all those who divided themselves from that visible Church of Christ which was upon earth when Luther appeared would rightly consider of these things and thâ—s much of the second Point 9 We have just and necessary occasion eternally to blesse almighty God who hath vouchsafed to make us members of the Catholique Romaâ— Church from which while men fall they precipitate themselves into so vast absurdities or rather sacrilegious blasphemies as is implyed in the doctrine of the totall deficiency of the visible Church which yet is maintained by divers chief Protestants as may at large be seen in Brerely and others out of whom I will here name Iewell saying The truth was unknown at that time and unheard of when Martin Luther and Vlderick Zuinglius first came unto the knowledge and preaching of the Gospell Perkins saith We say that before the daies of Luther for the space of many hundred yeares an universall Apostacy overspread the whole face of the earth and that our Protestant Church was not then visible to the world Napper upon the Revelations teacheth that from the yeare of Christ three hundred and sixteen the Antichristian and Papisticall raigne hath begun raigning universally and without any debatable contradiction one thousand two hundred sixty yeares that is till Luthers time And that from the yeare of Christ three hundred and sixteen God hath withdrawn his visible Church from open Assemblies to the hearts of particular godly men c. during the space of one thousand two hundred three score yeares And that the Pope and Clergy have possessed the outward visible Church of Christians even one thousand two hundred three score yeares And that the true Church abode latent and invisible And Brocard upon the Revelations professeth to joyne in opinion with Napper Fulke affirmeth that in the time of Boniface the third which was the year 607. the Church was invisible and fled into the wildernesse there to remain a long season Luther saith Priâ—â— solus eram At the first I was alone Iacob Hailâ—ronerus one of the Disputants for the Protestant Party in the conference at Ratisbone affirmeth that
Heresie This I demonstrate out of D. Potter himselfe who in expresse words teacheth that the promises which our Lord hath made unto his Church for his assistance are intended not to any particular Persons or Churches but only to the Church Catholique and they are to be extended not to every parcel or particularity of truth but only to points of Faith or fundamentall And afterwards speaking of the Vniversall Church he sâ—â—th It 's comfort enough for the Church that the Lord in mercy will secure her from all capital dangers and conserue her on earth against all enemies but shee may not hope to triumph over all sinne and errour till she be in heaven Out of which words I observe that according to D. Potter the selfe same Church which is the Vniversall Church remaining the universall true Church of Christ may fall into errors and corruptions from whence it clearly followeth that it is impossible to leave the Externall communion of the Church so corrupted and retain externall communion with the Catholique Church since the Church Catholique and the Church so corrupted is the selfe same one Church or company of men And the contrary imagination talkes in a dream as if the errours and infections of the Catholique Church were not inherent in her but were separate from her like to Accidents without any Subject or rather indeed as if they were not Accidents but Hypostases or Persons subsisting by themselues For men cannot be said to liue in or out of the Communion of any dead creature but with Persons endued with life and reason and much lesse can men be said to live in the Communion of Accidents as errors and corruptions are and therefore it is an absurd thing to affirm that Protestants divided themselues from the corruptions of the Church but not from the Church her selfe seeing the corruptions of the Church were inherent in the Church All this is made more cleer if we consider that when Luther appeared there were not two distinct visible true Catholique Churches holding contrary Doctrines and divided in externall Communion one of the which two Churches did triumph over all errour and corruption in doctrine and practise but the other was stained with both For to faign this diversity of two Churches cannot stand with record of histories which are silent of any such matter It is against D. Potters own grounds that the Church may erre in points not fundamentall which were not true if you will imagine a certain visible Catholique Church free from errour even in points not fundamentall It contradicteth the words in which he said the Church may not hope to triumph over all errour till she be in heaven It evacuateth the brag of Protestants that Luther reformed the whole Church and lastly it maketh Luther a Schismatique for leaving the Communion of all visible Churches seeing upon this supposition there was a visible Church of Christ free from all corruption which therefore could not be forsaken without just imputation of Schisme We must therefore truly affirme that since there was but one visible Church of Christ which was truly Catholique and yet was according to Protestants stained with corruption when Luther left the externall Communion of that corrupted Church he could not remain in the Communion of the Catholique Church no more then it is possible to keep company with D. Christopher Potter and not keep company with the Provost of Queenes Colledge in Oxford if D. Potter and the Provost be one and the selfe same man For so one should be and not be with him at the same time This very argument drawne from the Vnity of God's Church S. Cyprian urgeth to convince that Novatianus was cut off from the Church in these words The Church is One which being One cannot be both within and without If she â—e with Novatianus she was not with Cornelius But if she were with Cornelius who succeeded Fabianus by lawfull ordination Novatianus is not in the Church I purposely here speak only of externall Communion with the Catholique Church For in this point there is great difference between internall acts of our understanding and will and of externall deeds Our Vnderstanding and Will are faculties as Philosophers speak abstractive and able to distinguish and as it were to part things though in themselves they be really conjoyned But reall externall deeds doe take things in grosse as they find them not separating things which in reality are joyned together Thus one may consider and loue a sinner as he is a man friend benefactor or the like and at the same time not consider him nor loue him as he is a sinner because these are acts of our Vnderstanding and will which may respect their objects under some one formality or consideration without reference to other things contained in the selfe same objects But if one should strike or kill a sinfull man he will not be excused by alleaging that he killed him not as a man but as a sinner because the selfe same person being a man and the sinner the externall act of murder fell joyntly upon the man and the sinner And for the same reason one cannot avoid the company of a sinner and at the same time be really present with that man who is a sinner And this is our case and in this our Adversaries are egregiously many of them affectedly mistaken For one may in some points belieue as the Church believeth and disagree from her in other One may loue the truth which she holds and detest her pretended corruptions But it is impossible that a man should really separate himselfe from her externall Communion as she is corrupted and be really within the same externall Communion as she is sound because she is the selfe same Church which is supposed to be sound in some things and to erre in others Now our question for the present doth concern only this point of externall Communion because Schisme as it is distinguished from Heresie is committed when one divides himselfe from the Externall Communion of that Church with which he agrees in Faith Whereas Heresie doth necessarily imply a difference in matter of Faith and beliefe and therefore to say that they left not the visible Church but her errours can only excuse them from Heresie which shâ—ll be tried in the next Chapter but not from Schisme as long as they are really divided from the Externall Communion of the selfe same visible Church which notwithstanding those errours wherein they doe in judgement dissent from her doth still remain the true Catholique Church of Christ and therefore while they forsake the corrupted Church they forsake the Catholique Church Thus then it remaineth cleer that their chiefest Answer changeth the very state of the Question confoundeth internall acts of the Vnderstanding with externall Deeds doth not distinguish between Schisme and Heresie and leaues this demonstrated against them That they divided themselues from the Communion of the visible Catholique Church because they
that they left them Therefore Luther and his followers cannot deny but that they left the visible Church Where me thinks you prove little but take for granted that which is one of the greatest Questions amongst us that is That the Company which Luther left was the whole Visible Church whereas you know we say it was but a part of it and that corrupted and obstinate in her corruptions Indeed that Luther and his followers left off the Practice of those Corruptions wherein the whole Visible Church did communicate formerly which I meant when I acknowledg'd aboue that they forsook the externall Communion of the Visible Church or that they left that part of the Visible church in her corruptions which would not be reformed These things if you desire I shall be willing to grant and that by a Synecdoche of the whole for the part he might be said to forsake the Visible Church that is a part of it and the greater part But that properly speaking he forsook the whole Visible Church I hope you will excuse me if I grant not this untill you bring better proofe of it then your former similitude And my Reason is his because he and his Followers were a part of this Church and ceased not to be so by their Reformation Now he and his followers certainly forsook not themselves Therefore not every part of the Church therefore not the whole Church But then if you speak of D. Potters cases according as he put them and answer not your owne Arguments when you make shew of answering his me thinks it should not be so unreasonable as you make it for the Persons he speaks of to deny that they left the communities whereof they were Members For example That the Monkes of S. Benets Order make one Body whereof their severall Monasteries are severall members I presume it will be easily granted Suppose now that all these Monasteries being quite out of Order some 20. or 30. of them should reforme themselves the rest persisting still in their irregular couses were it such a mon. strous impudence as you make it for these Monasteries which we suppose reformed to deny that they forsook their Order or Community whereof they were parts In my Opinion it is no such matter Let the world judge Againe whereas the Dr saies that in a Society of men Vniversally infected with some disease they that should free themselues from the common disease could not therefore be said to separate from the Society It is very strange to me that you should say he speaks very strangely Truly Sr I am extreamly deceaved if his words be not plain English and plain sense and containe such a manifest Truth as cannot be denyed with modesty nor gone about to be proved without vanity For whatsoever is proved must be proved by something more evident Now what can be more evident then this That if some whole Families were taken with Agues if the Father of this Family should free himselfe from his that he should not therefore deservedly be thought to abandon and desert his Family But say you if they doe not separate themselves from the Society of the wicked persons how doe they free themselves from the common disease Doe they at the same time remaine in the company and yet depart from those infected creatures Me thinks a Writer of Controversies should not be ignorant how this may be done without any such difficulty But if you doe not know I 'le tell you There is no necessity they should leaue the company of these infected persons at all much lesse that they should at once depart from it and remaine with it which I confesse were very difficult But if they will free themselues from their disease let them stay where they are and take physick Or if you would be better informed how this strange thing may be done learne from your selfe They may free their own persons from the common disease yet so that they remain still in the company infected eating and drinking with them c. Which are your own words within foure or fiue lines after this plainly shewing that your mistaking D. Potters meaning your wondring at his words as at some strange monsters was all this while affected and that you are conscious to your selfe of perverting his Argument that you may seem to say something when indeed you say nothing Whereas therefore you adde we must then say that they separate themselues from the persons though it be by occasion of the disease I assure you good Sir you must not doe so at any hand for then you alter spoile D. Potters case quite and fight not with his reason but your own shadow For the instance of a man freeing himselfe from the disease of his company and not leaving his company is very fit to proue by the parity of reason that it is very possible a man may leaue the corruptions of a Church and not leaue the Church that is not cease to be a member of it But yours of a man leaving his company by occasion of their disease hath no analogy at all with this businesse 95 But Luther his followers did not continue in the cōpany of those from whose diseases they pretend to free themselves Very true neither was it said they did so There is no necessity that that which is compared to another thing should agree with it in all things it is sufficient if it agree in that wherein it is compared A man freeing himselfe from the common disease of a society and yet continuing a part of it is here compared to Luther and his followers freeing themselues from the corruptions of the visible Church continuing a part of the Church As for accompanying the other parts of it in all things it was neither necessary nor without destroying our supposition of their forsaking the corruptions of the Church possible Not necessary for they may be parts of the Church which doe not joyne with other parts of it in all observances Nor possible for had he accompanied them in all things he had not freed himselfe from the common corruptions 96 But they indeavoured to force the society whereof they were parts to be healed and reformed as they were and if it refused they did when they had power driue them away even their superiours both Spirituall and Temporall as is notorious The proofes hereof are wanting and therefore I might deferre my answer untill they were produced yet take this before hand If they did so then herein in my opinion they did amisse for I haue learnt from the ancient Fathers of the Church that nothing is more against Religion then to force Religion of S. Paul the weapons of the Christian warfare are not carnall And great reason For humane violence may make men counterfeit but cannot make them believe is therefore fit for nothing but to breed forme without Atheisme within Besides if this meanes of bringing men to embrace any Religion were
yee offend against God by troubling his Church without iust and necessary cause Be it that there are some reasons inducing you to think hardly of our Lawes Are those Reasons demonstrative are they necessary or but meer probabilities only An argument necessary and demonstratiue is such as being proposed to any man and understood the minde cannot choose but inwardly assent Any one such reason dischargeth I grant the conscience and setteth it at ful liberty For the publique approbation given by the body of this whole Church unto those things which are established doth make it but probable that they are good And therefore unto a necessary proofe that they are not good it must giue place This plain declaration of his judgement in this matter this expresse limitation of his former resolution hee makes in the very same Section which affords your former quotation and therefore what Apology can bee made for you and your store-house M. Brerely for dissembling of it I cannot possibly imagine 111 D. Potter p. 131. saies That the errors of the Donatists and Novatians were not in themselves Heresies nor could be made so by the Churches determination But that the Churches intention was only to silence disputes and to settle peace and unity in her government which because they factiously opposed they were justly esteemed Schismatiques From hence you conclude that the same condemnation must passe against the first Reformers seeing they also opposed the commands of the Church imposed on them for silencing all disputes and setling Peace and Vnity in government But this collection is deceitfull and the reason is Because though the first Reformers as well as the Donatists and Novatians opposed herein the Commands of the Visible Church that is of a great part of it yet the Reformers had reason nay necessity to doe so the Church being then corrupted with damnable errors which was not true of the Church when it was opposed by the Novatians and Donatists And therefore though they and the Reformers did the same action yet doing it upon different grounds it might in these merit applause and in them condemnation 112 Ad § 43. The next § hath in it some objections against Luthers person but none against his cause which alone I have undertaken to justify therefore I passe it over Yet this I promise that when you or any of your side shall publish a good defence of all that your Popes have said done especially of them whom Bellarmin beleeves in such a long train to have gone to the Divell then you shall receive an ample Apology for all the actions and words of Luther In the mean time I hope all reasonable and equitable judges will esteeme it not unpardonable in the great and Heroicall spirit of Luther if being opposed and perpetually baited with a world of Furies hee were transported sometimes and made somewhat furious As for you I desire you to be quiet and to demand no more whether God be wont to send such Furies to preach the Gospell Vnlesse you desire to heare of your killing of Kings Massacring of Peoples Blowing up of Parliaments and have a minde to be ask't whether it bee probable that that should bee Gods cause which needs to bee maintained by such Divellish meanes 112 Ad § 44. 45. In the two next Particles which are all of this Chapter that remain unspoken to you spend a great deale of reading wit reason against some men who pretending to honour believe the Doctrine practice of the visible Church you mean your own and condemning their Forefathers who forsook her say they would not have done so yet remain divided from her Communion Which men in my judgement cannot be defended For if they believe the Doctrine of your Church then must they believe this doctrine that they are to returne to your Communion And therefore if they doe not so it cannot be avoided but they must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so I leave them only I am to remember you that these men cannot pretend to be Protestants because they pretend to believe your doctrine which is opposite in Diameter unto the doctrine of Protestants and therefore in a worke which you professe to have written meerly against Protestants all this might have been spared CHAP. VI. That Luther and the rest of Protestants have added Heresie unto Schisme BECAVSE Vice is best knowne by the contrary Vertue we cannot well determine what Heresie is nor who be Heretiques but by the opposite vertue of Faith whose Nature being once understood as farre as belongs to our present purpose we shall passe on with ease to the definition of Heresie and so be able to discerne who be Heretiques And this I intend to doe not by entring into such particular Questions as are controverted between Catholiques and Protestants but only by applying some generall grounds either already proved or else yeelded to on all sides 2 Almighty God having ordained Man to a supernaturall End of Beatitude by supernaturall meanes it was requisite that his Vnderstanding should be enabled to apprehend that End and meanes by a supernaturall knowledge And because if such a knowledge were no more then probable it could not be able sufficiently to overbeare our Will and encounter with human probabilities being backed with the strength of flesh and blood It was further necessary that this supernaturall knowledge should be most certaine and infallible and that Faith should beleeue nothing more certainly then that it self is a most certain Beliefe and so be able to beat downe all gâ—y probabilities of humane Opinion And because the aforesaid Means and end of Beatificall Vision do farre exceed the reach of naturall wit the certainty of faith could not alwaies be joyned with such evidence of reason as is wont to be found in the Principles or Conclusions of humane naturall Sciences that so all flesh might not glory in the arme of flesh but that he who glories should glory in our Lord Moreover it was expedient that our belief or assent to divine truths should not only be unknowne or inevident by any humane discourse but that absolutely also it should be obscure in it self and ordinarily speaking be void even of supernaturall evidence that so we might have occasion to actuate and testifie the obedience which we owe to our God noâ— only by submitting our Will to this Will and Commands but by subjecting also our Vnderstanding to this Wisdome and Words captivating as the Apostle speaks the same Vnderstanding to the Obedience of Faith Which occasion had been wanting if Almighty God had made â—â—â—ere to us the truths which now are certainly but not evidently presented to our minds For where Truth doth manifestly open it self not obedience but necessity commands our assent For this reason Divines teach that the Objects of Faith being not evident to humane reason it is in mans power not only to abstaine from believing by suspending our Iudgments or exercising no act one
himselfe confirmed their doctrine we are assured that what the said never-interrupted Church proposeth doth deserve to be accepted and acknowledged as a divine truth By evidence of Sense we see that the same Church proposeth such and such doctrines as divine truths that is as revealed and testified by Almighty God By this divine Testimony we are infallibly assured of what we believe and so the last period ground motive and formall obiect of our Faith is the infâ—llible testimony of that supreme Verity which neither can deceive nor be deceived 7 By this orderly deduction our Faith commeth to be endued with these qualities which we said were â—equisite thereto namely Certainty Obscurity and Prudence Certainty proceeds from the infallible Testimony of God propounded and conveyed to our understanding by such a meane as iâ— infallible in it selfe and to us is evidently knowne that it proposeth this point or that and which can manifestly declare in what sense it proposeth them which meanes we have proved to be only the visible Church of Christ. Obscurity from the manner in which God speakes to Mankind which ordinarily is such that it doth not manifestly shew the person who speakes nor the truth of the thing spoken Prudence is not wanting because our faith is accompanyed with so many arguments of Credibility that every well disposed Vnderstanding may and ought to judge that the doctrines so confirmed deserve to be believed as proceeding from divine Authority 8. And thus from what hath been said we may easily gather the particular nature or definition of Faith For it is a voluntary or free infallible obscure assent to some truth because it is testifed by God and is sufficiently propounded to us for such which proposall is ordinarily made by the Visible Church of Christ. I say Sufficiently proposed by the Church not that I purpose to dispute whether the proposall of the Church enter into the â—ormall Obiect or motiâ—â— of Faith or whether an error be any heresie formally and precisely because it is against the proposition of the Church as if such proposall were the formall Object of Faith which D. Potter to no purpose aâ— all labours so very hard to disprove But I only affirme that when the Church propounds any Truth as revealed by God we are assured that it is such indeed and so it instantly growes to be a fit Object for Christian faith which enclines and enables us to beleeve whatsoever is dâ—ely presented as a thing revealed by Almighty God And in the same manner we are sure that whosoever opposeth any doctrine proposed by the Church doth thereby contradict a truth which is testified by God As when any lawfull Superiour notifies his will by the meanes and as it were proposall of some faithfull messenger the subject of such a Superiour in performing or neglecting what is delivered by the Messenger is said to obey or disobey his owne lawfull Superiour And therefore because the testimony of God is notified by the Church we may and we doe most truely say that not to beleeve what the Church proposeth is to deny God's holy word or testimony signified to us by the Church according to that saying of S. Irenaeâ—s We need not goe to any other to seek the truth which we may easily receive from the Church 9. From this definition of faith we may also know what Heresie is by taking the contrary termes as Heresie is contrary to Faith and saying Heresie is a voluntary error against that which God hath revealed and the Church hath proposed for such Neither doth it import whether the error concerne points in themselves great or small fundamentall or not fundamentall For more being required to an act of Vertue then of Vice if any truth though neuer so small may be believed by Faith as soone as we know it to be testified by divine revelation much more will it be a formall Heresie to deny any least point sufficiently propounded as a thing witnessed by God 10. This divine Faith is divided into Actuall and Habituall Actuall faith or faith actuated is when we are in act of consideration and belife of some mystery of Faith for example that our Saviour Christ is true God and Man c. Habituall faith is that from which we are denominated Faithfull or Believers as by Actuall faith they are stiled Believing This Habit of faith is a Quality enabling us most firmly to believe Objects above humane discourse and it remaineth permanently in our Soule even when we are sleeping or not thinking of any Mystery of Faith This is the first among the three Theologicall Vertues For Charity unites us to God as he is infinitely Good in himselfe Hope tyes us to him as he is unspeakably Good to us Faith joynes us to him as he is the Supreame immoveable Verity Charity relies on his Goodnesse Hope on his Power Faith on his divine Wisdome From hence it followeth that Faith being one of the Vertues which Divines terme Infused that is which cannot be acquired by human wit or industry but are in their Nature and Essence supernaturall it hath this property that it is not destroyed by little and little contrarily to the Habits called acquisiti that is gotten by human endeâ—vour which as they are successiuely produced so also are they lost successiuely or by little and little but it must either be conserved entire or wholly destroyed And since it cannot stand entire with any one act which is directly contrary it must be totally overthrowne and as it were demolished and razed by every such act Wherefore as Charity or the Love of God is expelled from our soule by any one act of Hatred or any other mortall sinne against his divine Majesty and as Hope is destroyed by any one act of voluntary Desperation so Faith must perish by any one act of Heresy because every such act is directly and formally opposite therevnto I know that some sinnes which as Divines speak are exgenere suo in their kind grievous and mortall may be much lessened and fall to be veniall ob levitatem materiae because they may happen to be exercised in a matter of small consideration as for example to steale a penny is veniall although Theft in his kind be a deadly sinne But it is likewise true that this Rule is not generall for all sorts of sinnes there being some so inexcusably wicked of their owne nature that no smalnesse of matter not paucity in number can defend them from being deadly sinnes For to give an instance what Blasphemy against God or voluntary false Oath is not a deadly sinne Certainly none at all although the salvation of the whole world should depend upon swearing such a falshood The liâ—e hapneth in our present case of Heresie the iniquity whereof redounding to the injury of God's supreme wisdome and Goodnesse is alwayes great and enormous They were no precious stones which David picket out of the water to encounter Goliâ—â— yet if a man
take from the number but one and say they were but foure against the Scripture affirming them to have been fiue he is instantly guilty of a damnable sinne Why Because by this subtraction of One he doth deprive Gods word and Testimony of all credit and infallibility For if either he could deceive or be deceived in any one thing it were but wisdome to suspect him in all And seeing eveâ—y Hereâ—y opposeth some Truth revealed by God it is no wonder that no one can be excused from deadly and damnable sinne For if voluntary Blasphemy and Periury which are opposite only to the inâ—used Morall Vertue of Religion can never be excused from mortall sinne much lesse can Heresy be excused which opposeth the Theologicall Vertue of Faith 11 If any object that Schisme may seem to be a greater sinne then Heresy because the Verâ—ue of Charity to which Schisme is opposite is greater then Faith according to the Apostle saying Now there remain Faith Hope Charity but the greatâ—r of these is Charity S. Thomas answeres in these words Charity hath two Obiects one principall to wit the 〈◊〉 Goodnesse and another secondary namely the good of our Neighbour But Schisme and other sinnes which are committed against our Neighbour are opposite to Charity in respect of this secondary good which is lesse then the obiect of Faith which is God as he is the Prime Verity on which Faith doth relie and therefore these sinnes are lesse then Infidelity He takes Infidelity after a generall manner as it comprehends Heresie and other vices against Faith 12. Having therefore sufficiently declared wherein Heresy consists Let us come to prove that which we proposed in this Chapter Where I desire it be still remembred That the visible Catholique Church cannot erre damnably as D. Potter confesseth And that when Luther appeared there was no other visible true Church of Christ disagreeing from the Roman as we have demonstrated in the next precedent Chapter 13 Now that Luther and his followers cannot be excused from formall Heresy I prove by these reasons To oppose any truth propounded by the visible true Church as revealed by God is formall Heresie as we have shewed out of the definition of Heresie But Luther Calvin and the rest did oppose divers truths propounded by the visible Church as revealed by God yea they did therefore oppose her because shee propounded as divine revealed truths things which they judged either to be fals or human inventions Therefore they committed formall Heresie 14 Moreover every Errour against any doctrine revealed by God is damnable Heresie whether the matter in it selfe be great or small as I proved before and therefore either the Protestants or the Roman Church must be guilty of formall Heresy because one of them must erre against the word testimony of God but you grant perforâ—e that the Roman Church doth not erre damnably I adde that she cannot erre damnably because she is the truly Catholique Church which you confesse cannot erre damnably Therefore Protestants must be guilty of formall Heresy 15 Besides we have shewed that the visible Church is Iudge of Controversies and therefore must be infallible in all her Proposals which being once supposed it manifestly followeth that to oppose what she delivereth as revealed by God is not so much to oppose her as God himself and therefore cannot be excused from grievous Heresy 16 Againe if Luther were an Heretique for those points wherein he disagreed from the Roman Church All they who agree with him in those very points must likewise be Heretiques Now that Luther was a formall Heretique I demonstrate in this manner To say that Gods visible true Church is not universall but confined to one only place or corner of the world is according to your owne expresse words properly Heresy against that Article of the Creed wherein we professe to beleeve the holy Catholique Church And you brand Donatus with heresy because he limited the universall Church to Africa But it is manifest and acknowledged by Luther himself aud other chief Protestants that Luthers Reformation when it first began and much more for divers Ages before was not Vniversall nor spread over the world but was confined to that compasse of ground which did contain Luthers body Therefore his Reformation cannot be excused from formall Heresy If S. Augustine in those times said to the Donatists There are innumerable testimonies of holy Scripture in which it appeareth that the Church of Christ is not only in Africa as these men with most impudent vanity doe rave but that she is spread over the whole earth much more may it be said It appeareth by innumerable testimonies of holy Scripture that the Church of Christ cannot be confined to the Ciâ—ty of Wittemberg or to the place where Luthers feet stood but must be spread over the whole world It is therefore most impudent vanity and dotage to limit her to Luthers Reformation In another place also this holy Father writes no lesse effectually against Luther then against the Donatists For having out of those words In thy â—eed all Nations shall be blessed proved that Gods Church must be universall he saith Why doe you superadde by saying that Christ remaines heire in no part of the earth except where he may have Donatus for his Coheire Give me this Vniversall Church if it be among you shew your selves to all Nations which we already shew to be blessed in this Seed Give us this Church or else laying aside all fury receive her from us But it is evident that Luther could not when he said At the beginning I was alone give us an universall Church Therefore happy had he been if he had then and his followers would now receive her from us And therefore we must conclude with the same holy Father saying in another place of the universall Church She hath this most certain mark that she cannot be bidden She is then knowne to all Nations The Sect of Donatus is unknowne to many Nations therefore that cannot be she The Sect of Luther at least when he began and much more before his beginning was unknowne to many Nations therefore that cannot be she 17 And that it may yet further appeare how perfectly Luther agreed with the Donatists It is to be noted that they never taught that the Catholique Church ought not to extend it self further then that part of Africa where their faction reigned but only that in fact it was so confined because all the rest of the Church was prophaned by communicating with Caeciliâ—â—us whom they falsly affirmed to have been ordained Bishop by those who were Traditours or gives up of the Bible to the Persecutors to be burned yea at that very time they had some of their Sect residing in Rome and sent thither one Victor a Bishop under colour to take care of the Brethren in that Citty but indeed as Baronius observeth that the world might account them Catholiques by
of a more powerfull principality there is a necessity that all the Churches that is all the faithfull round about should resort in which the Apostolique Tradition hath been alwaies observed by those who were round about If any man say I have been too bold a Critick in substituting observata instead of conseruata I desire him to know that the conjecture is not mine and therefore as I expect no praise for it so I hope I shall be farre from censure But I would intreat him to consider whether it be not likely that the same greek word signifying observo and conservo the Translater of Irenaeus who could hardly speak Latine might not easily mistake and translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 conservata est instead of observata est Or whether it be not likely that those men which ancienly wrote Books and understood them nor might not easily commit such an error Or whether the sense of the place can be salved any other way if it can in Gods name let it if not I hope he is not to be condemned who with such a little alteration hath made that sense which he found non sense 30 But whether you will have it Observata or Conservata the new sumpsimus or the old mumpsimus possibly it may be something to Irenaus but to us or our cause it is no way materiall For if the rest be rightly translated neither will Conservata afford you any argument against us nor Observata helpe us to any evasion For though at the first hearing the glorious attributes here given and that justly to the Church of Rome the confounding Heretiques with her tradition and saying it is necessary for all Churches to resort to her may sound like Arguments for you yet hee that is attentive I hope will easily discover that it might be good and rationall in Irenaeus having to doe with Heretiques who somewhat like those who would be the only Catholiques declining a tryall by Scripture as not contayning the Truth of Christ perfectly and not fit to decide Controversies without recourse to Tradition I say he will easily perceive that it might be rationall in Iraeneus to urge them with any Tradition of more credit then their own especially a Tradition consonant to Scripture and even contain'd in it and yet that it may be irrationall in you to urge us who doe not decline Scripture but appeale to it as a perfect rule of faith with a Tradition which we pretend is many wayes repugnant to Scripture and repugnant to a Tradition far more generall then it self which gives Testimony to Scripture and lastly repugnant to it self as giving attestation both to Scripture and to Doctrines plainly contrary to Scripture Secondly that the Authority of the Roman Church was then a far greater Argument of the Truth of her Tradition when it was Vnited with all other Apostolique Churches then now when it is divided from them according to that of Tertullian Had the Churches erred they would have varied but that which is the same in all cannot be errour but Tradition and therefore though Irenaeus his Argument may be very probable yet yours may be worth nothing Thirdly that foureteen hundred yeares may have made a great deale of alteration in the Roman Church as Rivers though neere the fountain they may retaine their native and unmixt syncerity yet in long progresse cannot but take in much mixture that came not from the fountain And therefore the Roman Tradition though then pure may now be corrupt and impure and so this Argument being one of those things which are the worse for wearing might in Irenaeus his time be strong and vigorous and after declining and decaying may long since have fallen to nothing Especially considering that Irenaeus plaies the Historian only and not the Prophet and saies only that the Apostolique Tradition had been alwayes there as in other Apostolique Churches conserved or observed choose you whether but that it should be alwayes so he saies not neither had he any warrant He knew well enough that there was foretold a great falling away of the Churches of Christ to Anti-christ that the Roman Church in particular was forewarned that she also nay the whole Church of the Gentiles might fall if they look not to their standing and therefore to secure her that she should stand for ever he had no reason nor Authority Fourthly that it appeares manifestly out of this book of Irenaeus quoted by you that the doctrine of the Chiliasts was in his judgment Apostolique Tradition as also it was esteemed for ought appeares to the contrary by all the Doctors and Saints and Martyrs of or about his time for all that speak of it or whose judgments in the point are any way recorded are for it and Iustine Martyr professeth that all good and Orthodoxe Christians of his time beleeved it and those that did not he reckons amongst Heretiques Now I demand was this Tradition one of those that was conserved and observed in the Church of Rome or was it not If not had Irenaeus known so much he must have retracted this commendation of that Church If it was then the Tradition of the present Church of Rome contradicts the Ancient and accounts it Hereticall and then sure it can be no certain note of Heresie to depart from them who have departed from themselves and prove themselves subject unto Errour by holding contradictions Fiftly and lastly that out of the Story of the Church it is as manifest as the light at noone that though Irenaeus did esteem the Roman Tradition a great Argument of the doctrine which he there delivers and defends against the Heretiques of his time viz that there was one God yet he was very far from thinking that Church was and ever should be a safe keeper and an infallible witnesse of Tradition in generall Inasmuch as in his own life his action proclaim'd the contrary For when Victor Bishop of Rome obtruded the Roman Tradition touching the time of Easter upon the Asian Bishops under the pain of Excommunication and damnation Irenaeus and all the other Western Bishops though agreeing with him in his observation yet sharply reprehended him for excommunicating the Asian Bishops for their disagreeing plainly shewing that they esteemed that not a necessary doctrine and a sufficient ground of excommunication which the Bishop of Rome and his adherents did so account of For otherwise how could they have reprehended him for excommunicating them had they conceived the cause of his excommunication just and sufficient And besides evidently declaring that they esteemed not separation from the Roman Church a certain mark of Heresie seeing they esteemed not them Heretiques though separated and cut off from the Roman Church Cardinall Perron to avoyd the stroak of this conuincing argument raiseth a cloud of eloquent words which because you borrow them of him in your Second part I will here insert and with short censures dispell and let his Idolaters see that Truth is
nor any thing towards it Never any error was imputed to the Arrians for denying the Authority or the infallibility of the Bishop or Church of Rome Besides what Eusebius saies he saies out of Irenaeus Neither doth or can the Cardinall deny the story to be true therefore he goes about by indirect Arts to foyle it cast a blurre upon it Lastly whensoever Eusebius saies any thing which the Cardinall thinkes for the advantage of his side he cites him and then he is no Arrian or at least hee would not take that for an answer to the arguments he drawes out of him b That Ruffinus was enemy to the Roman Church is said but not proved neither can it be c Eusebius saies the same also of caeteri omnes Episcopi all the other Bishops that they advised Victor to keepe those things that belonged to peace and unity and that they sharpely reprehended Victor for having done otherwise d This is said but no offer made of any proofe of it The Cardinall thinks we must take every thing upon his word They to whom the Tradition was delivered Polyerates and the Asian Bishops knew no such matter nay professed the contrary And who is more likely to know the Truth they which lived within two ages of the fountain of it or the Cardinall who lived sixteen ages after it e How can it make against those that object it seeing it is evident from Irenaeus his Reprehension that he thought Victor and the Roman Church no infallible nor sufficient Iudge of what was necessary to be believed and done what not what was Vniversall Tradition what not what was a sufficient ground of Excommunication and what not and consequently that there was no such necessity as is pretended that all other Churches should in matters of faith conforme themselves to the Church of Rome f This is to suppose that Excommunication is an Act or Argument or signe of Power Authority in the party excommunicating over the party excommunicated whereas it is undeniably evident out of the Church Story that it was often used by Equalls upon Equalls and by Inferiors upon Superiors if the equalls or inferiors thought their equalls or superiors did any thing which deserved it g And what is this but to confesse that they thought that a small cause of excommunication and unsufficient which Victor and his adherents thought great and sufficient And consequently that Victor and his Part declared that to be a matter of faith and of necessity which they thought not so and where was then their conformity h True you have so expounded it but not proved nor offered any proofe of your exception This also we must take upon your Authority Irenaeus speaks not one word of any other power to which he compares or before which he preferres the power of the Roman Church And it is evident out of the Councell of Chalcedon that all the Principality which it had was given it not by God but by the Church in regard it was seated in the Imperiall City Whereupon when afterwards Constantinople was the Imperiall City they decreed that that Chuch should have equall Priviledges and dignity and preheminence with the Church of Rome All the Fathers agreed in this decree saving only the Legats of the Bishop of Rome shewing plainly that they never thought of any Supremacy given the Bishops of Rome by God or grounded upon Scripture but only by the Church and therefore alterable at the Churches pleasure i This is falsely translated Convenire ad Romanam Ecclesiam every body knowes signifies no more but to resort or come to the Roman Church which then there was a necessity that men should doe because that the affaires of the Empire were transacted in that place But yet Irenaeus saies not so of every Church simply which had not been true but only of the adjacent Churches for so he expounds himselfe in saying To this Church it is necessary that every Church that is all the faithfull round about should resort With much more reason therefore we returne the Argument thus Had Irenaeus thought that all Churches must of necessity agree with the RomaÌ„ how could he all other Bishops have then pronounc'd that to be no matter of Faith no sufficient ground of Excommunication which Victor and his adherents thought to be so And how then could they have reprehended Victor so much for the ill use of his power as Cardinall Perron confesses they did seeing if that was true which is pretended in this also as well as other things it was necessary for them to agree with the Church of Rome Some there are that say but more wittily then truly that all Cardinall Bellarmines works are so consonant to themselves as if he had written them in two houres Had Cardinall Perron wrote his book in two houres sure he would not have done that here in the middle of the Book which he condemns in the beginning of it For here he urgeth a consequence drawn from the mistaken words of Irenaeus against his lively and actuall practice which proceeding there he justly condemnes of evident injustice His words are For who knowes not that it is too great an injustice to alleage consequences from passages and even those ill interpreted and misunderstood and in whose illation there is alwaies some Paralogisme hid against the expresse words and the lively actuall practise of the same Fathers from whom they are collected and that may be good to take the Fathers for Adversaries and to accuse them for want of sense or memory but not to take them for Iudges and to submit themselves to the observation of what they have believ'd and practised k This is nothing to the purpose he might choose these examples not as of greater force and authority in themselves but as fitter to be imploied against Victor as domestique examples are fitter and more effectuall then forraine and for his omitting to presse him with his own example and others to what purpose had it been to use them seeing their Letters sent to Victor from all parts wherein they reprehend his presumption shewed him sufficiently that their example was against him But besides he that reads Irenaeus his Letter shall see that in the matter of the Lent Fast and the great variety about the celebration of it which he paralels with this of Easter he presseth Victor with the example of himselfe and others not Bishops of Rome both they saith hee speaking of other Bishops notwithstanding this difference retained peace among themselves and wee also among our selves retaine it inferring from his example that Victor also ought to doe so l If the Popes proceeding was just then the Churches of Asia were indeed and in the sight of God excommunicate and out of the state of Salvation which Irenaeus and all the other ancient Bishops never thought And if they were so why doe you accouâ—t them Saints and Martyrs But the truth is that these Councells did no way shew
his sword to his Prefect with this commission that if he governed well he should use it for him if ill against him Whether the Roman Church gave not Authority to her Bishops and Priests to preach against her corruptions in manners And if so why not against her errors in doctrine if she had any Whether she gave them not authority to preach the whole Gospell of Christ and consequently against her doctrine if it should contradict any part of the Gospell of Christ Whether it be not acknowledged lawfull in the Church of Rome for any Lay man or woman that has ability to perswade others by word or by writing from error and unto truth And why this liberty may not be practised against their Religion if it be false as well as for it if it be true Whether any man need any other commission or vocation then that of a Christian to doe a work of charity And whether it be not one of the greatest works of Charity if it be done after a peaceable manner and without an unnecessary disturbance of order to perswade men out of a false unto a true way of eternall happinesse Especially the Apostle having assur'd us that he whosoever he is who converteth a sinner from the error of his way shall save a soule from death and shall hide a multitude of sinnes Whether the first Reformed Bishops died all at once so that there were not enough to ordain Others in the places that were vacant Whether the Bishops of England may not consecrate a Metropolitan of England as well as the Cardinalls doe the Pope Whether the King or Queen of England or they that have the government in their hands in the minority of the Prince may not lawfully commend one to them to be consecrated against whom there is no Canonicall exception Whether the Doctrine that the King is supream head of the Church of England as the Kings of Iudah the first Christian Emperors were of the Iewish and Christian Church be any new found doctrine Whether it may not be true that Bishops being made Bishops have their authority immediatly from Christ though this or that man be not made Bishop without the Kings authority as well as you say the Pope being Pope has authority immediatly from Christ and yet this or that man cannot be made Pope without the authority of the Cardinalls Whether you doe well to suppose that Christian Kings have no more authority in ordering the affaires of the Church then the great Turk or the Pagan Emperors Whether the King may not give authority to a Bishop to exercise his function in some part of his Kingdome and yet not be capable of doing it himselfe as well as a Bishop may give authority to a Physitian to practise Physick in his Diocesse which the Bishop cannot doe himselfe Whether if Ner◠the Emperour would have commanded S. Peter or S. Paul to preach the Gospell of Christ and to exercise the office of a Bishop of Rome whether they would have question'd his Authority to doe so Whether there were any Law of God or man that prohibited K. IAMES to give Commission to Bishops nay to lay his injunction upon them to doe any thing that is lawfull Whether a casuall irregularity may not be lawfully dispenc'd with Whether the Popes irregularities if he should chance to incurre any be indispensable And if not who is he or who are they whom the Pope is so subject unto that they may dispense with him Whether that be certain which you take for granted That your Ordination imprints a character and ours doth not Whether the power of consecrating and ordaining by imposition of hands may not reside in the Bishops and be derived unto them not from the King but God and yet the King have authority to command them to apply this power to such a fit person whom he shall commend unto them As well as if some Architects only had the faculty of architecture and had it immediatly by infusion from God himselfe yet if they were the Kings subjects he wants not authority to command them to build him a Palace for his use or a fortresse for his service Or as the King of France pretends not to have power to make Priests himselfe yet I hope you will not deny him power to command any of his subjects that has this power to ordaine any fit person Priest whom he shall desire to be ordained Whether it doe not follow that whensoever the King commands an house to be built a message to be delivered or a murtherer to be executed that all these things are presently done without intervention of the Architect messenger or executioner As well as that they are ipsofacto ordain'd and consecrated who by the Kings authority are commended to the Bishops to be ordained and consecrated Especially seeing the King will not deny but that these Bishops may refuse to doe what he requires to be done lawfully if the person be unworthy if worthy unlawfully indeed but yet de facto they may refuse and in case they should doe so whether justly or unjustly neither the King himselfe nor any body else would esteeme the person Bishop upon the Kings designation Whether many Popes though they were not consecrated Bishops by any temporall Prince yet might not or did not receive authority from the Emperor to exercise their Episcopall function in this or that place And whether the Emperors had not authority upon their desert to deprive them of their jurisdiction by imprisonment or banishment Whether Protestants doe indeed pretend that their Reformation is universall Whether in saying the Donatists Sect was confined to Africa you doe not forget your selfe and contradict what you said above in § 17. of this Chapter where you tell us they had some of their Sect residing in Rome Whether it be certain that none can admit of Bishops willingly but those that hold them of divine institution Whether they may not be willing to have them conceiving that way of government the best though not absolutely necessary Whether all those Protestants that conceive the distinction between Priests and Bishops not to be of divine institution be Schismaticall and Hereticall for thinking so Whether your forme of ordaining Bishops and Priests be essentiall to the constitution of a true Church Whether the formes of the Church of England differ essentially from your formes Whether in saying that the true Church cannot subsist without undoubted true Bishops and Priests you have not overthrown the truth of your own Church wherein I have proved it plainly impossible that any man should be so much as morally certain either of his own Priesthood or any other mans Lastly whether any one kind of these externall formes and orders and government be so necessary to the being of a Church but that they may not be diverse in diverse places and that a good and peaceable Christian may and ought to submit himself to the Government of the place where he lives
whatsoever it be All these Questions will be necessary to be discussed for the clearing of the truth of the Minor proposition of your former Syllogisme and your proofs of it and I will promise to debate them fairly with you if first you will bring some better proof of the Maior That want of Succession is a certain note of Heresy which for the present remaines both unprov'd and unprobable 40 Ad § 23. The Fathers you say assigne Succession as one mark of the true Church I confesse they did urge Tradition as an argument of the truth of their doctrine and of the falsehood of the contrary and thus farre they agree with you But now see the difference They urg'd it not against all Heretiques that ever should be but against them who rejected a great part of the Scripture for no other reason but because it was repugnant to their doctrine and corrupted other parts with their additions and detractions and perverted the remainder with divers absurd interpretations So Tertullian not a leafe before the words by you cited Nay they urg'd it against them who when they were confuted out of Scripture fell to accuse the Scriptures themselves as if they were not right and came not from good authority as if they were various one from another and as if truth could not bee found out of them by those who know not Tradition for that it was not delivered in writing they did meane wholly but by word of mouth And that thereupon Paul also said wee speak wisdome amongst the perfect So Irenaeus in the very next Chapter before that which you alleage Against these men being thus necessitated to doe so they did urge Tradition but what or whose Tradition was it Certainly no other but the joint Tradition of all the Apostolique Churches with one mouth and one voice teaching the same doctrine Or if for brevity sake they produce the Tradition of any one Church yet is it apparent that that one was then in conjunction with all the rest Irenaeus Tertullian Origen testifie as much in the words cited and S. Austin in the place before alleaged by mee This Tradition they did urge against these men and in a time in comparison of ours almost contiguous to the Apostles So neare that one of them Irenaeus was Scholar to one who was Scholar to S. Iohn the Apostle Tertullian and Origen were not an age remov'd from him and the last of them all litle more then an age from them Yet after all this they urg'd it not as a demonstration but only as a very probable argument far greater then any their Adversaries could oppose against it So Tertullian in the place above quoted § 5. How is it likely that so many and so great Churches should erre in one faith it should be should have erred into on faith And this was the condition of this argument as the Fathers urg'd it Now if you having to deale with us who question no Booke of Scripture which was not anciently questioned by some whom you your selves esteem good Catholiques nay who refuse not to be tryed by your owne Canons your own Translations who in interpreting Scriptures are content to allow of all those rules which you propose only except that we will not allow you to be our Iudges if you will come fifteen hundred years after the Apostles a fair time for the purest Church to gather much drosse and corruption and for the mystery of iniquity to bring its work to some perfection which in the Apostles time began to work If I say you will come thus long after and urge us with the single Tradition of one of these Churches being now Catholique to it selfe alone and Hereticall to all the rest nay not only with her ancient and originall Traditions but also with her post-nate and introduc'd Definitions and these as we pretend repugnant to Scripture and ancient Tradition and all this to decline an indifferent tryall by Scripture under pretence wherein also you agree with the calumnie of the old Heretiques that all necessary truth cannot be found in them without recourse to Tradition If I say notwithstanding all these differences you will still be urging us with this argument as the very same and of the same force with that wherewith the fore-mentioned Fathers urg'd the old Heretiques certainly this must needs proceed from a confidence you have not only that we have no School-Divinity nor Metaphysicks but no Logick or common sense that we are but pictures of men and have the definition of rational creatures given us in vain 41 But now suppose I should be liberall to you and grant what you cannot prove that the Fathers make Succession a certain and perpetuall maâ—k of the true Church I beseech you what will come of it What that want of Succession is a certain signe of an Hereticall company Truly if you say so either you want Logick which is a certain signe of an ill disputer or are not pleas'd to use it which is a worse For speech is a certain signe of a living man yet want of speech is no sure argument that he is dead for he may be dumb and yet living still and we may have other evident tokens that hee is so as eating drinking breathing moving So though the constant and universall delivery of any doctrine by the Apostolique Churches ever since the Apostles be a very great argument of the truth of it yet there is no certainty but that truth even Divine truth may through mens wickednesse be contracted from its universality and interrupted in its perpetuity and so loose this argument and yet not want others to iustifie and support it self For it may be one of those principles which God hath written in all mens hearts or a conclusion evidently arising from them It may be either contain'd in Scripture in expresse terms or deducible from it by apparent consequence If therefore you intend to prove want of a perpetuall Succession of Professors a certain note of Heresie you must not content your self to shew that having it is one signe of truth but you must shew it to be the only signe of it and inseparable from it But this if you be well advis'd you will never undertake First because it is an impossible attempt and then because if you doe it you will marre all for by proving this an inseparable signe of Catholique doctrine you will prove your own which apparently wants it in many points not to be Catholique For whereas you say this Succession requires two things agreement with the Apostles doctrine and an uninterrupted conveyance of it down to them that challenge it It will be prov'd against you that you fail in both points and that some things wherein you agree with the Apostles have not been held alwaies as your condemning the doctrine of the Chiliasts and holding the Eucharist not necessary for Infants and that in many other things you agree not with them nor with the Church for many
true faith defined by the Apostle but an invention of your own 51 And having thus cryed quittance with you I must intreat you to devise for truly I cannot some answer to this argument which will not serve in proportion to your own For I hope you will not pretend that I have done you injurie in setling your faith upon principles which you disclaim And if you alleage this disparity That you are more certain of your principles then we of ours and yet you doe not pretend that your principles are so evident as we doe that ours are what is this to say but that you are more confident then we but confesse you have lesse reason for it For the evidence of the thing assented to be it more or lesse is the reason and cause of the assent in the understanding But then besides I am to tell you that you are here as every where extremely if not affectedly mistaken in the Doctrine of Protestants who though they acknowledge that the things which they beleeve are in themselves as certain as any demonstrable or sensible verities yet pretend not that their certainty of adherence is most perfect and absolute but such as may be perfected and increas'd as long as they walke by faith and not by sight And consonant hereunto is their doctrine touching the evidence of the objects whereunto they adhere For you abuse the world them if you pretend that they hold the first of your two principles That these particular Books are the word of God for so I think you mean either to be in it self evidently certain or of it self and being devested of the motives of credibility evidently credible For they are not so fond as to be ignorant nor so vain as to pretend that all men doe assent to it which they would if it were evidently certain nor so ridiculous as to imagine that if an Indian that never heard of Christ or Scripture should by chance find a Bible in his own Language and were able to read it that upon the reading it hee would certainly without a miracle beleeve it to bee the word of God which he could not chuse if it were evidently credible What then doe they affirm of it Certainly no more then this that whatsoever man that is not of a perverse mind shall weigh with serious and mature deliberation those great moments of reason which may incline him to beleeve the Divine authority of Scripture and compare them with the light objections that in prudence can be made against it he shall not chuse but find sufficient nay abundant inducements to yeeld unto it firme faith and syncere obedience Let that learned man Hugo Grotius speake for all the Rest in his Booke of the truth of Christian Religion which Book whosoever attentively peruses shall find that a man may have great reason to be a Christian without dependance upon your Church for any part of it and that your Religion is no foundation but rather a scandall and an objection against Christianity He then in the last Chapter of his second book hath these excellent words If any be not satisfied with these arguments above-said but desires more forcible reasons for confirmation of the excellency of Christian Religion let such know that as there are variety of things which be true so are there divers waies of proving or manifesting the truth Thus is there one way in Mathematicks another in Physicks a third in Ethicks and lastly another kind when a matter of fact is in question wherein verily we must rest content with such testimonies as are free from all suspition of untruth otherwise down goes all the frame and use of history and a great part of the art of Physick together with all dutifulnesse that ought to be between parents and children for matters of practice can no way else be known but by such testimonies Now it is the pleasure of Almighty God that those things which he would have us to beleeve so that the very beleef thereof may be imputed to us for obedience should not so evidently appear as those things which are apprehended by sense and plaine demonstration but only be so farre forth revealed as may beget faith and a perswasion thereof in the hearts and minds of such as are not obstinate That so the Gospell may be as a touchstone for triall of mens judgments whether they be sound or unsound For seeing these arguments whereof we have spoken have induced so many honest godly and wise men to approve of this Religion it is thereby plain enough that the fault of other mens infidelity is not for want of sufficient testimony but because they would not have that to be had and embraced for truth which is contrary to their wilfull desires it being a hard matter for them to relinquish their honours and set at naught other commodities which thing they know they ought to doe if they admit of Christs doctrine and obey what he hath commanded And this is the rather to be noted of them for that many other historicall narrations are approved by them to be true which notwithstanding are only manifest by authority and not by any such strong proofs and perswasions or tokens as doe declare the history of Christ to be true which are evident partly by the confession of those Iewes that are yet alive and partly in those companies and congregations of Christians which are any where to be found whereof doubtlesse there was some cause Lastly seeing the long duration or continuance of Christian Religion and the large extent thereof can be ascribed to no humane power therefore the same must be attributed to miracles or if any deny that it came to passe through a miraculous manner this very getting so great strength and power without a miracle may be thought to surpasse any miracle 52 And now you see I hope that Protestants neither doe nor need to pretend to any such evidence in the doctrine they beleeve as cannot well consist both with the essence and the obedience of faith Let us come now to the last nullity which you impute to the faith of Protestants and that it is want of Prudence Touching which point as I have already demonstrated that wisdome is not essentiall to faith but that a man may truly beleeve truth though upon insufficient motives So I doubt not but I shall make good that if prudence were necessary to faith we have better title to it then you and that if a wiser then Solomon were here he should have better reason to beleeve the Religion of Protestants then Papists the Bible rather then the Councell of Trent But let us hear what you can say 53 Ad § 31. You demand then first of all What wisdome was it to forsake a Church confessedly very ancient and besides which there could be demonstrated no other Visible Church of Christ upon earth I answer Against God and truth there lyes no presoription and therefore certainly it might be great
Protestants which are dissembled by you and not put into the ballance Know then Sir that when I say The Religion of Protestants is in prudence to be preferr'd before yours as on the one side I doe not understand by your Religion the doctrine of Bellarmine or Baronius or any other privat man amongst you nor the Doctrine of the Sorbon or of the Iesuits or of the Dominicans or of any other particular Company among you but that wherein you all agree or professe to agree the Doctrine of the Councell of Trent so accordingly on the other side by the Religion of Protestants I doe not understand the Doctrine of Luther or Calvin or Melancthon nor the Confession of Augusta or Geneva nor the Catechisme of Heidelberg nor the Articles of the Church of England no nor the Harmony of Protestant Confessions but that wherin they all agree and which they all subscribe with a greater Harmony as a perfect rule of their Faith and Actions that is The BIBLE The BIBLE I say The BIBLE only is the Religion of Protestants Whatsoever else they believe besides it 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 own grounds believe it themselves nor require the beliefe of it of others without most high and most Schismaticall presumption I for my part after a long and as I verily believe hope impartiall search of the true way to eternall happinesse doe professe plainly that I cannot find any rest for the sole of my foot but upon this Rock only I see plainly and with mine own eyes that there are Popes against Popes Councells against Councells some Fathers against others the same Fathers against themselves a Consent of Fathers of one age against a Consent of Fathers of another age the Church of one age against the Church of another age Traditive interpretations of Scripture are pretended but there are few or none to be found No Tradition but only of Scripture can derive it selfe from the fountain but may be plainly prov'd either to have been brought in in such an age after Christ or that in such an age it was not in In a word there is no sufficient certainty but of Scripture only for any considering man to build upon This therefore and this only I have reason to believe This I will professe according to this I will live and for this if there be occasion I will not only willingly but even gladly loose my life though I should be sorry that Christians should take it from me Propose me any thing out of this book and require whether I believe it or no and seeme it never so incomprehensible to humane reason I will subscribe it with hand and heart as knowing no demonstration can be stronger then this God hath said so therefore it is true In other things I will take no mans liberty of judgement from him neither shall any man take mine from me I will think no man the worse man nor the worse Christian I will love no man the lesse for differing in opinion from me And what measure I meat to others I expect from them again I am fully assured that God does not and therefore that men ought not to require any more of any man then this To believe the Scripture to be Gods word to endeavour to find the true sense of it and to live according to it 57 This is the Religion which I have chosen after a long deliberation and I am verily perswaded that I have chosen wisely much more wisely thē if I had guided my selfe according to your Churches authority For the Scripture being all true I am secur'd by believing nothing else that I shall believe no falshood as matter of Faith And if I mistake the sense of Scripture and so fall into error yet am I secure from any danger thereby if but your grounds be true because endeavouring to finde the true sense of Scripture I cannot but hold my error without pertinacy and be ready to forsake it when a more true and a more probable sense shall appear unto mee And then all necessary truth being as I have prov'd plainly set down in Scripture I am certain by believing Scripture to believe all necessary Truth And he that does so if his life be answerable to his faith how is it possible he should faile of Salvation 58 Besides whatsoever may be pretended to gain to your Church the credit of a Guide all that much more may be said for the Scripture Hath your Church been ancient The Scripture is more ancient Is your Church a meanes to keep men at vnity So is the Scripture to keep those that believe it and wil obey it in unity of belief in matters necessary or very profitable and in unity of Charity in points unnecessary Is your Church universall for time or place Certainly the Scripture is more universall For all the Christians in the world those I mean that in truth deserve this name doe now and alwaies have believed the Scripture to be the word of God whereas only you say that you only are the Church of God all Christians besides you deny it 59 Thirdly following the Scripture I follow that whereby you prove your Churches infallibility whereof were it not for Scripture what pretence could you have or what notion could we have and by so doing tacitely confesse that your selves are surer of the truth of the Scripture then of your Churches authority For we must be surer of the proofe then of the thing proved otherwise it is no proofe 60 Fourthly following the Scripture I follow that which must be true if your Church be true for your Church gives attestation to it Whereas if I follow your Church I must follow that which though Scripture be true may be false nay which if Scripture be true must be false because the Scripture testifies against it 61 Fiftly to follow the Scripture I have Gods expresse warrant and command and no colour of any prohibition But to believe your Church infallible I have no cōmand at all much lesse an expresse cōmand Nay I have reason to fear that I am prohibited to doe so in these words call no man Master on earth They fell by infidelity Thou standest by faith Bee not high minded but feare The spirit of truth The world cannot receive 62 Following your Church I must hold many things not only above reason but against it if any thing be against it whereas following the Scripture I shall believe many mysteries but no impossibilities many things above reason but nothing against it many things which had they not been reveal'd reason could never have discover'd but nothing which by true reason may be confuted many things which reason cannot comprehend how they can be but nothing which reason can comprehend that it cannot be Nay I shall believe nothing which reason will not
convince that I ought to believe it For reason will convince any man unlesse he be of a perverse mind that the Scripture is the word of God And then no reason can be greater then this God sayes so therefore it is true 63 Following your Church I must hold many things which to any mans judgment that will give himself the liberty of judgment will seem much more plainly contradicted by Scripture then the infallibility of your Church appeares to be confirm'd by it and consequently must be so foolish as to believe your Church exempted from error upon lesse evidence rather then subject to the common condition of mankind upon greater evidence Now if I take the Scripture only for my Guide I shall not need to doe any thing so unreasonable 64 If I will follow your Church I must believe impossibilities and that with an absolute certainty upon motives which are confess'd to be but only Prudentiall and probable That is with a weak foundation I must firmly support a heavy a monstrous heavy building Now following the Scripture I shall have no necessity to undergoe any such difficulties 65 Following your Church I must be servant of Christ and a Subject of the King but only Ad placitum Papae I must bee prepar'd in mind to renounce my allegiance to the King when the Pope shall declare him an Heretique and command me not to obey him And I must be prepar'd in mind to esteem Vertue Vice and Vice Vertue if the Pope shall so determine Indeed you say it is impossible he should doe the latter but that you know is a great question neither is it fit my obedience to God and the King should depend upon a questionable foundation And howsoever you must grant that if by an impossible supposition the Popes commands should be contrary to the law of Christ that they of your Religion must resolve to obey rather the commands of the Pope then the law of Christ. Whereas if I follow the Scripture I may nay I must obey my Soveraign in lawfull things though an Heretique though a Tyrant and though I doe not say the Pope but the Apostles themselves nay an Angell from heaven should teach any thing against the Gospell of Christ I may nay I must denounce Anathemâ— to him 66 Following the Scripture I shall believe a Religion which being contrary to flesh and blood without any assistance from worldly power wit or policy nay against all the power and policy of the world prevail'd and enlarg'd it self in a very short time all the world over Whereas it is too too apparent that your Church hath got and still maintaines her authority over mens consciences by counterfeiting false miracles forging falle stories by obtruding on the world suppositious writings by corrupting the monuments of former times and defacing out of them all which any way makes against you by warres by persecutions by Massacres by Treasons by Rebellions in short by all manner of carnall meanes whether violent or fraudulent 67 Following the Scripture I shall believe a Religion the first Preachers and Professors whereof it is most certain they could have no worldly ends upon the world that they could not project to themselves by it any of the profits or honours or pleasures of this world but rather were to expect the contrary even all the miseries which the world could lay upon them On the other side the Head of your Church the pretended Successor of the Apostles and Guide of faith it is even palpable that he makes your Religion the instrument of his ambition by it seekes to entitle himselfe directly or indirectly to the Monarchy of the world And besides it is evident to any man that has but halfe an eye that most of those Doctrines which you adde to the Scripture doe make one way or other for the honour or temporall profit of the Teachers of them 68 Following the Scripture only I shall embrace a Religion of admirable simplicity consisting in a manner wholly in the worship of God in spirit and truth Whereas your Church and Doctrine is even loaded with an infinity of weak childish ridiculous unsavoury superstitions and ceremonies and full of that righteousnesse for which Christ shall judge the world 69 Following the Scripture I shall believe that which Vniversall never-failing Tradition assures me that it was by the admirable supernaturall worke of God confirm'd to be the word of God whereas never any miracle was wrought never so much as a lame horse cur'd in confirmation of your Churches authority and infallibility And if any strange things have been done which may seeme to give attestation to some parts of your doctrine yet this proves nothing but the truth of the Scripture which foretold that Gods providence permitting it and the wickednesse of the world deserving it strange signes and wonders should be wrought to confirme false doctrine that they which love not the truth may be given over to strange delusions Neither does it seeme to me any strange thing that God should permit some true wonders to be done to delude them who have forged so many to deceive the world 70 If I follow the Scripture I must not promise my selfe Salvation without effectuall dereliction and mortification of all vices and the effectuall practice of all Christian vertues But your Church opens an easier and a broader way to Heaven and though I continue all my life long in a course of sinne and without the practice of any vertue yet gives me assurance that I may be let in to heaven at a posterne gate even by any act of Attrition at the houre of death if it be joyn'd with confession or by an act of Contrition without confession 71 Admirable are the Precepts of piety and humility of innocence and patience of liberality frugality temperance sobriety justice meeknesse fortitude constancy and gravity contempt of the world love of God and the love of man kind In a word of all vertues and against all vice which the Scriptures impose upon us to be obeyed under pain of damnation The summe whereof is in manner compriz'd in our Saviours Sermon upon the Mount recorded in the 5. 6. and 7. of S. Matthew which if they were generally obeyed could not but make the world generally happy and the goodnesse of them alone were sufficient to make any wise and good man believe that this Religion rather then any other came from God the Fountain of all goodnesse And that they may be generally obeyed our Saviour hath ratified them all in the close of his Sermon with these universall Sanctions Not every one that sayeth Lord Lord shall enter into the Kingdome but he that doth the will of my Father which is in Heaven and again whosoever heareth these sayings of mine and doth them not shall be likned unto a foolish man which built his house upon the sand and the ruine descended and the stood came and the winds blew and it fell and great was the fall
it and call it an argument of his own a wise argument a wise demand and then aske of him what he thinkes of it being fram'd thus Our Religion is safe even by your confession and therefore you ought to grant that all may embrace it And yet farther thus Among different Religions one only can be safe But yours by our own confession is safe where as you hold that in ours there is no hope of salvation therefore we ought to embrace yours Ans. I have advised with him am to tell you froÌ„ him that he thinks reasonable well of the arguments but very ill of him that makes them as affirming so often without shame and conscience what he cannot but know to be plainly false and his reason is because he is so farre from confessing or giving you any ground to pretend he does confesse that your Religion is safe for all that are of it from whence only it will follow that all may safely embrace it that in this very place from which you take these words he professeth plainly that it is extreamly dangerous if not certainly damnable to all such as professe it when either they doe or if their hearts were upright and not perversly obstinat might believe the contrary and that for us whâ— are convinc'd in conscience that she the Româ—â— Church erres in many things it lies upon us even under pain of damnation to forsake her in those errors And though here you take upon you a shew of great rigour and will seem to hold that in our way there is no hope of Salvation yet formerly you have been more liberall of your charity towards us and will needs vye and contend with D. Potter which of the two shall be more Charitable assuring us that you allow Protestants as much Charity as D. Potter spares you for whom he makes Ignorance the best hope of Salvation And now I appeale to any indifferent reader whether our disavowing to confesse you free from damnable error were not as I pretend a full confutation of all that you say in these five foregoing Paragraphs And as for you I wonder what answer what evasion what shift you can devise to cleere your selfe from dishonesty for imputing to him almost a hundred times this acknowledgment which he never makes but very often and that so plainly that you take notice of it professeth the contrary 29 The best defence that possibly can be made for you I conceive is this that you were led into this error by mistaking a supposition of a confession for a confession a Rhetoricall concession of the Doctors for a positive assertion He saies indeed of your errors Though of themselves they be not damnable to them which believe as they professe yet for us to professe what we believe not were without question damnable But to say Though your errors be not damnable we may not professe them is not to say your errors are not damnable but only though they be not As if you shoul say though the Church erre in points not fundamentall yet you may not separate from it Or though we doe erre in believing Christ really present yet our error frees us from Idolatry Or as if a Protestant should say Though you doe not commit Idolatry in adoring the Host yet being uncertain of the Priests Intention to consecrate at least you expose yourselfe to the danger of it I presume you would not think it fairely done if any man should interpret either this last speech as an acknowledgemeÌ„t that you doe not commit Idolâ—try or the former as confessions that you doe erre in points not fundamentall that you doe erre in believing the reall presence And therefore you ought not so to have mistaken D. Potters words as if he had confessed the errors of your Church not damnable 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 them may not professe them to be divine truths Yet this mistake might have been pardonable had not D. Potter in many places of his book by declaring his judgement touching the quality and malignity of your errors taken away from you all occasion of error But now that he saies plainly That your Church hath many waies played the Harlot and in that regard deserv'd a Bill of divorce from Christ and the detestation of Christians p. 11. That for that Masse of Errors and abuses in judgement and practice which is proper to her and wherein she differs from us we judge a reconciliation impossible and to us who are convicted in conscience of her corruptions damnable pag. 20. That Popery is the contagion or plague of the Church p. 60. That we cannot we dare not communicate with her in her publique Liturgy which is manifestly polluted with drosse of Superstition p. 68. That they who in former ages dyed in the Church of Rome died in many sinfull errors p. 78. That they that have understanding and means to discover their errors and neglect to use them he dares not flatter them with so easy a censure as to give them hope of salvation p. 79. That the way of the Roman Religion is not safe but very dangerous if not certainly damnable to such as professe it when they believe or if their hearts were upright and not perversely obstinate might believe the contrary p. 79. That your Church is but in some sense a true Church and your errors only to some men not damnable that we who are convinc'd in conscience that she erres in many things are under pain of damnation to forsake her in those errors Seeing I say he saies all this so plainly and so frequently certainly your charging him falsely with this acknowledgement and building a great part not only of your discourse in this Chapter but of your whole book upon it possibly it may be palliated with some excuse but it can no way be defended with any just apology Especially seeing you your selfe more then once or twice take notice of these his severer censures of your Church and the errors of it and make your advantage of them In the first number of your first Chapter you set down three of the former places and from thence inferre That as you affirme Protestancy unrepented destroies Salvation so D. Potter pronounces the like heavy doome against Roman Catholiques and again § 4. of the same Chap. We allow Protestants as much charity as D. Potter spareâ— us for whom he makes ignorance the best hope of salvation And c. 5. § 41. you have these words It is very strange that you iudge us extreamly uncharitable in saying Protestants cannot be saved while your selfe avouch the same of all Learned Catholiques whom Ignorance cannot excuse Thus out of the same mouth you blow hot and cold and one while when it is for your purpose you professe D. Potter censures your errors as heavily as you doe ours which is very true for he gives hope
of Salvation to none among you but to those whose ignorance was the cause of their error and no sinne cause of their ignorance and presently after when another project comes in your head you make his words softer then oile towards you you pretend he does and must confesse That your Doctrine containes no damnable error that your Church is certainly a true Church that your way to heaven is a safe way and all these acknowledgements you set down simple and absolute without any restriction or limitation whereas in the Doctor they are all so qualified that no knowing Papist can promise himselfe any security or comfort from them We confesse saith he the Church of Rome to be in some sense a true Church and her errors to some men not damnable we believe her Religion safe that is by Gods great mercy not damnable to some such as believe what they professe But we believe it not safe but very dangerous if not certainly damnable to such as professe it when they believe or if their hearts were upright and not perversly obstinate might believe the contrary Observe I pray these restraining termes which formerly you have dissembled A true Church in some sense not damnable to some men a safe way that is by Gods great mercy not damnable to some And then seeing you have pretended these confessions to be absolute which are thus plainly limited how can you avoid the imputation of an egregious Sophister You quarrell with the Doctor in the end of your Preface for using in his Book such ambiguous tearmes as these in some sort in some sense in some degree and desire him if he make any reply either to forbear them or to tell you roundly in what sort in what sense in what degree he understands these and the like mincing phrases But the truth is he hath not left them so ambiguous and undetermin'd as you pretend but told you plainly in what sense your Church may passe for a true Church viz. In regard we may hope that she retaines those truths which are simply absolutely and indispensably necessary to Salvation which may suffice to bring those good soules to heaven who wanted meanes of discovering their errors this is the charitable construction in which you may passe for a Church And to what men your Religion may be safe and your errors not damnable viz. to such whom Ignorance may excuse and therefore he hath more cause to complain of you for quoting his words without those qualifications then you to finde fault with him for using of them 30 That your Discourse in the 12. § presseth you as forcibly as Protestants I have shewed above I adde here 1. Whereas you say that faith according to rigid Calvinists is either so strong that once had it can never be lost or so more then weak and so much nothing that it can never begotten That these are words without sense Never any Calvinist affirmed that faith was so weak and so much nothing that it can never be gotten but it seemes you wanted matter to make up your Antithesis and therefore were resolved to speak empty words rather then loose your figure Crimina rasis Librat in antithetis doct as posuisse Figuras Laudatur 2. That there is no Calvinist that will deny the Truth of this proposition Christ died for all nor to subscribe to that sense of it which your Dominicans put upon it neither can you with coherence to the received Doctrine of your own Society deny that they as well as the Calvinists take away the distinction of sufficient and effectuall grace and indeed hold none to be sufficient but only that which is effectuall 3. Whereas you say They cannot make their calling certain by good workes who doe certainly believe that before any good works they are justified and justified by faith alone and by that faith whereby they certainly believe they are justified I ans There is no Protestant but believes that Faith Repentance and universall Obedience are necessary to the obtaining of Gods favour and eternall happinesse This being granted the rest is but a speculative Controversy a Question about words which would quickly vanish but that men affect not to understand one another As if a company of Physitians were in consultation and should all agree that three medicines and no more were necessary for the recovery of the Patients health this were sufficient for his direction towards the recovery of his health though concerning the proper and specificall effects of these three medicines there should be amongst them as many differences as men So likewise being generally at accord that these three things Faith Hope Charity are necessary to salvation so that whosoever wants any of them cannot obtain it and he which hath them all cannot faile of it it is not very evident that they are sufficiently agreed for mens directions to eternall Salvation And seeing Charity is a full comprehension of all good workes they requiring Charity as a necessary qualification in him that will be saved what sense is there in saying they cannot make their calling certain by good workes They know what salvation is as well as you and have as much reason to desire it They believe it as heartily as you that there is no good worke but shall have its proper reward and that there is no possibility of obtaining the eternall reward without good workes and why then may not this Doctrine be a sufficient incitement and provocation unto good workes 31 You say that they certainly believe that before any good works they are iustified But this is a calumny There is no Protestant but requires to Iustification Remission of sinnes and to Remission of sinnes they all require Repentance and Repentance I presume may not be denied the name of a good worke being indeed if it be rightly understood and according to the sense of the word in Scripture an effectuall conversion from all sinne to all holinesse But though it be taken for meer sorrow for sinnes past and a bare purpose of amendment yet even this is a good worke and therefore Protestants requiring this to Remission of sinnes and Remission of sinnes to justification cannot with candor be pretended to believe that they are justified before any good worke 32 You say They believe themselves iustified by faith alone and that by that faith whereby they believe themselves iustified Some peradventure doe so but withall they believe that that faith which is alone and unaccompanied with sincere and universall obedience is to be esteem'd not faith but presumption and is at no hand sufficient to justification that though Charity be not imputed unto justification yet is it required as a necessary disposition in the person to be justified and that though in regard of the imperfection of it no man can be justified by it yet that on the other side no man can be justified without it So that upon the whole matter a man may truly and safely say that the